There are different orders, if you will, of communication, and, particularly, of dialog. They can be arrayed in an ascending ladder according to their grasp, use of, and sensitivity to language, meaning, and intent. Interestingly, each treats language very differently, in fact, it is primarily by this difference that I can discern them. In the list that follows, I speak primarily of verbal communication acts, though there are many other kinds…

1. Common/informal: Most of the time, it doesn’t matter much what we are saying or how we are saying it. Yes, it matters loosely, but not to the degree that we actually need to understand the meanings and implications of our statements in any more than superficial way. Creativity is often relegated to the role of generating insults or criticisms, a role to which it is ill-suited.

Surprisingly, in this venue no one really needs to know or understand what the words actually mean since the goal is primarily to communicate feelings and check, establish, or contravene rapport. It is also used to criticize and or to ‘report’ on relatively trivial matters. As the meaningful communication of rich content is, at best, a secondary concern, the meanings of the words don’t matter very much. The emotions, however, do.

For many people, this becomes the only order they routinely participate in or are exposed to, and such people are often deeply upset by any change of orders since they are unaccustomed to functioning outside a relatively sloppy and unconscious relationship with language and meaning.

In the most common communications venue, there is minimal dependence upon the complexities of the verbal aspect, so it usually doesn’t matter if one is actually ignorant of their meanings and this venue will actually reward not knowing (and pretending to know) and punish those who actually having some idea what they are talking about.

This mode allows for a fluid, superficial communications transport of minimal depth, but trains people’s verbal intelligence for failure.

2. Slightly formal: In this venue, words -begin- to matter, but common awareness of meanings and functions remains relatively fuzzy and informal. Here we have essentially, people who are interested in learning and are curious, and thus cannot entirely allow the comparative sloppiness of the first venue.

Everyone now has some interest in words and their meanings, but generally not enough to begin to approach a more clinical or rational perspective. This is where common arguments or discussions that examine a topic happen. There is some need to clearly communicate content, but it is not yet guiding the production of language adeptly. People who are more serious about communication may draw those from venue 1 into this venue briefly to determine if they can act effectively here. Most cannot.

In this mode you must have some idea what you are talking about, but it doesn’t always have to be a clear one. You will be rewarded for clarity and articulation, but too much may be experienced as domineering or threatening to other participants since the domain is intended to remain informal enough for common participation.

3. Moderately formal: Artists, intellectuals, educators and clinicians or scientists will often occupy this venue in preference to venue 1. This is the ‘lazy version’ of conversational and intellectual rigor. Here, creativity and insight are cultivated, valued and rewarded.

Because -content now matters- and we are trying to communicate -about ideas and words themselves- everyone agrees to pay close attention to what is being said, and how it is being said. Meaning is important now, because our intent is to communicate content, and this is reflected in our care with words, ideas, and meaning. Also, in this venue, there is common checking, back and forth, to test both the efficacy and the accuracy of the communications acts.

In this mode you will lose status and ability to the degree you do not know how to speak and listen, and also know how to carefully ascertain and communicate meanings. You must know what you are talking about to participate. Creativity and finesse are valued and rewarded.

4. Rigorously formal: In this venue, communicating content is the primary focus, and so literality and extreme care with words and meanings obtains. This often involves strict limitations on meaning or scope, made necessary by the precision with which the language must interface with specific aspects or structures of knowledge, experience and evidence. This is the venue of academics, scholars, medicine and science. Because the communication of content is now crucial, all artifice falls largely to the side, and extreme focus is possible.

In this mode failure to know what you are talking about (and the correct methods of talking) immediately exclude you from the relational access of other members. You must know or perish instantly as a participant. Rigor, precision, and demonstrative results are the goal, and are rewarded.

Of course, this is a relatively arbitrary model of the situation, and crude, but it gives the basic shape and explains why many communications acts fail on the basis of not sharing a venue. In other words, person A is in venue 1 while person B is in venue 3. Two such parties are going to experience frustrating difficulty in communicating; indeed, their goals cannot really be similar due to the nature of their intentions, needs, desires and activities with and around language and meaning.