The optimal (or adequate) amount of communication and the mix of media is such that it helps reach the endpoints with minimal overhead. {ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD}

What will it look like? Easy to access, easy to use, easy to convey meaning, easy to archive, easy to convert into other media, and easy to share. {SIGNAL/NOISE, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Different tools would be adequate for different occasions.

For instance, email is one of the oldest and will stay with us the longest. It is slim and suitable for work, which allows for some time lag. Sending official calls, etc., might be better through email. It also helps you retain tracks, as all messages will have printable metadata—time, names, etc.

However, email is not an option if you want immediacy and can compromise other advantages. You can use a messenger.

It is vital to agree on what channels you will use in a project and never multiply the entities without a need (Occam´s razor).

Remember, the more channels, the higher the probability of a mistake or slip. {GROUND RULES}

Thus, use as many as you see helpful, but know what you will use and why, and ensure others are aware of this.

{ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE}

The keyword is "adequate," and the measure comes through trial and error.

"Too much" happens when communication brings no meaningful information to you. If you cannot summarize in a couple of sentences how a talk, a meeting, or a paper increased your knowledge (and thus decreased uncertainty), then it was likely noise.

{ADEQUACY, SAMPLING RATE, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD, SIGNAL/NOISE, TRIAL AND ERROR, GROUND RULES}

For any communication, the sufficiency principle is essential.

Your communication aims to change people by providing them with a certain amount of information. And you cannot do that in a TikTok video—not enough time to communicate the needed quantity of information. {COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Let’s expand a bit.

If we had 20 seconds, we could say 40-50 words and simultaneously show one picture. It might be enough to present a conclusion of some work, and this might be an intelligent way to start your presentation—with conclusions—if you want to swiftly inject the main points into a person with minimal time.

Yet, conclusions are baseless without results, which also take time to communicate. Then you must tell the results of what they are, etc. It all takes time.

Any experienced presenter knows that an optimum tempo exists at which the fast learners won’t yet be bored, and the slow ones will understand.

Can we arrive at some ideal length for an average talk?

TED’s 18-minute limit can give us some idea—some 2500-2900 words should be enough to familiarize an average listener with a new subject. By the way, a feature in Scientific American—a popular science magazine serving a similar purpose—runs between 2000 and 4000 words.

If we think of traditional scientific conferences, the most common is reporting some findings in 12-15 minutes and then answering questions in 3-5 minutes. These are similar numbers to communicate a specific finding to a prepared audience. {INFORMATION, ADEQUACY}

This temporal frame will likely be a rational minimum to enable communication of a few findings and make them clear to an audience.

Any educational presentation must be longer.

How do we match the discussed limitations?

The problem is not the duration but how one fills those minutes of a presentation.

As we did during lectures, we discussed a topic for 7-8 minutes; then I asked, you asked, I provided an experience, and you came up with another.

Thus, as something new always comes up, you do not get tired or bored, and we can continue for seven or eight hours for three, four, or five days, only understanding that we got tired after the course.

I agree; they usually are. Yet, it might not be the length but the composition—what you get during the time.

The traditional lecture format is inefficient.

By “the traditional format,” I mean when a professor unloads a series of facts for 90 minutes and then, five minutes to the end, asks if anybody has any questions; then, having answered a couple, he says, “Good, see you next week.” Outdated.

The primary purpose of a lecturer is to assist—provide facts, ask questions, and offer and ask for examples to understand the facts better, find contradictions, and discuss them at lectures.

This way, we can get closer to personalized education, which is the most effective and is always two-way.

Otherwise, there are tons of lectures and books for one-way learning.

Why slow changes? As always, due to a lack of knowledge, power, inertia, and unequal distribution of abilities.

{HETEROGENEITY, COMMON SENSE, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

To change something, one must have the power to do so, the knowledge to understand the need and the direction of improvement, and the guts to start and sustain the change process—quite a lot.

As all these are not distributed generously or equally among people, we are unlikely ever to witness that everyone would work, meet, and teach super-efficiently, even with the advent of AI and other niceties.

{POSITIONAL POWER, CHANGING GROUP NORMS}

Start with conclusions and provide the most critical information during the first minutes of your presentation.

It will help you deliver and stand out.

Now, in more detail. When all Ph.D. students do the same, you compete with them for the supervisor’s attention.

Why would you? Ideally, the Ph.D. supervisor is the mentor who can help you become an expert in your field.

