Dr. Ali Binazir, Happiness Engineer

Modern Science and Ancient Wisdom for Living the Good Life

  • Should You Try to Get Him Back?

    Here’s a letter from a reader:

    “You said we can change people’s behaviors by holding higher images of them.
    I am living with someone who considers us broken up and that he is my ex.  He has fallen in love with someone who lives in Geneva.  I am living with him because at the moment I do not have the money to move.
    I love him, and we still have sex.
    I want him back in love with me.

    Suggestions?  Thank you!”
    — Mindy

    This is an excellent letter because it opens up so many cans of worms at once. Fine situation to be in for an afternoon of fishing.  Otherwise, the news is less auspicious.

    First, allow me to clarify: yes, you can change people’s behaviors by holding them to higher images of themselves.  It may be the only way you can do that.  However, this only works in a consensual setting of an ongoing relationship of trust and mutual respect.

    For example, if you walk up to some poorly-dressed person on the street and just start dispensing fashion advice, it’s not likely to go very far.  Whereas the same advice to a friend, child or relative may have an effect.

    The second zinger in this letter is the “I love him and we still have sex” part.  All while the boy says he’s in love with someone else and considers the two of them broken up.

    This is what I call Big Mac sex.  Big Macs taste pretty good but (more…)

  • Is music in yoga class a good or bad idea?

    Just now, I was about to hop on my bike to go to my usual 4.15pm yoga class in the neighborhood when I was gripped by this incredible reluctance, almost like a force holding me back.  For some unfathomable reason, I just didn’t want to go.  But I talked myself into it, saddled up and starting rolling down the hill.

    That’s when I realized: it’s not my usual teacher.  It’s that other guy whose class I went to accidentally last week.  And he was playing music.  Pop and rock music.  Loud pop and rock music.  And something deep down inside me didn’t want to repeat that experience.

    I’ve been a student of yoga and other meditative practices for over 10 years now, so I have a good idea of what works for me in a class and what doesn’t.

    I’m also a practicing hypnotherapist and lapsed neuroscientist who understands some of the workings of the human mind.  In this case, I’m convinced that playing loud pop music during a yoga class is potentially harmful.  In this letter to all my past and future teachers, I’ll enumerate the reasons why.

    Here, I’m assuming a few basic understandings about yoga.  First, that yoga is an inner practice, chiefly aimed at allowing us to go within.  This aligns with the second of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras: yogas chitta vritti nirodhah — the purpose of yoga is to calm the fluctuations of the mind.

    Second, that yoga does not engage in harm — the principle of ahimsa.  In my reasons below, I explain how certain features of loud pop music violate the first or second principle. (more…)

  • You, the Reality Distortion Field

    On a sunny day here in Santa Monica, I was driving down the street when I noticed a police car on the other side of the road.

    Of course, this means that I came to a complete stop at the stop sign, well behind the limit line, let all pedestrians have right of way, and smiled in the general direction of The Law — just like every other time I’ve come across a cop car.

    All of this made me wonder: what would the world look like if you were that policeman driving the squad car?

    It would look like the world is populated almost exclusively by law-abiding citizens who are very meticulous about their driving.  Think about it: as soon as people become aware of your presence, they alter their behavior.  You, the cop, are a reality distortion field.  It’s as if you send out these waves of causation, and the world conforms to it around you.

    Well, guess what, boys and girls: we’re all reality distortion fields all the time.  Any time you interact with someone, that someone is also interacting with you — that’s what interact means.  So you only see people in relationship to you.

    Just as there are different versions of you — employee, boss, child, parent, sibling, relative, lover, pedestrian, driver, friend — there are different versions of the people around you.  And you only get to see that version of that person.

    This may even be one of the central operating principles of the universe.  Quantum mechanics says that by observing something, you change it.  At the level of an electron that needs to hit a detector or be bumped by a photon before it’s “seen”, we can grasp that.

    But what if that were also true of the macroscopic world of human relations?

    Well, I already told you that it is.  It’s also one of the most empowering principles of the Tao of Dating: by controlling your attention and expectation, you can change the behavior of those close to you.

    Energy flows where attention goes.  So if you give attention to your partner’s positive qualities, your partner will grow in those areas (heard of an erection? Same idea).  Similarly, if you give attention to the negative qualities — and remember that criticism and nagging are still forms of attention — then those areas will grow.  Take your pick.

