I would like to ask why it is so easy to misunderstand others. We sometimes explain it with different background, different culture, maybe a different knowledge of the language is used. But most times, it is just the different personal meaning that everyone gives to the same word. Not even maybe the intrinsic meaning, that is, what the word actually mean. I think that the danger is more in what the word refers about, or in all the words which are missed that can completely change the meaning of a sentence, if added to it.
If I say, "You don't have to do what I say", it might be interpreted as "You don't always have to do what I say!" but also "You don't have to do what I say, but this time I would like you to". Just a difference in how the basic sentence is pronounced, and a nuance in its interpretation can be the start for a discussion and fight which could last for days.
The interesting question is then, why don't we just say all words, so that there is no possibility for misunderstanding. But this is easier to plan than to say. Every sentence could need more clarification, more explanation, more details. The conversation among two people would then become really boring. So, we have to assume a boundary at some point, so that a common background and understanding and cross-references can be used as a base for a clear communication. This normally implies a good knowledge of the other person, or the same attitude to the conversation, or a deep trust, so that if we do not understand 100% what is being said, we just go for the best interpretation possible.
If the assumed common background is then not that common, the problem arises again. I often listen to people assuming that everyone can read their thoughts in their mind, and that might be a too high starting point.
Probably, most people are impatient and do not want to lose too much time explaining all possible detail - or every important factor - to the audience. Stretched time, tiredness, low interest, all play a role in deciding to skip something that then turns out to be fundamental.
Is it really like ti seem, that to avoid misunderstanding it is just enough to... listen and talk?
If I say, "You don't have to do what I say", it might be interpreted as "You don't always have to do what I say!" but also "You don't have to do what I say, but this time I would like you to". Just a difference in how the basic sentence is pronounced, and a nuance in its interpretation can be the start for a discussion and fight which could last for days.
The interesting question is then, why don't we just say all words, so that there is no possibility for misunderstanding. But this is easier to plan than to say. Every sentence could need more clarification, more explanation, more details. The conversation among two people would then become really boring. So, we have to assume a boundary at some point, so that a common background and understanding and cross-references can be used as a base for a clear communication. This normally implies a good knowledge of the other person, or the same attitude to the conversation, or a deep trust, so that if we do not understand 100% what is being said, we just go for the best interpretation possible.
If the assumed common background is then not that common, the problem arises again. I often listen to people assuming that everyone can read their thoughts in their mind, and that might be a too high starting point.
Probably, most people are impatient and do not want to lose too much time explaining all possible detail - or every important factor - to the audience. Stretched time, tiredness, low interest, all play a role in deciding to skip something that then turns out to be fundamental.
Is it really like ti seem, that to avoid misunderstanding it is just enough to... listen and talk?
No comments:
Post a Comment