Telepathy and human hypocrisy

Telepathy is supposed to be impossible. It’s an odd position. Human communication is to put it mildly an unreliable thing at best. I’m a pro writer, and I can tell you that the written word, let alone the spoken word, leave a lot to be desired as communication.

Words are descriptors. They’re a shared context. The meaning of words, however, is subject to interpretation and knowledge. It’s not very useful to use words people don’t understand, or words they’ll spin into another meaning.

Communication is also visual. All human cultures have a type of sign language, from the ancient highly evolved forms to the messy mediocrity of modern Western sign language.

Body language is another type of communication. That’s especially the case with facial expressions. Most of the muscles in human faces are able to deliver recognizable expressions, and are usually correctly interpreted.

Hypocrisy incarnate

Meanwhile back on the “everything is impossible” schtick – Humans share pretty much identical brain chemistry. The brains work more or less the same way, allowing for individuality and more or less mental exercise.

Could there possibly be a better recipe for actual mental communication? How much more compatibility could you possibly need?


  • “You can’t read minds” they say. Actually, most people spend a huge amount of time trying to read minds. It’s the basis of communication in any context.
  • “Mindreading is impossible”. Impossible or not, it’s what you need to do to effectively communicate with anyone on any subject. A gesture may provide more actual information than verbiage. An expression definitely will, even if the expression is fake.

Let’s not hold a homecoming parade around the obvious –  Mindreading is necessary. To know what someone thinks, you need to think. Thought, articulated or not, is the basis of what goes out and what comes in.

Sometimes you have to read your own mind to really understand your own logic and emotions. That uneasy feeling needs investigation. Doubts, likes, dislikes, you name it; it’s all part of efficient communication on every level.

So why not telepathy? It’s easy to say something can’t be done if you make no attempt to do it. If you disregard any indication of effective telepathy, how could you have an objective opinion, let alone any understanding, of it?

What is the objection to telepathy? All due respect to Douglas Adams and the Babel Fish from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, but why wouldn’t telepathy be based on what you’re prepared to communicate, rather than anything and everything? Most people can easily block out unwanted verbal communications, let alone a few microvolts of mental energy.

One of the biggest issues in human history happens to be effective communication. Wars have been fought on the basis of communications. Another big issue is lack of empathy; wars, ironically cause a lot of empathy among the poor bastards fighting them. That’s a type of communication which is non-verbal by definition, it’s universal, and it’s largely mental.

Yet there can’t be any such thing as telepathy? Does it sound likely? How much of any situation do you need to verbalize? If someone’s going through a hard time, it’s not at all hard to empathize. You can feel it, and you feel it through a basic mental process like empathy.

Humans depend on their communications to survive. Imagine not being able to communicate at all. Unappealing, isn’t it? Even in a demented world like this, communications are primary mechanisms for life. It is staggeringly hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Telepathy, in whatever form, is necessary. Explore this area, or lose access to a skill everyone desperately needs.


Paul Wallis books, Wanderlaugh, Mimbly Tales, Ads, Gothic Black, The Threat-Hamster Papers

Leave a Reply