    Also, people will rise and fall to your level of expectation of them.  If you expect generosity of spirit and openness of heart, that’s what you’re going to get from your partner.  So expect the best, and ascribe positive intent to their actions whenever possible.

    This reminds me of the story of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.  Right after his release from prison, Valjean is taken in by the kindly Bishop Myriel, since no inn will offer shelter to an ex-convict.  In the middle of the night, Valjean leaves Myriel’s home, stealing the bishop’s silverware.  He is soon caught and brought back to Myriel, who says that he actually gave Valjean the silverware, and how dare he leave in such a hurry so as to forget the silver candleholders that he also meant for him!  Myriel then reminds Valjean of the promise to use the silver to make an honest man of himself.

    Valjean had made no such promise.  But Myriel held him to a higher ideal than the one Valjean had for himself.  Subsequently, Valjean goes on to become a wealthy industrialist and then a mayor.

    This may just be a story out of a novel, but it does describe reality.  You have enough silver in your possession to hold people to the highest vision of themselves at any time.  The silver is your attention, the expectations you have of people, and the example you set with your own behavior.  Use them wisely.

    In conclusion, I was thinking about the meaning of the expression to turn the other cheek last week.  From the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of Matthew: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.”

    Is this about wimpiness, militant pacifism, or some very literal thing having to do with the time and place Jesus lived in?  Many different interpretations exist.

    Here’s mine: to turn the other cheek means to take the one action that can result in the salvation of the person who slapped you.

    If you slap back harder, you’ve got a slapfest on your hands, and neither you nor the slapper* will be ennobled by it.  Just sitting there like a potted plant won’t accomplish much either.  The only thing that’s likely to make the slapper pause and perhaps reconsider is to turn the other cheek: “What the hell was that all about?”, he’ll think.  And therein lies the shadow of a chance for evolution. It may not work every time, but it’s the only thing that can work.

    That’s what Bishop Myriel did.  It’s what a Taoist master would do — flow with force and offer no resistance.  It’s what Musashi, the legendary Japanese sword master and author of The Book of Five Rings did when challenged to a duel by some street thug who would certainly get killed at the master’s hand.

    Not only is turning the other cheek the furthest thing from wimpiness and passivity, it is also the highest expression of the human spirit: the ability to act deliberately in accordance with principle instead of reacting reflexively.  And it leaves both parties in a better spot than where they started.

    * Slapper is a bit of technical term in England, so all you snickering Brits can settle down now.  Works in this context in any case.

  • The Central Dogma of Dating (for Men)

    Gentlemen.  It’s been a while since I wrote a proper article just for you.  As my original supporters, I would like to thank you for getting me in this fine mess — I think.  And, to be fair, this information applies to women as well, so all the ladies have my blessing to read this, too.  It’s just that they have these skills innately, whereas men have to learn them.  Now let’s get down to business.

    If you took any biology classes in high school or college, you came across the central dogma of molecular biology.  In its simplest form, it says that in a cell, information flows from DNA to RNA to protein.

    This article’s not going to be about molecular biology.  It’s about courtship, your love life, your intimate relations with women.  For lack of a better word, I use dating as an umbrella term for the set of interactions in this realm.

    Like the central dogma of molecular biology, the central dogma of dating is the one principle from which everything else radiates.

    That said, here’s the central dogma of dating as I see it today.  As TS Eliot said in Prufrock, “In a minute there is time/ For decisions and revisions that a minute will reverse,” so I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow:

    In a dyad, the physiology of one person, the regulator, predominantly affects the physiology of the other, the regulated.   The regulator achieves his or her outcome in the  interaction more often than the regulated.

    Put more succinctly: if you want to win, be the regulator.

    Now let’s make sense of this.  Dyad is merely a fancy term for a couple, just two people.  People are influencing each other’s physiology all the time, subtly and overtly.  In fact, our mirror neurons tune into the physiology of other people and synchronize with them.  Experiments show that people in rapport tend to match each other’s heart rate, breathing rate and blood pressure.  Wild stuff.

    Of course, if this is happening, you have to ask yourself, “Who’s following whom?”  Who’s the leader, the regulator, and who’s being regulated?

