The thing I’m unsure about here is why does that not apply to one-on-one communication? And if one-on-one communication doesn’t suffer from this limit, why does it not hold for getting a message to thousands by mathematical induction? Perhaps the problem is that you lose bits in the retelling when people forget things or word things badly—but surely you also pick up bits in more people actually thinking about the message and seeing flaws in it and ways it can be tweaked to be more true?
I think all communication is bottlenecked by the working memory limit, but the limit has different ramifications in different contexts.
I agree with Romeo’s take elsethread that part of what’s going on here is “how many feedback loops you can have going on at once. Feedback loops can unpack into larger things, but you have to actually do the unpacking.”
(I have a bunch more thoughts on this that are probably need to be a top-level post)
Perhaps the problem is that you lose bits in the retelling when people forget things or word things badly—but surely you also pick up bits in more people actually thinking about the message and seeing flaws in it and ways it can be tweaked to be more true.
note that if people are seeing flaw and improving your idea, then they aren’t coordinating on a single thing, and if it matters that lots of people are moving in lockstep it can be actively harmful if they’re ‘improving’ your idea.
But, more realistically: most people aren’t necessarily improving things, they’re adapting them to make them better/more-convenient/more-aligned for them. (Or, just forgetting or misremembering or whatever)
Preserving a complex idea at high fidelity is very hard.
The thing I’m unsure about here is why does that not apply to one-on-one communication? And if one-on-one communication doesn’t suffer from this limit, why does it not hold for getting a message to thousands by mathematical induction? Perhaps the problem is that you lose bits in the retelling when people forget things or word things badly—but surely you also pick up bits in more people actually thinking about the message and seeing flaws in it and ways it can be tweaked to be more true?
I think all communication is bottlenecked by the working memory limit, but the limit has different ramifications in different contexts.
I agree with Romeo’s take elsethread that part of what’s going on here is “how many feedback loops you can have going on at once. Feedback loops can unpack into larger things, but you have to actually do the unpacking.”
(I have a bunch more thoughts on this that are probably need to be a top-level post)
note that if people are seeing flaw and improving your idea, then they aren’t coordinating on a single thing, and if it matters that lots of people are moving in lockstep it can be actively harmful if they’re ‘improving’ your idea.
But, more realistically: most people aren’t necessarily improving things, they’re adapting them to make them better/more-convenient/more-aligned for them. (Or, just forgetting or misremembering or whatever)
Preserving a complex idea at high fidelity is very hard.