Better Call Saul: The Art of Objective Communication
A few months ago, I finished watching Better Call Saul. I praise this show endlessly. I’ve consumed countless stories, but Better Call Saul is one of the few I label a gold standard for storytelling. Most stories make subjective storytelling choices that readers may consider flaws. For example, some One Piece fans dislike Oda’s decision to give Luffy power-ups during battles. Though Better Call Saul is not flawless, it follows objective writing principles, such as show don’t tell, better than any other story I’ve seen. One of the most fascinating ideas Better Call Saul explores is the power of communication.
All communication contains inherent assumptions. Recall the times you’ve clarified the meaning of a text message. Chances are, you omitted details necessary for comprehension because of your hidden assumptions. One reason these assumptions appear more commonly in texts than in other communication channels is that body language conveys additional information. For instance, you might ask a friend via text, “Are you going to the party?” The friend might then reply, “Which party?” The text assumes an immediate mutual understanding of the particular party referred to. While in person, you might smile, subconsciously signaling to a friend via body language that you are referring to a party they spoke about for a week.
These assumptions are a perfectly natural component of human communication. For the sake of brevity, no one can anticipate every potential communicative assumption. Human interaction is dynamic, meaning that any necessary clarifications can be tailored to specific individuals. However, it is still beneficial to anticipate likely and/or significant assumptions when communicating.
When communicating, we tend not to deliver information as objectively as possible. Rather, this information is skewed by biases, heuristics, vocabulary, and personality traits. Suppose, for example, that you want to persuade a potential customer to purchase an SAT tutoring service. Communicating objectively, you might delineate the service by listing its features and benefits concerning the potential customer’s situation. However, objective communication isn’t profitable. The field of business employs subjective communication out of expedience to present truth favorably.
Not all subjective communication is manipulative. When a manager praises an employee for positive performance or reprimands an employee for poor performance, emotions are leveraged to reinforce certain behaviors. Is this immoral? Would it be immoral if the manager deliberately appealed to human emotions? If the manager were to communicate more objectively by, say, coldly reporting the impacts of an employee’s performance, the manager would be less effective at promoting positive behavior. Subjective communication can be effective communication, but it brings to question what qualifies as ethical subjective communication.
The concept of ethical boundaries in subjective communication is beautifully illustrated by the McGill brothers. Chuck’s sentences are constructed meticulously, a form of objective communication undoubtedly cultivated through his vast legal experience. In contrast, Jimmy’s sentences are constructed spontaneously, colorfully worded, and interspersed with jokes. Chuck typically reports the facts as they exist. Jimmy spins the facts with his personal charm. Jimmy’s charisma is the crux of his morally ambiguous nature.
Jimmy’s attempts at persuasion push his personal agenda. When someone persuades other people, the outcome isn’t necessarily what’s best for everyone; it’s the flawed result of a conflict between subjective human communicators. Sometimes, when advising others, we pressure them to make decisions that we would make in their situation. However, we may influence others to make choices that aren’t what’s best for them. Admittedly, the idea of what’s “best” is unknowable. Calling a decision the “best” would imply no better decision exists, which is virtually always impossible to prove.
Notwithstanding, we should try to communicate more objectively when making important decisions. By attempting to set aside our personal agendas and emotions, we can paint a more accurate picture of reality. After all, Jimmy’s subjective communication engendered Chuck’s skepticism.
Tips for objective communication:
State all the facts plainly
Add specifiers where appropriate (e.g., seemingly, perhaps, ostensibly, presumably)
Avoid nebulous wording (e.g.Company A sucks vs. Company A forced their employees to come in 80 hours a week)
Avoid assumptions about the way the world functions(e.g.most people are good people)
Comments
Post a Comment