1028: Communication

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 18:33, 23 October 2012 by IronyChef (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Lcarsos (talk) to last revision by
Jump to: navigation, search
Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works.
Title text: Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works.


In this comic, White Hat tries to communicate to Harry that there is a hole in his path. Harry does not understand the warning, he only sees an exasperated White Hat ranting about something. Unsuccessful at understanding the warning, Harry continues on (towards the hole White Hat tried to warn him about). White Hat continues on and encounters Megan, who attempts to tell White Hat the same thing about the hole ahead in his path. Again, both fail to communicate the danger that lies ahead in the other's path, because White Hat is still mad about Harry and wants to complain to her. Both continue in their different directions, not knowing that there is a hole in the ground ahead of them because it was not properly communicated to them. They only knew that there was a hole behind them because that is what they observed personally. Megan meets up with Harry, and they are able to communicate that White Hat was all concerned about something and both continue on towards the hole. The holes are, hilariously, only about one person deep and it is not clear why they don't see them when they came upon them. However, either way, Harry and Megan fall into one hole (together) and White Hat falls into another (alone), despite being warned that the hole was there.

In the last row, Beret Guy sees a hole in his path. He runs off and encounters Cueball and proceeds to try to warn him of the danger ahead. Once he realizes that he is not successfully "communicating" the danger ahead to Cueball, he just takes him by the hand to show him the hole. Once that happens, Cueball understands the warning, i.e. "communication" has been successful.

If you are not familiar with it, the symbol of the triangle with the exclamation mark in it is a widely used symbol that means "warning".

The title text references the requirement that "communication" is a two-sided process and just telling someone something does not mean that you "communicated" the information to them.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


I can't decide if the irony that this comic didn't communicate its idea well was intentional or if I just didn't get it at first because I'm dumb... (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Don't worry. Not everybody can read "international," so it may be a bit hard to interpret. Really, he's just citing John R. Trimble: "Clear writers assume, with a pessimism born of experience, that whatever isn't plainly stated the reader will invariably misconstrue." In this case, after several examples of poor communication (and the consequences) the only clear communicator is Beret Guy, who rather adeptly shows rather than tells Cueball of the peril. Visual prolix? Maybe. As you say, that may be the point. -- IronyChef (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't be that you're dumb, it would be that you're "bad at reading comics" :) - jerodast (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the holes are only one person deep. It seems as though the heads are level with the ground just to show who is falling into each hole at that moment. 11:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After panel 5-6, does WHG think that he actually communicated the left hole successfully to the girl, given that he does not understand her "hole!" message as a warning of the right hole? I remember that's how I read it the first time. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Where does the name Harry come from? Is this established usage on the wiki? Dropping it in the explanation out of nowhere is confusing. - jerodast (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Using names to refer to the characters was a tradition that was officially started back on the blog when Berg guest authored one of the explanations. This makes it easier for everyone to be sure they are referring to the same character, and they're also cute fan-made names. lcarsos_a (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure sure, I get that, but Cueball and Danish have pages where confused users can go to understand where the name came from. "Harry" just drops out of nowhere here. Does he appear in other comics? Should we make a page for him? - jerodast (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we call him Harry, but there are other comics where a character with a little bit of hair shows up. If he shows up in at least 3 comics you can go ahead and create the category and his character page. lcarsos_a (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
He was of course referring to Hairy which has been clarified long time ago. --Kynde (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the moral is that the best way to teach is to show someone, I believe the moral is that teaching hasn't happened until the learner understands. If you succeed in communicating by talking, that's great, if you succeed by showing, that's great too. However, if you try to teach by talking and the other person doesn't understand, you've failed. If you try to teach by showing and the other person doesn't understand, you've also failed. I'm going to make a change to include that. If anyone objects, revert it. Djbrasier (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you (that is a first ;-) I think you forgot to implement the change you were advocating for, and said you would make. I have tried to make it clear that it is about communication not about how you do it. --Kynde (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I took the moral to be that you need to not immediately jump to what you're you're saying, rather talk a little first. Banak (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what part of "there's a hole over there" is so hard to understand that you need to show them it for people not to be confused. Really, this comic must've been based on some special kind of stupid people.-- 07:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of a metaphor? Did you miss the xkcd comic where Randall himself pointed out that models are imperfect representations of abstract ideas (iirc, the example in question was gravity as it relates to spacetime, "what's pulling the planet down into the grid then?") It isn't lost on me that this comment is a year old, I just... it felt like it necessitated a response. If you're getting caught up in the specifics of this being a literal situation, then it's you who has missed the point. Aepokk (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(yeah, I know this is more than three years old) Aside from what Aepokk already wrote, if I told you "Пази, рупа на путу у оном правцу", would you immediately understand what I was trying to communicate to you? BytEfLUSh (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

«It is very typical for the character Beret Guy to succeed, especially with something difficult, where White Hat fails.» I would be grateful for examples that show how this is typical. :-) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)