Debunking Myths: [Intrapersonal] Communication and the Number of People.

Why is "intrapersonal" communication not social communication?

In the study of human interaction, the concept of "intrapersonal communication"-defined as communication with oneself-represents a fundamental incongruity.

Communication, at its core, is an action relating to commonality, a process that requires at least two entities in order to create shared meaning.

An individual, possessing a single perspective, is unable to negotiate or to put something in common with himself.

Therefore, although internal thinking is a crucial cognitive process, it does not fulfill the fundamental requirement of social communication, which is the interaction between two or more parties to build mutual understanding.

The difference between internal dialogue (thinking) and communication (common action)

What is often mistakenly labeled as "intrapersonal communication" is actually an internal dialogue, reflection or decision-making process.

The very words we use to describe communication, such as "dialogue" (from the Greek di, two, and logos, word) or "converse" (with, together with), imply the presence of an other.

We cannot "dialogue" with ourselves in the strict sense, since there are not two logos at play.

This internal process is fundamental for organizing our ideas and confronting dilemmas, but it is a solitary activity.

Communication, on the contrary, is an external and collaborative action; it is the bridge we build to the mind of another person.

The error of defining types of communication by number of people

Another persistent myth is the attempt to classify types of communication based on the number of participants.

Common definitions that state that interpersonal communication is "between two or more people," group communication is "between several," and collective communication is "between very many" are impractical and ridiculous.

These terms are completely subjective and lack uniform criteria.

When do "several" people become "many" and when do "many" become "very many"? This ambiguity makes the classification useless for serious analysis.

The number of people in an interaction is not the factor that defines its nature.

Demonstration: how interpersonal communication can be massive.

The ultimate proof that the number does not determine the type of communication is found in practice. An interpersonal communication can be massive.

Consider a large family party to celebrate a matriarch's 100th birthday, with a hundred or more guests.

Although the scale is massive, the nature of the interaction is interpersonal: it is subjective (based on affection for the person), affective (emotional) and spontaneous. In contrast, a group communication may occur between only two people.

A formal performance appraisal between a manager and an employee is a perfect example.

Despite being only two, the communication is group because it is objective (based on metrics), role-driven (manager-subordinate), and scheduled in an unchanging context.

Summary

The concept of "intrapersonal" (with oneself) communication is an incongruity, since communication requires at least two entities to create common meaning. An individual cannot negotiate or dialogue with himself or herself.

What is often labeled intrapersonal communication is actually an internal dialogue or reflection, a crucial but solitary cognitive process. Communication, on the other hand, is an external, collaborative action toward the mind of another person.

It is a mistake to define types of communication by the number of people, as this is a subjective and impractical criterion. A family party with a hundred guests is massive but interpersonal, based on affection and spontaneity.