Becoming an expert relies greatly on obtaining tacit knowledge from practice, not books.

The more attention, i.e., time, bits of advice, and feedback you get from the supervisor, the better it will be and the faster you can become an expert.

Then, apart from communication, the supervisor’s attention means more resources—money, other sound experts, and priority in using the equipment.

All these things can make or break your project; more importantly, all these minor things add up daily and monthly to define your work trajectory later. Often, wrong trajectories result from low daily increments and poor decisions at critical points. And otherwise.

What can you do to increase your chances and get more attention? Stand out. Break the routine and start with conclusions, making them look exciting or contradictory.

Your goal is to engage your boss and make her want more. After all, her brain works like anyone’s: she can become curious, affectionate, and scared. If you made her experience that, you can get prioritized.

The trick works, yet to become an expert, you need more time and attention from a mentor than the occasional 15 minutes.

{PRIORITIZATION, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, DAILY INCREMENTS, BOSSES AND LEADERS}

Communicate openly without euphemisms, jargonisms, and fancy words; remember that professional communication is not the “smartest kid in town” contest.

Always apply communication principles.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, SIGNAL/NOISE, SUBJECTIVITY, PROJECT: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Keep it there, then.

We live in a world of information asymmetry, not in the least because the information can be power. {INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

Information asymmetry can be natural and deliberate.

The natural one happens naturally, and the deliberate one occurs when people do not disclose or hide information because they consider it to give them some advantage. Some information can be provided on a need-to-know basis.

{NEED-TO-KNOW, COMPARTMENTALIZATION, SIGNAL/NOISE}

Treat it as an experience—people answer 1-2 questions in your letters.

Enumerating questions might help the receiver by giving a frame. You may respond with the follow-up letter with more questions than clutter many in one.

Also, as the magical number is 4, never have more questions than that; ideally, no more than 3.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, PRIORITIZATION, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

Numbering questions gives a frame.

At the beginning of your letter, ask the recipient to answer N questions and then pose them: one, two, ... N.

Yet, I would only go for up to four questions in the letter if I want answers.

Limiting them to three is even better, and then, once you receive answers, you can send another letter with another set of questions.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, PRIORITIZATION, FEEDBACK}

Nohow.

Any remote communication is a narrow-band one. It is very different from face-to-face communication, even in videoconferencing. These minor lags, decimals of seconds, are essential because they help us evaluate others' microexpressions and keep rapport.

However, there is a silver lining: communicating via narrow-band media (e.g., email) also means that you do not have to concentrate on non-work-related things—appearance, tone of voice, etc.—and can only focus on the result.

Isn't it liberating?

{ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE, SIGNAL/NOISE, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

You should not.

If the band is narrow, narrow it even more by only focusing on work-related issues and results. Do not try to analyze nonverbal cues from others, and do not try to project them yourself.

Soon, you will see that it does not matter how your collaborators look or what race, age, or gender they are as long as you pursue the same goal. All these other parameters are less important than we think they are.

{ADEQUACY, COMMON SENSE, SIGNAL/NOISE, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

It is hard to build rapport working remotely, but it is okay.

If you share the purpose, trust your co-worker, and know the requirements, you can concentrate on work, not on any meta-work activity.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, SIGNAL/NOISE, TRUST}

If I understand the situation correctly, there are many Ph.D. students in your lab, and your supervisor seems to have an air of divinity, spending 15 minutes per student.

It is too little, of course, and can hardly help you become an expert. {CRAPPY BOSSES, EXPERT}

Yet, any supervisor has limited resources and spends them according to their subjective priority ranking.

Being hardworking is necessary but not enough. The best you can do is become remarkable and memorable to be prioritized. If you are interested in the outcome of your Ph.D. project, become demanding and consistent in your demands.

{PRIORITIZATION, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, DAILY INCREMENTS}

Why do we need a project kick-off meeting (KOM)?

It serves two purposes: informative and ritualistic.

The informative purpose is composite. First, all stakeholders are introduced to each other and allowed to introduce the importance of the project from their perspectives. Second, all the stakeholders can review the plan at the meeting, ask questions, and change it. Third, the rules of operation (ground rules, cooperation rules) are agreed upon there. {GROUND RULES}

When you miss the kick-off meeting, you must make up for the missed information. Thus, ask for the memo from the meeting, if there was one. If there was no KOM on a project, check existing documents, ask questions, and observe. Also, evaluate the project briefly. {PROJECT: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Another purpose of the KOM is ritualistic. The meeting marks a transition, a boundary event, from planning to execution. Without this event, the team might not fully transition into a working mode.