    Ah.  Entire books have been written about this, my friend.  Turns out that if you go talk to your boss, or any male higher-ranking than yourself, you will unconsciously raise or lower your vocal register to match his.  Like other primates, humans have dominance hierarchies, and we physiologically respond to them.

    So if you’re with a woman, you have a choice of being either the regulator or the regulated.  When you’re the regulator, you have power.  The interaction is much more likely to go your way. When you’re the regulated, you’re toast.  She owns you.

    For example, let’s say you meet a woman whom you find dazzlingly attractive.  When her image hits your retina, your body starts to respond to her presence within seconds: increased heart rate, blood pressure and breathing rate and cutaneous sweating; dilated pupils; increased blood flow to your nether regions.  And she hasn’t even opened her mouth.

    Game, set, match.  You’ve already lost.  As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War: “The battle is won or lost before the first blow is struck.”

    But let’s say you’re a standup comic.  And you’re good — Dane Cook good, Chris Rock good.  There’s a roomful of people, but you’re so concentrated on the task at hand you don’t get distracted by the numerous hotties in the audience.  And as you start delivering your routine, the room starts to respond to you.  They laugh, they gasp, they double over with laughter.  You are the regulator.  You are playing the room like it’s some kind of instrument.

    Do you think Dane Cook gets laid?  I’m guessing he does okay.  Other performers also do well with the ladies: actors, musicians, dancers, athletes.  They’re basically mass regulators, making the women feel stuff.

    So think back to all the relationships you’ve had.  Do you remember how they started?  Did you succeed when you were the regulator or the regulated?  When you had power in the relationship, were you the regulator or the regulated?

    Or, think about your friends and family.  Your parents even.  Who’s regulating?  Who’s regulated?  Who’s got power?  A pattern should be emerging by now.

    Good partners in a relationship regulate one another towards homeostatic states.  That’s what’s known as love.  Bad partners regulate each other towards having greater power for themselves.

    So what do we do with this?  How can this principle help you have greater success in your love life?  How do you get to be the regulator?  This is all new for me, too, so here are some ideas I’ve come up with:

    1) Be a powerful man. If you’re a billionaire, senator, certified hunk, silly tall, star professional athlete or big-shot CEO, you will have regulator (aka dominant) physiology.  Almost everyone will accede power to you before you even ask for it, so you don’t have to do much.

    Unfortunately, ‘go be a 7ft tall billionaire senator’ is not really useful advice.  So…

    2) Learn to regulate your own physiology. You know who’s not afraid of powerful men?  Buddhist monks who meditate a lot.  They have achieved supreme control over their own physiology, so outside events don’t affect them all that much, even it’s a meeting with the President of the US.

    You don’t have to retreat to a monastery to achieve that kind of control over your own physiology — that would pretty much shut down your love life, which is not you were signing up for.  However, you can engage in meditation, yoga, self-hypnosis and other practices that give you greater control over your mind and body.

    3) Be compelling. In The Tao of Dating: The Thinking Man’s Enlightened Guide to Success with Women, my #1 bit of advice for creating attraction with women was to be compelling.  That means people are compelled to respond to you in your presence.  You are not a potted plant — you make stuff happen.

    Turns it this was just a way of expressing the concept of being the regulator.  When you’re compelling, you’re regulating the physiology of those around you.  Some of the methods for being compelling that I mention in the ebook: excellence, mystery, outlandishness, attention, and fun.

    If you can’t be a rock star, you can do a magic trick, recite a poem, cook a mouthwatering meal or tell a good joke.  There are many ways to be compelling that are fully within reach.

    4) Have a strong outcome. I know plenty of powerful men who flail miserably with women.  Partially, this is because they don’t recognize their own power — they were wimpy for so long they never learned how to snap out of it.

    But part of it is that they don’t have a strong outcome.  Now that you’ve learned how to be a regulator, how are you going to change her physiology?

    If you capture her attention but just talk about intellectual stuff or engage in small talk, chances are there will be no smoochy-smoochy, buddy.  You need to steer her physiology towards your outcome.  If you don’t have an outcome, that’s what you’ll get 100% of the time — nothing.  Having an outcome doesn’t guarantee achieving it — to paraphrase the Bhagavad Gita, you’re entitled to your actions, not the results of your actions.  And being too attached to the outcome is counterproductive.  But without an outcome, you’re pretty much lost.  Have an outcome.

