com·mu·ni·ca·tion: An Improved Definition (Thoughts On Communication, Part I)

The dictionary defines communication thusly:

the act or process of transmitting information (as about ideas, attitudes, emotions, or objective behavior)

Which, of course it is.

And to clarify further, let’s define transmit:

cause (something) to pass on from one place or person to another.

Using these two definitions, I think we would all agree that standing in one room, talking in a normal voice to your partner across the house in another room is not communication.

That is, unless you are doing it on a mobile, or otherwise have some sort of verification that the transmission was received, yes?

I’m going to assume you’re agreeing with me, here. Because, well, you’re on the internet, and I can, since this is my writing.



So, the definition of communication has two parts:

  1. The act of transmission
  2. Information

So, we just agreed above that you have not communicated if the transmission is not confirmed.


So, what if the information is not confirmed?

By the definition, if the information we are transmitting is not confirmed, we are not communicating.

Agreed? I know you do! LOL!

So, how is the information we have transmitted confirmed? With response.


We know we have transmitted something and that it has been received with a response.


I text: I want you to send me a photo of yourself that represents you in this moment, showing me that you are thinking of me.

Pet replies: Yes MQ (short for My Queen). PHOTO (meets my requirements)

So, in this example, there are three pieces of feedback to show that the information I transmitted was received:

  1. Yes MQ.
  2. Photo
  3. Photo meets my requirements

If any of these were missing, would my communication still be a success? Let’s look.

Yes MQ.
If this was missing, but the other two feedbacks were present, then I say we can still consider my communication a success.

If this was missing, then the third would also be missing. Communication fail.

Photo meets my requirements
If this were missing, but the other two were in place, it would still be a communication fail, yes? Because the information I attempted to transmit was not received, even though the transmission was. Communication fail.

Now, here is where it gets dicey.

What if he got my text (transmission received), and misunderstood my information?

Who is at fault?

Is it him for misunderstanding?

Or is it me for not framing the information more clearly to him?

Before I answer this, let me continue on with another hypothetical…

What if he got my text (transmission received), understood my information, and chose not to act?

Who is at fault?

Is it him for being a brat, or sulking, passive aggressive, or topping from the bottom?

Or is it me for not transmitting the right information in a way that convinces him to respond properly?

I’ll give you my POV. And here is where I’m sure I’ll lose some of you:

Communication is not the words you say, it is the response you get.

Many people would say that communication between two people  is 50/50.

I say that’s bullshit. I shoot higher, and take 100% responsibility for my communication.

Therefore, in both cases above, I would not blame my Pet. I would look at my communication, and figure out where I did not communicate (perhaps I did not clearly state my timeline, or the consequences), and possibly try again, to get the response I desire.

Part of this has to do with being a dominant, and taking full responsibility for my relationship with my Pet.

That’s not all, though. It is my philosophy through life.

In every situation.

I take full responsibility for my communication.

Now, I don’t expect everyone to feel the same. I’m just putting this out there as Part I in a written series about communication that I’ve been mulling over for a while.

It’s also the foundation for Part II and beyond.

2 thoughts on “com·mu·ni·ca·tion: An Improved Definition (Thoughts On Communication, Part I)

Comments are closed.