{KAIROS, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH, KICK-OFF MEETING}

Before convincing anybody to change anything and introducing new ways, it helps to understand the old ones and their reasons. {CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION}

Kick-off meetings, lessons learned, and communication networks are the boss’s turf. Sometimes, the “wrong” way the boss runs the facility is the optimal way to run it. {ADEQUACY}

However, you can suggest a specific addition and provide your arguments on how this addition can improve the current operations.

{CRAPPY JOINT, GROUND RULES, COMMON SENSE, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

Certain things come before any training can happen.

First, you must understand that your capacity to change people—and training is changing—is limited. Especially during the short life of an average project—3-4 months.

Second, people's capacity to change differs. Thus, the adage "You can teach a dog to climb trees, but it is better to hire a squirrel" is relevant. {CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM, COMMON SENSE, EXPERT}

As for any training materials, they must fit our communication principles.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Regarding the training process and materials, we must remember that any training is communication.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, EXPERT}

It depends on your intention: do you want to change the situation or vent off? Both intentions are legitimate, by the way.

If you're seeking immediate relief, the informal network can be a source of solace: you can talk to your colleagues and discuss your feelings, motivation issues, and the like.

This approach can relieve you, but the downside is that it does not affect the cause of your frustration, and using it can become a habit: you encounter a problem, complain to colleagues, and feel better for some time; then, everything repeats.

Occasionally, you can get good advice from your colleagues. However, this usually happens when your colleagues know more than you and want to share. {INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

When will it most likely occur? When you are an agreeable newcomer, the oldbies wish to help you.

Later, chances to get helpful info decrease, as everybody knows the same and is willing to continue living the same life ("within a forest dark").

If you want to change the situation, you communicate (through any, formal or informal, network) with those who can change, usually your supervisor, express your problems, and suggest solutions.

Depending on your context and the supervisor, you might get the needed change, get ignored, or become a (dangerous) nuisance for your supervisor.

Your "if it is safe" apparently refers to the last scenario.

Ideally, both networks function correctly. If they do not, then, before you communicate personal concerns, explore the environment: observe the people, see how and what they share, ask questions, and analyze the response and the meta-data (sincerity, kindness, equality, willingness, etc.).

{THE DICHOTOMY, GROUP GOAL MIX, CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION, CRAPPY BOSSES}

As you navigate these personal conversations, it is crucial to be agreeable and retain your self-respect. Remember, you are never less (or worse) than anyone else in the workplace.

For the formal network, the universal rule will be to make the needed information accessible to all and not clutter the networks with noise.

For the informal, provide employees with opportunities to mingle in a pleasant, informal atmosphere.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, SIGNAL/NOISE, NEED-TO-KNOW, GROUND RULES}

All the info you need to perform your work must be available through the formal one.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, NEED-TO-KNOW, SIGNAL/NOISE, THE 5 EXCHANGES}

Each network has its purpose.

The formal network must supply the information needed for the work, while the informal network makes people feel appreciated by the group.

Inoffensive gossip, politics, sports, and minor family matters do not belong to the formal network. Still, exchanging this information freely at work makes people feel accepted.

The informal network adds a socio-emotional dimension.

{THE DICHOTOMY, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, NEED-TO-KNOW}.

Regulating informal communications at work stinks.

Why?

Because of their spontaneity and authenticity. During these water cooler talks, people express their concerns and share private information, so interfering with and using these interactions to promote formal organizational goals is vile.

Using this network to spread rumors and test employees’ reactions is even more so—you disguise your intention and fake a crafted communication as spontaneous.

Next, a boss can usually not do that, and unless she has “agents” in the grapevine and spreads rumors through them, it will not work.

These “agents” who maintain personal loyalty to the boss for some reason are not average group members. The boss rewards them somehow. And these rewards will often be untransparent.

Don’t these things—having informers and pets—exist in organizations?

Of course, they do.

In some places, organizational politics is the main thing, but whether to participate in it or not, work in such a joint or not, is up to you. {CRAPPY JOINT, CRAPPY BOSSES}

I would focus on establishing an organizational atmosphere in which people want to share their problems and ideas with you.