    So there it is, my friends.  If you’d like to be successful with women, the first step is to manage your state around them.  The second step is to learn how to manage her state and move it closer to your outcome.  The ladies, especially the good-looking ones, have a built-in advantage in this realm, so do your homework, gentlemen.

  • Why people indulge in negative emotions

    Here’s one of the letters I got in response to the Are you muggable article:

    Hmm — Dr. Alex, isn’t this just another version of “blame the victim”? How about if instead of warning nice people not to be “too” nice, we point out the true nastiness (and therefore unattractiveness) of people who prey on them, and tell nice people how to spot those predators?
    Surely intelligent women would find that approach more appealing. At least, I would. I’m not a victim — I’m just an idiot. In this regard, at least.

    Gabriella from Bay Area

    Gawrsh, this opens up so many cans of worms.

    First off, for the ladies there’s the Bad Boys article on spotting what’s potentially bad for you.

    Next, let’s talk about the ‘blame the victim’ thing.  This is not about blame at all.  Blaming is a useless exercise.  Even if you’re justified in being righteously indignant, blame doesn’t accomplish anything. What’s useful is to observe what happened, notice the structure of reality, and use it to live better on an ongoing basis.  That’s responsibility — the ability to respond — not blame.

    For example, let’s say you leave your handbag open on the subway.  A few minutes later, you’re in a coffee shop trying to pay for your drink when you notice — oh crap!  My purse is gone!

    Now does it really help to stew in your own juices and say, “Omigosh, aren’t people awful?”  Sure, the person who swope (past tense of ‘swipe’, of course) your purse was a bastard.  But that doesn’t bring your purse back.  Next time, don’t be a pansy and zip up your handbag.

    If they slit the purse open with a switchblade and take the purse anyway, you can at least rest easy that you’ve done your part.  But an open, unattended handbag with wads of $100 bills sticking out from it is an invitation for bad stuff to happen.

    And that, my friend, is often what’s happening.  People are unconsciously sticking the ‘kick me’ sign on their butt, and then wondering why (more…)

  • Are you ‘muggable’? How to not be exploited

    In 1981, Betty Grayson of Hofstra University and Morris Stein of NYU did an experiment.  The researchers videotaped 60 people as they walked down the same city block in New York City.  They then showed the videotape to 53 prison inmates convicted of violent assault.

    What they found was fascinating: the inmates showed a strong consensus for the kind of individual they would choose as a victim.  Those chosen as potential victims tended to have poor coordination, with a stride either too short or too long for their height.

    Nonvictims, in contrast, displayed a more coordinated walk and a normal stride.  Basically, the muggable victims telegraphed nonverbal cues that indicated ease of victimization — as if wearing a sign on their back saying ‘mug me’.

    Another study by two Japanese researchers looked at cues for choosing victims for inappropriate groping in public places (apparently this happens a lot on the super-crowded Japanese subways).  They consulted a group of men from Tokyo University to comment on short video clips of women walking.

    Once again, the men showed agreed on which women they would choose to grope.  Body language of prospective victims included walking slowly and having a short stride length.  In their personality inventory, these women also tended to score high on neuroticism, low on extraversion, and high on shyness.

    There’s more to these studies than that.  For now, this is what I want you to consider: If you’ve found yourself exploited in relationships before, how much were you responsible for it?  Because apparently there is such a thing as wearing an ‘exploit me’ sign on your back.

    David Buss, the author of The Evolution of Desire, wrote a fascinating paper in 2008 with his colleague Joshua Duntley entitled ‘Adaptations for Exploitation’.

    One of the points Buss makes in the paper is that there’s a lot of exploitation going on out there in the romantic realm, both by men and women.  And certain people are more exploitable than others.

    So if you’ve repeatedly been burned in relationships — honey, buddy, I hate to break it to you, but you were partially responsible for it.  You have been complicit in your suffering.

    Let me give you an example from poker.  Contrary to popular belief, I did not start out as a world-class poker player from Day 1.  In fact, I was pretty terrible.  And when I would sit down at a new table, the better players would notice immediately: “That guy is pretty terrible.  We’re going to take all his money.”

