Recently, I used a word incorrectly. The misplaced word turned a simple observation of current events into a rather arrogant assertion about the future. The friend to whom I made the statement took it at face value and informed me that I was wrong.
As I have considered my friend's response, it interests me that she heard the misspoken statement, compared it to the realm of possible statements I might make, and didn't question whether she had heard and understood me correctly. A statement with that much arrogance apparently is not inconsistent with her view of my character.
Another friend taught me the value of forming a good opinion of someone and seeing words and actions that don't mesh with that good opinion as out of character for them. He encouraged me to say words such as, "That's not like you. You're better than that."
Another friend demonstrates to me the value of active listening. I can't know for sure, but I don't think that friend would have responded to my "arrogance" without first verifying that my words conveyed what I was trying to say. He might have said, "Huh? Are you saying ...?" or "Do you really think so?" I could have then reviewed my words and detected the problem.
The "you're wrong" response not only revealed a negative assessment of my character but also devalued my opinion. My friend accepted the misspoken words as something I would conceivably say and then brushed the assertion aside as invalid. Which it was, in its misspoken form. But it was still a statement of opinion rather than fact and could have possibly contained something worth hearing if I had actually intended to say what I said.
I wonder if I can figure out a way to put a filter into my listening, to measure what I hear against the range of statements someone is likely to make at their best, and ask for verification when the words don't fit into that range.
I decided long ago that negative examples are as valuable as and sometimes more valuable than positive examples. This example of a friend who has apparently developed a rather negative view of my character, judging both by this most recent exchange and previous misunderstandings, seems to be a good source for learning about relationships.
5 comments:
This reminds me of the philosophical principle of charity, where one strives to be as charitable as possible when interpretting any ambiguous portion of a philosophical argument. To not do so (or worse, to do the exact opposite, i.e., assume the worst possible interpretation) tends to lead to a lot of wasted dialogue, confusion, bickering, and other unwanted outcomes.
On the other hand, not conforming to the principle of charity can sometimes net what appears to be an easy win in a philosophical debate, at least temporarily. Which is unfortunately what many people are looking for, especially among more competetive groups within academia, for example, or among those who are more concerned with appearances than actual legitimate philosophical progress.
Now I'm not sure whether the similarity of this concept will inspire any insight concerning the type of situation you described, but you never know.
Thanks, Andrew - for both the comment and the link. It is an interesting principle, which I'm sure requires more background in philosophy than I have to understand completely.
From the link:
1. The other uses words in the ordinary way;
2. The other makes true statements;
3. The other makes valid arguments;
4. The other says something interesting.
In my example, I used a word incorrectly, so #1 was an invalid assumption. Using the word incorrectly made my statement untrue or at least unprovable since it shifted the meaning from what is to what is possible (or not possible) in the future, so #2 fell by the wayside.
So would the principle of charity prompt the other person to notice the problem with the second statement and ask questions to see if #1 was true based on an acceptance of #3 and #4?
Do you find this principle to be easily incorporated into casual conversation? My problem is that there are only so many brain cells available for background analysis of a 'real time' conversation to send out the necessary 'does not compute' alarms.
:-)
The article is a good example of how simple concepts (such as the principle of charity) can often receive a very thorough (some would consider excessive) analysis by philosophers. :-) In general, I don't actively and explicitly apply the principle. (In fact, until looking at the linked article, I wasn't even aware of the detail that could be involved.) Usually, it seems enough to me to simply be in a proper state of mind for the interpersonal task at hand. For example, when having a philosophical discussion, I want my state of mind to be such that I am genuinely interested in figuring out and understanding what the other person is trying to communicate, so that I can properly assess it and compare it to my own ideas.
In casual conversation, a genuine interest in understanding the other person seems to be more of an unthought assumption, rather than an explicit goal. But maybe it would be useful to develop a habit of making this background assumption a little more explicit in ones mind.
Come to think of it, this relates to an idea of responsibility in communication that I sort of developed a while back. (My motivation for formulating was based on dealing with swear words, but that's irrelevant at the moment.) Essentially, I assert that when effective communication is desired by all parties involved, not only does one, when speaking, have a responsibility to choose ones words to best communicate their meaning to whoever is listening, but one also has an equal responsibility to interpret the speaker's words in such a way as to form the best guess possible regarding what the speaker meant. And importantly, even if one of the parties involved is not really fulfilling their responsibility, the responsibilities of everyone else should still be considered as remaining in full force. You can't be a lazy speaker just because the other person is being a lazy listener, and vice versa.
So how this affects me in casual conversation (or how I would like it to affect me): When I am listening, it is either a conscious or habitual goal of mine to properly interpret what another person is saying. And when I am speaking, it is similarly either a conscious or habitual goal to make it easy for listeners to properly interpret my meaning. And part of what goes into these two goals are that I should have a concsious awareness of who I am communicating with, since communicating with different people will often require that I speak or listen somewhat differently. And all of this is probably why so much of my written communications are so verbose, as I am proving so well right now.
I suppose the biggest dangers to this overall concept are states of mind which include goals that are in opposition to clear communication. For some people these states of mind are habitual (social paranoia, eagerness to maintain a certain social appearance, et cetera), but sometimes it's just a matter of something like being distracted or not being in the best mood for some unrelated reason. The latter cases are obviously more forgivable; with the former, however, people (including ourselves of course) should be encouraged to actively strive to eliminate the such habits. Assuming we all care about effective communication. If we couldn't agree on this, then it appears that we would be stuck.
Good thoughts. Do you think that part of understanding what the other person is saying sometimes involves lowering my expectation for that person to understand me? Can I listen better if I'm less concerned about making my own points?
It depends on the person, but I wouldn't be surprised if lowering your expectations of another person understanding you can help you in turn understand what they say in response. Some people will know you really well, and will naturally pick up what you're trying to say, so it's probably best to focus more on listening than speaking carefully then.
For me, though, there are plenty of times when I'm talking to someone who doesn't know me quite as well, or I'm talking over a certain medium (such as text) or about a certain subject that I think will complicate communication, and I think I by default revert to high verbosity and careful wording just to be safe, so I do focus more on making my point.
But something about myself that might answer one of your earlier questions: I find that I have a tendency to simply not say something, or avoid getting into a conversation with many people. The less I talk with people, especially on a casual level, the less I need to worry about all this stuff for mere small-talk, and the less I am in danger of making communicative mistakes that need to be remedied somehow. I talk casually with my roommates, of course, and a few friends at school, but I just find it much easier to have fewer friends and acquaintances overall, and have closer relationships with those that I do have. Perhaps partially due to all this brain-effort associated with effective communication, I don't think I could survive if I knew and kept up with a lot of people. I'd stress out or something. 'Tis just my personality type, I suppose. Yours is likely at least somewhat different in that regard.
But I will point out that it took me some time to feel comfortable with this. When you're at least a half-way likable person, and you are involved in some social environment (like school, church, working in a library), there tends to be a lot of pressure from many people to keep up at least a minimal amount of communication. I eventually gave up on caring much about that pressure. If I want to talk to someone, I will, and if I don't really care to, I generally won't. Perhaps not the best or most appropriate strategy, but it works for me.
Post a Comment