Such an atmosphere requires personal maturity on all sides.

Insecure people might try to look brighter, kinder, and better than they are and will hide anything that prevents them from shining.

Also, they might see the world as an adverse place and all people around as competitors for little specs of resources splattered around. {GROUND RULES, WHO AM I?}

In academia, we can expect that people are more or less mature (remember, discussions of differences between “stupid” and “university-stupid”).

At least, we can try to be such ourselves.

{VALUE, REALITY, SUBJECTIVITY}

We should not accept wrong things, but it is easier said than done, and changing anything from the bottom of a hierarchy is hard.

Still, there is a tiny potential for change: you can change through the things that concern you, build coalitions, and persuade the supervisors with facts.

However, the presence of gatekeepers in the informal communication network increases complexity. Modifying this situation is more complex than changing a visible process. You will first have to prove that the gatekeeper exists and that this person affects the communication in your unit.

{COALITION, CALIBRATE YOUR PERCEPTION, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, TRIAL AND ERROR, POSITIONAL POWER, CHANGING GROUP NORMS}

Those with such ambition and some skill do so, and the result of their efforts might look organic for those who do not move purposefully.

Those who do notice might condemn the organizational politicians as suck-ups.

These moves in communication networks are usually a part of social climbing—the act of trying to improve your position in a hierarchy by being useful to people with a higher social standing.

{HIERARCHY, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, RESOURCE, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

Formal and informal organizational communication are not separate entities; rather, they are like two arms that should be equally strong and able, each playing a unique role in an organization's overall communication.

As discussed, the formal communication network must fulfill all your needs for work-related information.

Inoffensive gossip about hobbies and family matters does not belong there. Still, this type of communication, as well as freedom to choose a connection, can make people feel good at work by adding the human dimension and spontaneity. The informal network (the grapevine) fulfills this purpose. {THE DICHOTOMY}

Both networks fulfill their purposes in the ideal world, where everybody is happy and productive. However, both networks can suffer from many ailments in the real world.

For the organization's health, it is sometimes essential to exclude elements that do not perform correctly, can perform incorrectly, harm, do not fit, or will not benefit from certain information.

We do not always work against information asymmetry in the organization and do not want everyone to get all the information. {INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, ADEQUACY, CLIQUE}

Excluding elements from communication has two reasons. The first is the sufficiency principle. The information you have that does not help you or others perform work better is noise, not information. It clutters communication lines and makes decision-making harder.

The second factor is the power factor. The privileged information is power; thus, you might not want somebody to know certain things. You keep the asymmetry as you are interested in maintaining the status quo.

{SIGNAL/NOISE, NEED-TO-KNOW, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

The mere knowledge that many people have it—up to 82% (Bravata et al., 2020)—is already liberating. {IMPOSTOR SYNDROME}

Another thing is to understand that if you made it to college, or even further—to some postgraduate studies, you are good at thinking. You have proved that you can use your brain successfully.

However, thinking and enjoying it comes at a price—you might overthink.

Having an impostor syndrome is symptomatic of overthinking—a real problem for people in academia.

You start over-ing: you need data for analysis, but you cannot stop as you want a little more; you need literature, but you cannot stop reading and highlighting—to ensure you have not missed some important study.

This “over-ing” also comes with a lack of confidence, as the more you know, the more you understand that there is even more that you don’t know.

Oh, how come others respect your competencies if you know there is so much you still don’t know? Oh, they are unaware of your ignorance. If they knew, they would not have respected you that much. Hence, the impostor syndrome.

The opposite is the so-called Dunning-Krueger—the less people know, the more confident they are. And, I would add, the more they are prone to proselytizing—spreading the word.

After all, when you read a new book and add it to the three books you have read in your entire life, the increase is 33%, and it took you just a week! And it explained to you how the world really is.

Apparently, the book is a miracle, and you are a miracle to learn that fast. Why not inject all these emotionally storming happenings into others? And, by the way, gain respect by becoming their mentor (i.e., a leader).

Indeed, you have met and talked to all these lovely people who could not graduate from school and find any job, but now will explain to you who rules the world, how to treat cancer, and fling curious facts about the shape of the Earth and Moon landing.

Thus, stop bothering; if you have impostor syndrome, you are already good.