    You know why I know that?  Because now I’m that guy who takes the money (sometimes anyway), and within minutes of a new player’s sitting at a table, I know whom I’m dealing with,what his weaknesses are and how to exploit them — by cunning, intimidation, trapping, bluffing and outright bullying.  If poker is a zero-sum game, then that’s how you win it.

    You must also recognize that people like this exist in the romantic realm.  Even though love is the ultimate nonzero-sum game, a potential win for all involved, some people choose to be jerks in the realm of love.  Although there are both men and women who fit this category, the exploitative men probably outnumber the women, since they have more to gain from a short-term sexual interaction.  Also, more testosterone tends to make people behave more antisocially — go figure.

    So how do you stop wearing the ‘use me’ sign?  The first step is recognition.  Straight out of Prof Buss’s article, here are some traits he believes make you more exploitable:

    • Cheatable: Gullible, trusting, lack of allies to aid with retaliation
    • Free-ridable: Relative anonymity within larger group
    • Muggable: Uncoordinated gait, hesitant manner
    • Sexually assaultable: Shy, low self-confidence, lack of “bodyguards” in group
    • Sexually deceivable: Seems “ditzy” or “airheaded”
    • Abusable: Lacking kin in close proximity
    • Cuckoldable: Relaxation of mate guarding by partner
    • Stalkable: High on agreeableness and extraversion

    If you want to stop being used, here are some suggestions, some courtesy of Captain Obvious (that would be me), and some from the article.

    For both men and women:

    Cultivate a reputation as being nonexploitable. As Buss puts it, “refusing to accept unfair exchanges and seeking vengeance after one has been exploited are two means by which individuals cultivate a reputation as nonexploitable.”  So refuse to accept a raw deal — you always have the option to walk.  And if you do get a raw deal, get mad!  Get righteously indignant!  Out the punk so the world knows that you will not be punked.

    Expect and demand some degree of reciprocity. If you’re constantly being the giver in the relationship, the other partner will soon figure out that he or she can be a free rider.  You’re not being nice by giving all the time — you’re being naїve and, frankly, a little stupid.  You’re a human, not a charity.

    For women who don’t want to be played by players:

    Take your time in getting to know a man. Do not be taken in by early disclosures of affection.  A guy can’t possibly know enough about you to be in love with you within an hour of meeting you — or a week, or even a month.  If it sounds too good to be true, 99.8% of the time it is.  Delay your first sexual encounter with a guy until you trust him enough.  A good thing is worth waiting for, and you’re a good thing, so make him wait some before he gets some.

    Date men within your social circle. Successful exploitation hinges upon getting away with it.  If a man is embedded within your social circle, he can’t get away with doing stupid things without damaging his reputation and trustworthiness, so he’s less likely to exploit.  So, as mentioned in The Tao of Dating for Women, date only men who are networked in.  Men you meet off the internet or in a bar can and will do exploitative things with much higher frequency.

    Utilize your yang energy. In public places, walk briskly, with purpose, looking straight ahead.  Speak your mind.  Learn how to say ‘No’ emphatically.  Quit being pointlessly nice and polite to people who harass you, since they clearly don’t deserve it.

    Go out with friends and have each other’s backs. Most women already know this (much to the chagrin of men in nightclubs), but it’s extra-important that the women (and men) in the group keep tabs on the girls, making sure no one is left behind.

    For men who don’t want to be waylaid by gold-diggers, flakes and other party hazards:

    Quit paying for everything. Let her pull her own weight every once in a while.  Is she into your company or the perks of your company?  See section on ‘reciprocity’ above.

    Ask how she’s spending her time. If a romantic interest or current girlfriend suddenly starts to become a lot more scarce, start wondering if there’s another guy.  Ask point-blank: How many other men are you dating right now? That should get you useful information.

    I really wish that the Tao were all about openness, beauty, love, gods and goddesses meeting on a moonlit shore with violins in the background, with no nitty-gritty in it at all.  But even in that scenario, you’ll get sand in your shoes which you’ll have to shake out later.

    And that’s what I love about the Tao: it’s about life here, on this earth.  It’s real, it’s pragmatic, and it has your best interest in mind.  In the case of exploitative partners or suitors, it is in your enlightened self-interest to be strong and vigilant, using both yin and yang energy to protect yourself.  You use the directive and discriminating aspect of yang energy to identify and push away what’s harmful; you use the yielding aspect of yin energy to let go of what you no longer need.

