Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

Jacque Fresco-In Search for the Science of Communication-Nov 3, 2010 (1/3)

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
"In Search of the Science of Communication" - Jacque Fresco - November 3, 2010 - Venus, Florida The science of communication does not exist there is no science of communication as of yet, although to a limitted extent, we do communicate, but communication is misunderstood. For example, if a prince desires a particular woman, he may send her a gift, the expense of that gift determines to what extent that women will yeild to the prince, so that's a form of communication. You ask an ordinary man to repair your roof, he might say "no". If you offer him 20 dollars an hour, he might say maybe. If you offer him 30 dollars an hour, he says "when do you want me to start?" So money can be a mechanism that affects human behavior. Ultimately, communication was a means of trying to affect human behavior. A woman that can operate a sawing machine quite well can not communicate with a physiologist. Only to a limitted extent. So communication, in the society where there are multiplicity of different reactions and different values, does not assure communication. You understand what that means? You have problems with that? Okay. So, if a man is very good with a bow and arrow, in order to serve his tribe, he might train others to use the bow and arrow efficiently. Now when people fly an airplane today, they try to aim the missile at an airplane. If someone designs a heat seeking missile, that goes up the hot end of an airplane, or the exhaust port, they don't need to aim or develop a training program for that. You merely release the missile and it seeks heat. If you released a missile and it seeked the human body, you don't need to train people to aim. So communication, to a limitted extent, has to do with the state of technology today. Do you understand? Communication as a system, is always undergoing change. Now if you sit there and say "well what is communication?" Well in essense, you want control the behavior of another person. That's what you say "I will see you Wednesday", Wednesday means the same thing to the other person, but if it's a forgeiner he says "what means Wednesday?" Then you have to find out what that means. So when people set out to communicate, they set out to share language. And that all depends on what the rewards are, for a certain behavior. If you have a certain philosophy, and you're a ruler of a certain country, and someone offers you 2 million dollars, you may sell your country short, for a home in Switzerland, if they deposit 2 million in the bank. So the 2 million dollars is a method of persuasion, or communication. Do you understand that? That's why it's not possible, in a monetary system, where there are certain ways of gaining advantage. If the communication takes away your advantage, there is no need for you to learn that kind of communication. If you're head of the Catholic church and the Presperterian church becomes dominant in your community, there's no basis for you learning about that, because it takes away your job. So in a monetary system where rewards vary, it's very difficult to establish communication. That's why people that come from different cultures, can not communicate, except to a limitted extent. If one Indian tribe has a different philosophy than another, they may not want to communicate, because it may upset the conduct of people in the tribe, but if a common enemy appears, then the tribes might merge temporarily, to defeat the common enemy, but they don't sit down and communicate. They communicate, their communication is maintaining positions of differential advantage. They do not seek to communicate, they seek to maintain those positions. Now there's many scientists that say "yes, we're interested in developing a means of communication", but even scientists have vested interest, so their communication is affected by vested interest. Nobody is so pure as to say, "I seek pure communication", you would have to forget all about your culture, advantages, and living in a nice house, making money, all of that would interfere, but if you wish to communicate with another person, you either set out advantages, in other words you bring the other person gifts, then they say "what have you to say?" If you come at them and say "we're taking your land away, because we can operate your land more efficiently than you can" they don't say "great, do that", they have vested interest, and they maintain their vested interest. That's why you can communicate on the nature of the planets, and people will listen to you. It doesn't affect their income, their style of living, or their values. If you tell them that the moon always faces the earth as it goes around, they're willing to listen to that. But if you tell them things that interfere with their positions of differential advantage, communication fails, that is there's no such thing. Am I clear up to now? This is why people, can only communicate in areas where they have common values, and common sense of gain, in learning to communicate. If you learned to communicate with very primitive people, you might be able to talk to them, but it's no real advantage to you if you're technical, to communicate to primitive people, unless you're doing a autobiography of some particular chief. So I would say, in the future, all primitive people would be updated, not treated as an anthropology