Communicating: Use the principles of communication in any communication. Remember that you know more about your topic than anyone else when presenting or submitting a manuscript.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, EXPERT}

Language is the foundation of any field of human endeavor.

We study at universities and colleges to learn the language of a particular discipline—the words, concepts behind them, and their interactions.

This knowledge makes us see things differently and allows us to advance the discipline or use it to our benefit.

The entire development of education has been about bringing new disciplines to curricula, which happened in parallel with the development of new languages.

When biology is not enough, we split it into zoology and botany. Then, we have biochemistry and biophysics. It all becomes insufficient, and we have separate plant and insect biochemistry. Then, we have the biophysics of insect flight. And on it goes, gaining knowledge and developing language to describe the knowledge.

However, this specialized knowledge is a double-edged sword, leading to what is known as the 'curse of knowledge '. This curse often manifests as a communication barrier in interdisciplinary endeavors, preventing mutual understanding and enrichment. {CURSE OF KNOWLEDGE, EXPERT FUNNEL, INFORMATION ASYMMETRY}

It is hard to communicate productively with people who do not speak your professional language.

You might have experienced this when you had trouble explaining what you do at work to a layman speaking your mother tongue yet had no problems discussing it with an expert in your field from a different ethnic background.

What can help?

Education, explanation, and always having the feedback line open—the possibility to ask questions to clarify the situation. {COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

When you already have a group of people with different backgrounds, it helps you all come up with concise lists of the concepts in your fields that you think are essential for understanding a problem, and you all teach and learn to internalize these. It will also become an excellent group-building activity. {COHESION}

Yet, be realistic concerning the potential gains of such an interdisciplinary work. After all, to think and communicate like a chemist, you must become a chemist.

Pay attention to people who have an education in more than one field. Check successful polymaths of the past.

We speak different languages, even when we think we speak the same.

Think Finnish. Will it be the same communication with an uneducated person? With the educated in her 70s? With an immigrant of your age? From the UK? From Iraq?

However, we take our ability to communicate for granted, leading to all these “our project failed due to lack of communication.”

{CURSE OF KNOWLEDGE, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, FEEDBACK}

Once people start a new project, the opportunity to reflect on the closed one is usually gone for good. {KAIROS}

However, if you can still get the info from the team members, do it.

Get all the numbers you can, e.g., estimated time, money, and results against the actual ones.

What can you ask if nobody measured anything? {ECPM}

Ask whatever they want to tell you about their experience, any ideas on what to improve the next time, and any questions they had during the project.

Also, ask about whatever they hated during the project and whatever they loved—the extremes. {GAUGING EMOTIONS}

Explain why you are enquiring: “I try to improve my work; I cannot understand why I could not succeed with this…” People might become suspicious and less approachable if you do not provide some reason.

Whenever you start a new project, even if nobody wants to measure anything, start a project diary for yourself. This diary is a record and a tool for self-reflection and improvement. {PROJECT DIARY}

You can jot down decisions, assumptions and forecasts, meetings held, and your thoughts during the project.

You can return to the diary later, and it can give you a lot of valuable insights. With its help, you can compare your actual results with your earlier forecasts.

{FEEDBACK, CURSE OF ACTION}

Let’s start with the definitions.

News is news. It means that you bring some new information. For instance, you might come to the team and say, “I have bad news: you all are fired” or “Hey folks, I’ve got two pieces of news: the bad one is that our product has failed; the good one is that it failed so badly that…” You get the idea.

Unpleasant feedback is not news per se but a response to something—it is critique. {FEEDBACK}

When delivering it, there are three things to remember.

First, people do not like to be criticized. You might have heard the advice to separate the work from the worker. Sounds nice, yet it does not work in many jobs, especially creative ones: you are your product.

Later, the product might start living its own life, but initially, your product is you. Thus, when somebody says that the product “sucks,” it might be painful. And the more neurotic the criticized person is, the more painful it would be. Still, you must critique in many instances, even if it hurts. {SUBJECTIVITY}

Second, your expertise must be enough to add something to the criticized piece. Do it if the person asks for your feedback or if you have to do that based on the needs or rules of your work. Unsolicited opinions are usually unwelcome. {JANE JUDGES JILL}

Third, predictably, the attitude to feedback is a part of an established culture. So, it helps to establish a norm at the beginning of a project that gives high value to feedback, particularly negative yet constructive.