    Then you can use the yang again to find what’s good for you and the yin to let it into your life joyfully — it’s a constant, dynamic process.  Sometimes the tide ebbs; sometimes it flows.  But it never stops moving.

  • How to Irritate Men

    One question my female readers are always asking me is “Why don’t you share your own personal experiences, doc?”  The answer is simple: ’cause it’s nobody’s business, that’s why.  Also, I prefer timeless principles instead of anecdote, since the former doesn’t get old.  That said, if it’s likely to facilitate world peace and save the pandas, fine, twist my arm, I’m willing to talk about some of my own experiences.  Maybe.  All depends on the number of pandas.

    So, ladies — in the spirit of understanding men and perhaps causing them less needless pain (and also improving the chances of your own genes propagating to the next generation), here are some behaviors that are guaranteed to irritate the living crap out of men.  If you want your male companion to continue liking you, you would do well to avoid (more…)

  • Dealbreakers 2: Stop overanalysis & ‘normalization of deviance’

    Our friend Michaela got back to us after the article from a couple of days ago about the man who consistently betrayed her.  (Before you boys tune out, this situation happens all the time to both men and women — ever heard of the expression ‘whipped’ before?  Then read on.)  She’s clarified the situation a bit.  Here’s the abridged version:

    he fights very unfairly…he says ‘i forgot’ ‘i define sex differently’ ‘we never agreed to that’ or ‘i never said that’ (he says that about things he said in a clear strong voice less than a minute earlier) and, the hardest for me to understand, he blames me for creating the negative perspective of ‘being betrayed’ instead of ‘boy, isn’t that great for you!’ and avoids the part where he actually betrays me.

    i feel i do create my experience, that i am responsible on some level for all that this world/my life is, and am stuck here trying to see how i can (more…)

  • What to do when he or she goes ‘poof’

    Hi Dr. Ali,
    Boy, was this a timely article! I was pondering sending a scintillating email to a wuss of a guy who’s gone “poof” on me after 6 dates…but I won’t.
    What’s your take on these “fadeaways”? I thought it was going fine, a girl goes away for 3 weeks…then comes back, and he’s changed. Whatever the reason, JUST TELL ME STRAIGHT i.e. “it’s not working out”…instead of disappearing off planet earth for 2 weeks and leaving me wondering… And this is a 46-year old man!
    I realise you’re very busy. Maybe you’ll address this in a future article as it seems to be a common occurrence here in New York at least
    So I’m not saying anything about it at all. Clearly he doesn’t care enough to send a one line email, or call. That says it all. It’s just common courtesy, respect…
    Thanks for the advice you’re sending on, it’s very helpful.
    Sincerely,
    Samantha

    Samantha–

    Thanks for the note!  Yes, it is tremendously frustrating to both the men and the women on the receiving end of The Disappearance.  I mean, what happened?  Did you get severe tendinitis in both hands so you can’t write or call?  Were you deported back to Sweden for your obvious abuse of our fabulous American health care system?  Did you die, without even having the courtesy to invite me to your funeral or give me dibs on your book collection?

    So the first thing you can do about this is: (more…)

  • The #1 Mistake in Modern Communication

    Regret-generating ambiguous email #1056: So, I’m sorry to see that we are not on the same page when it comes to the unwritten rules of engagement with the opposite sex, and apparently not even reading the same book in terms of our relationship.  I did have fun though. :)

    Regret-generating ambiguous text #343: Ur a self-centered bastard.  Fine, maybe I was PMSing, but ur still a jerk.

    This article is going to be short.  It will contain one main message.  It’s an important one.  The message is this:

    No emotional communication via email, text, or voicemail (aka asynchronous media).  Ever.

    You should use email, text and even voicemail to transmit straight data only.  ‘What time are we meeting’, ‘what’s the address’, that kind of thing.  The occasional compliment or flirty message is okay, but even those can be subject to misunderstanding.

    Now let me explain why emotional communication via text or email is such a bad idea.

    1) Error rate in message generation is high.

    Communication has three phases:

    Message generation: Did you compose it accurately?

    Message transmission: Did it fly through the air and safely get there?

    Message interpretation: Did the recipient understand it the way you meant it?

    When you talk to someone face-t0-face, all three things (more…)