study. Anthropology will be considered socially offensive behavior. If you go to a primitive tribe and make notes of how they behave and what they talk to the trees about, would not be the proper study of mankind. The proper study would be the conditions they live under and their limitted communications. You would have nothing to say to a seminal Indian, of extensionality of you, you might be able to extend the Indian a little bit, but he can't say anything that would help you. That's why I point out, it wouldn't make much sense for you to talk to children, because they can't say anything new. If they're 10 years old, say "my daddy has a bigger car than your daddy", they can't say "the engine of a Mercedes displaces so many cubic inches, therefore it's more efficient." They can't about those things, unless they have wrote memory, with unreal or no real understanding of what they're saying. So when you say "is it possible to develop a science of communication?" I would say no, not within established systems. If a system's established, it automatically cuts communication. Now, if you visit people from another planet, that have achieved, most, and have solved most of the problems we had here, there's a reason for you to learn their language, there's a real advantage in learning their language, if they've overcome cancer, heart desease, most nervous disorders, there's a reason for you to listen. But some people have such a damaged ego, they can't even hear things that would serve as an advantage to them, they really can't hear it, he may say "well they don't wanna hear it, cause they feel they've achieved a level advantage, and who are they to listen to other people?" You know, you have got ego problems. So let me say this. In order for us to communicate, we have to establish what communication is. If we don't establish what that is, and we can't at our present state of development. Say "what is communication?" without using a referent of our own values? So I'm using this term, it is impossible to communicate with other people today, unless you teach them your language, your referants, and they accept them, then you might be able to communicate within the referants you have given others. So there's no reason right today, for republicans and democrats to communicate, because there is one system that offers advantages. Nobody is interested in long term advantages. If I say there's an advantage to your culture 50 years from now, he says "what will serve now?" So that's what he wants to learn, the advantages of the immediate. If I say 500 years from now, people will live perfectly well, nobodies interested, because there's no communication of value, that they can receive. So, if scientists, really were able to - which is almost impossible - to let go of everything they have and ask what is communication? They can't ask that question. Do you understand? Okay. So when you effectively communicate with another person, you either are training them in some way, so that you can your words would have similar meaning, not subject to interpretation. If a person develops even a hearing aid, and it works better than another one, he has to communicate the means of making that work better. Now why does he want it to work better? Because he gets more money for it. If he doesn't get more money for it, he doesn't concern himself with it. So there can't be a science of communication, where there is a system of differential advantage. So it's much easier to give a young girl a gift, and she says "oh, I'm so impressed by the expense of gift you gave me" what you're doing is softening her up, toward your value system. She has no fixed value system, if that occurs. If a person has a fixed value system, like religion which is rigid and fixed, they're not interested in any kind of communication which takes that away, because the project a lot of meaning into that, and you say "their communication is ineffective" they don't give a damn. It does not communicate what you have in mind. So, first of all, before you even talk about communication, you have to convince people that they tend to move along established lines, because they have proven to be worth while, within a given I'm leaving out sunny day in May, I'm going right to the point. So if you sit down and you wanna communicate with another person, first ask them, why they wanna listen to you, because it serves no immediate value. Unless they're studying communication. Now, the science of communication today, would be within a given field. If you learn mathematics you can get jobs doing certain things. So people do not study to improve communication, they study to pick up advantage to advantage to this system. Is that clear? They do not study to improve communication, even though a person says "I'm a student of the language of communication". They can't be that, and be a member of society. Do you understand that? If a person comes up to you and says "I'm completely neutral, I've come to study communication" that is not possible. Do you understand why? Nobody can be completely neutral. You are always a victim of culture. continued subscribe like friend fav thanks!

Video Details

Duration: 14 minutes and 58 seconds
Country: United States
Language: English
Producer: The Venus Project
Director: The Venus Project
Views: 58
Posted by: ltiofficial on Oct 10, 2012

Part 1 of 3 Lecture by Jacque Fresco given November 3, 2010.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub above to caption this video.