A ground rule might sound like this: “As we all understand the value of feedback and that negative feedback might be the most useful, we all welcome and encourage it. We want to improve.” In such a culture, giving unpleasant feedback might be much easier. {GROUND RULES}

And if you have to give feedback when no such culture exists, try to emulate it before feeding back—narrate the importance of feedback and its value to an expert’s growth.

Prepare yourself for it, and have some suggestions to improve what you are criticizing. If you have none, emphasize that and mention that “it is hard to… that” and that you have no ideas on improving it, but you still feel that it does not work as it should.

{COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

Be calm and friendly.

If there is trust in the group—trust in the competencies of other group members and trust in their integrity—people are more willing to open up and talk about their mistakes. {TRUST, GROUPS: A PARAMEDIC APPROACH}

Ideally, a group develops a learning culture—a way of group existence when all members understand that their work and knowledge might not be perfect.

Thus, they intend to expand their knowledge and modify their working methods if they receive reasonable facts about better ways.

{GROUND RULES, FEEDBACK}

If you can afford it, why not?

Feedback is communication, i.e., the uncertainty reducer. The more quality communication you will have, the better it is for your project and you. The more you reflect on your work, the better it can become. {FEEDBACK, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES}

The drawback of any action might be its overhead—spending resources to execute the thing. {ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD}

The common problem with having reflection sessions or regular meetings is that they can become useless.

Some regular weekly meetings on Thursday at ten might happen because they have been happening for the last 247 years, and people go there because they get itchy if they do not.

Then, the only purpose of the background process becomes to keep the tradition at the expense of resources.

Try and find your optimum.

{TRIAL AND ERROR, FAIL FORWARD}

Ask questions, make people feel safe and comfortable when answering them (remember building rapport), and learn to listen—one of the essential qualities for anyone, specifically leaders.

Share information yourself to initiate the norm of reciprocity. And always learn from the experience.

Avoid asking with the sole purpose of being asked in return at all costs.

Such interactions often resemble unrelated soliloquies, when one person politely waits for another to finish and then starts talking about something unrelated.

{COMMUNICATION  PRINCIPLES, TRUST, TRIAL AND ERROR}

Sometimes, the best way is to ask straight. Sometimes, people will tell. Sometimes, they will tell the truth, and sometimes, they will lie.

Detecting a lie is more complicated than seeing that the person touched his nose, covered his mouth with a hand, or looked left (or right).

What makes comprehension even more difficult is that, at times, people might be unaware of lying, or they might believe in their lies.

Thus, the best way to understand any system, humans included, is to observe its output because any system is better judged by what it does and what results it achieves than what it says.

{CONSTRAINTS OF A SYSTEM, BLACK-BOX APPROACH, ENDPOINT TIERS, LACK OF MOTIVATION}

The point is that communication is hard.

The paradox highlights two things: first, we cannot understand how it is not to know something evident to us—the curse of knowledge. {CURSE OF KNOWLEDGE}

And the second is our inability to understand the other person's level of knowledge of a particular topic. {INFORMATION ASYMMETRY, ADEQUACY, COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES, EXPERT}

Politely say “no,” and, of course, thank the inviter.

The real question is how to avoid losing something by rejecting the offer, right?

Any situation is an exchange. {THE 5 EXCHANGES}

What will joining the meeting mean? It might mean exchanging your time for an opportunity to learn, socialize, pledge allegiance, etc.

Yet, if you intend to say “no,” you likely already know that in this particular situation, you will exchange your time for nothing. That’s why you do not want to go there.

What will turning off an offer mean? It might mean affecting the relationship with the inviter. What will that mean? It depends on the context, but in many instances, it means nothing.

You regularly turn down many offers—to listen about God, switch to a better mobile provider, vote for the next best politician, etc. By rejecting those things, you lose nothing.

At work, you might lose. What might you lose? You might lose the goodwill of the inviter, who might be offended by the rejection; you might lose an opportunity to discover something new and prolong your socialization process. After all, the more you jump in bags with your stoned colleagues, the better you know them. (It’s not always your intention, though)

Thus, saying “no” or “yes” will always depend on the cost-benefit ratio. What will you value more—the time you can use or somebody’s better opinion? And the ratio can give you an idea of how far to go to save time.

If you need to provide an excuse, say that you must attend to another topic. Or, on the other side of the spectrum, you can say that you are not interested.

{PRIORITIZATION, JUST IN CASE}