Ambiguity: Friend or Enemy?

Chris Jones has an interesting post "On Semantics: Ambiguity is the Enemy." As someone who has spent 30 years writing professionally, I think he makes some very good points.

Our messages get misunderstood, if not ignored, when we're not careful in choosing our words. It's worse if we fail to consider what filters our audience may use to interpret them.

But speaking as someone who has spent 10 years working with disparate cultures, organizations and stakeholders, I find that, quite often, ambiguity is a reliable friend. No matter how precisely we choose our words, we can never assume they will be heard or interpreted exactly as we intend by every recipient. Instead, I find that being deliberately ambiguous forces project participants to collectively negotiate the meaning that will apply to the context at hand. And for the duration, they will own that meaning and take responsibility for its maintenance.

Comments

[Chris Jones]

Thanks for responding with your thoughts on this, Steve. And it's a great counterpoint ..

I agree, we can never assume clarity, but I, for one, always seek it.

When reflecting and adapting, diversity in our thinking (and yes, ambiguity) helps us identify new possibilities. That's in the cognitive context, and critical for emergence. In my original context, though, re: language and communication, if we are ambiguous about our intended meaning, we can't even have a productive discussion, whether it's on philosophy or about getting directions. Take the case of 2 foreign languages, as the extreme: we tend to talk past each other. And in the wide open domain of public collaboration, I see that happen way too often. Constantly. Tweet by tweet.

So maybe ambiguity empowers the thinker, but debilitates the communicator? Two sides of an important coin?

Very curious what other insights might emerge on this.

You've definitely got me thinking ..

[Khaled Islaih]

Thanks for inviting me to share my thoughts on ambiguity.
I would like to describe ambiguity as a form of non-linearity. Usually, linear perceptions enhance judgmental thinking within individual and social mindsets. More or less, linear thinkers judge people, situations, relationships and even themselves. This reductive way of thinking usually constrains understanding and meaning of life experiences and communicative situations. Therefore, it limits potential outcomes.

In my experience, curious thinking driven by ambiguity enables possibility thinking. Possibility thinkers are usually looking for new horizons (creative meanings) in ambiguous situations. They try to explore new possibilities to enrich experiences and achieve better outcomes.

Over time, embracing ambiguity foster confidence, resilience and trust with groups to resolve complex challenges and achieve remarkable results.

Finally, I would like to conclude by sharing this quotation:” I am neither an optimist nor pessimist, but a possibilist” (Max Lerner).

[Steve]

Alice MacGillivray (http://4KM.net) has a great riff on the arguments for/against ambiguity. She points out how important it is to choose precision or ambiguity based on the challenges of the situation, adding "I have also seen ambiguity nurture diversity: an important attribute of complex systems."

In particular, Alice asks some penetrating questions about the value of clarity.

1) Can the idea of “carefully choosing our words” put too much emphasis on presentation and not enough on questioning and working to deeply understand? Surely if we become experts at choosing the best words, others should “get it?”

2) Might the description of knowledge management as “identification and capture of the critical insights” be an example of #1?

3) Does the assumption that one can “lock in” definitions put too much emphasis on objective, external truths and too little on internally contructed ones? Will people ever share the same feelings and truths with locked in definitions of “poverty,” “progress,” “ethics,” “knowledge,” or even “leadership”?

Don't miss the rest of her post, "Food for thought: how do we think about ambiguity?"