Knowing the other is crucial for sharing
“Did you know that …-” is still a conversational offer that requires tremendous human processing power. I cannot foresee how artificial intelligence could ever outplay human beings in this regard. It is a seemingly simple offer on behalf of the speaker for another person. It is a customized piece of information that hinges on the nuances of the relationship, the situation and — most importantly — on the theory of mind that the speaker developed about the other given at that moment. What do you, the reader, know about “knowledge sharing”? I should have asked before writing this…
Of course, a magazine may offer curious “Did you know?” facts listing oddities about animals or statistical phenomena. Harper’s Index is famous for its one-page-one-number-plus-fact-per-line creation. This magazine is the oldest general-interest monthly in America and what stands out about their index is that each line is connected to the next. It reads like free association, like a mutation. Check one out here.
Similarly, the German magazine Neon came up with the “20 facts that you will remember without making an effort to remember them “ series. It belongs to their series of unuseful knowledge. Remembering the 20 facts is so easy because they are so odd. For instance, “Aftertaste can never be sweet.” I did not know this yet do I care to know? Resources are limited.
The science of memory discovered that certain factors make things easy to remember and other factors easy to forget. Have you heard about the mnemonic aid of visualizing your grocery list as a journey through a room placing each item in a place and crafting a narrative? Storytelling is sense making and is aiding memory. Who actual does this though? Talk about ecological validity i.e. how representative is what they found for life out in the wild?
Back to the conversational example. “Did you know that… -” can the opening line for gossip, i.e. juicy interpersonal information. Something that is hard to know unless one has connected with the source of information and “worked” the network to extract exactly such information about other people. For example: “Did you know that Jack is quitting his job?” or “Did you know that Gijs and Carol hooked up on the field trip?” Did you know becomes here almost a rhetoric phrase. The speaker assumes that the listener most likely does not know about this. And he or she is thrilled to break those news.
Knowledge Sharing, or informing others, amazes me personally and professionally with respect to the cognitive mental models. Back in my twenties, when I found myself in Leipzig studying psychology, I met Josep Call. As a director of the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Centre, he gave a memorable impression to an auditorium of psychology students how he had once offended a great ape — with an all teeth smile that was interpreted as pure aggression. The ape went nuts. And all students went nuts for his enticing lectures about the unique cognitive and cultural processes that distinguish humans from their nearest primate relatives, the great apes. We learned about the role of superior and subordinate apes and their intricate relationships and how each ape develops a model of what the other monkey knows and doesn’t know. In other words: the under ape is more likely to snatch the juicy grape when he believes that the upper ape has no awareness of this behavior. It’s a small step from monkeys stealing grapes to young children snatching cookies. And it is just another step to — two decades fast forward — adults in social situations tailoring their information specifically to what the listener knows or doesn’t know.
As a parent to my children and a committed partner in a trilingual household, I have discovered another factor in complex human communication. Even if I have a darn good model or theory of my partner’s mind and tailor my message to fill in the gaps, to pass on the crucial new details that are adding enough to the known and unknown — I may still be misunderstood, remain unheard. This is due to the partially uncontrollable motivation of the listener and the general drain to attention. You can formulate the perfect sentence that remains useless if the listener is not interested to hear how to do an errand or is attending to a phone call.
“Today is your turn to pick them up after class.” >> Huh? Contextual cues are needed. Who is picked up after which class?
“Today is your turn to pick all kids up after swim class at the pool side.”>> Aha! Narrow gaps and less contextual cues needed. It paints a picture.
All this is to say that Knowledge Sharing is a complex skill performed by human beings in complex situations that requires a theory of mind of the listeners as well as situational opportunities and maybe — sheer luck.
Next time you want to pass on your learnings and knowings on an issue, take a moment to visualize your target audience and try the following: Systemic Design Thinking.
The Systemic Angle
Think of your listener as an individual in a certain cultural and relational context. The recipient is more than a diagram of a head with two ears and a cochlea. Does the CEO care to hear what valuable information the intern has to share? Does the HR employee need to know what the IT expert just discovered? And don’t fall for the fact that ears = listening.
The Design Thinking Angle
Then be creative with your information and apply aspects of the design thinking method. Try out its principles. For instance, if using the regular coffee mug is not good enough, be a designer and observe coffee drinkers. Then make three versions that are better, and hone in on that.
The same goes for designing a better knowledge sharing approach for now. For a field approach, observe attempts of failed and successful knowledge sharing and take note for your intervention.
- When a 5-year old speaks in an excited voice, the parent listens gladly and right away.
- When the 11-year old whines and complains, no one listens though. Some then respond to the tone, yet less likely to the content.
- When you touch the other with a hand and then speak, the attention is right there.
- When the other is on the phone and deeply in thought, no reaction to “Will you come later, too?”
- When you email a travel update during prime work time, no reaction, but when you send a text after the other’s workout plus a funny gif, the response is guaranteed.
- When you add a colorful clear picture and brief message, 100 people respond, yet when it’s abstract and convoluted, no interaction.
- When the work email is plain dense 10pt text, only silence follows.
- When the one poppy paragraph plus drawing gets a prompt reaction from 4 out of 5 recipients.
Then prototype a message that combines what works.
Lastly, let’s add Design Thinking principles or values such as a bias to act, empathy, ideation, experimentation, testing.
Act: Use facial, hand and body gestures to share your information. Match the action to the content. For instance, gesture the activity.
Empathize: With the listener and put yourself into her shoes. What of the message might she know already? To what will she resonate?
Ideate: Think before you speak and rehearse the sentence. Everyone’s attention is limited — especially this day of age.
Experiment & Testing: Say it loud or write it down. Check in and test what came across. And most importantly, learn from your mistakes to refine your next test.
Good luck! And last, but not at least, what of this was old news to you? What do you know about knowledge sharing?
