If misalignment arises from differences in stabilisation conditions across systems, then increasing the precision of communication does not necessarily reduce divergence.
Communication operates by introducing additional structure—clarifications, distinctions, reformulations—into a system.
But these additions are not neutral.
They are processed within each system’s existing constraints.
This leads to a counterintuitive possibility:
increasing explanatory precision can amplify divergence rather than resolve it.
You’ve likely had this experience.
A disagreement starts out vague.
You clarify your position carefully—define terms, remove ambiguity, tighten the structure.
The other person does the same.
And instead of moving closer, something else happens:
The disagreement becomes sharper.
Not louder. Not more emotional.
Just more precise.
At first, this feels like progress.
Because clarity is usually associated with resolution.
But here, clarity produces something different:
it reveals that the systems were never aligned to begin with.
What looked like confusion was actually under-specified divergence.
Clarification doesn’t remove it.
It exposes it.
We can describe this more formally:
Let a communicative exchange introduce additional constraints ΔC.
Each system, S₁ and S₂, integrates ΔC according to its own constraint structure.
So:
- S₁ → C₁ + ΔC → stabilised as C₁′
- S₂ → C₂ + ΔC → stabilised as C₂′
There is no guarantee that:
C₁′ and C₂′ move closer in alignment space.
They may instead:
- diverge further
- stabilise more rigidly
- or reconfigure in incompatible directions
You can feel this shift in real time.
At the beginning, it seems like you’re talking about “the same thing.”
After clarification, you realise you are not.
But now you can see exactly how you’re not.
Each step forward in explanation:
- reduces ambiguity
- but increases separation
And at some point, you recognise:
the gap is no longer due to misunderstanding.
This is where a familiar strategy begins to fail.
The assumption is:
if we just explain clearly enough, alignment will follow.
But clarity only ensures:
- internal coherence of articulation
It does not ensure:
- shared stabilisation across systems
So explanation does not function as a universal bridge.
It functions as:
a differential amplifier of system structure.
We can now distinguish two functions of communication:
Function A — Clarification
Reduces internal ambiguity within a system.
Function B — Alignment
Reduces divergence between systems.
These functions are often assumed to coincide.
But they are independent.
And crucially:
Function A can increase while Function B decreases.
You may notice this especially in sustained discussions.
The more carefully each person articulates their view:
- the clearer their own position becomes
- the more resistant it becomes to reinterpretation
What once felt flexible becomes fixed.
Not because anyone is refusing to listen.
But because:
the system now has fewer degrees of freedom.
So communication does not simply transmit meaning.
It reconfigures constraint spaces.
And when those spaces are already misaligned:
increased structure can lock divergence into place.
This is why some disagreements feel more intractable after careful discussion than before.
We can now state the core claim:
Communication does not inherently reduce misalignment; it can stabilise and intensify it.
This reframes the role of explanation:
- not as a path to convergence
- but as a process that reveals the limits of convergence
So when a conversation becomes more precise but less resolvable—
that is not a failure of communication.
It is:
- communication doing exactly what it does
- under conditions where alignment is not available
Which is why:
- repeating the explanation
- refining the wording
- adding more detail
does not always help.
The question shifts again:
But:
“What happens when explanation makes disagreement more exact—and nothing else changes?”
Because at that point:
communication has done its work.
And what remains is not confusion.
It is structured divergence.
No comments:
Post a Comment