No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they
misunderstood others.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Communication. Conveying ideas verbally. Speaking. Sitting down to talk.
Letting someone know how you feel. Chatting. Writing a note. Sending an email.
Writing a letter. Penning an article. So many wonderful chances to be misunderstood!
Verbal communication is exceptionally important to human beings. It’s how we
coordinate our efforts towards goals both individual and social. It’s how we
attempt to convey concepts, relay information (vital or not). It’s how we try
to express the myriad of ideas bouncing around in our heads, like playing
billiards with only one pocket and we have one specific ball to get into that
pocket, but the other balls are in the way, and the angle sucks.
There’s a tendency for people to make assumptions about verbal communication.
We believe that everyone around us uses language the same way. I suffered
through English class in high school with my neighbor, after we played with
G.I. Joes together in grade school, so we MUST be using the same definitions and
applications for words, right? No. As the title quote today tries to relate:
we’re a linguistic mess. We each, every one of us, has slightly different
experiences in life, slightly different neurological programming through which
we sift those experiences, and these produce (often) mild variations in how we
use words.
So what? They’re just words! He/She knows what I mean! That’s stupid, we’re
both speaking English!
The “So what?” is that the assumption results in dramatic miscommunication that
spans the gamut from “I thought you wanted to stay in tonight” to “Why
would you think THAT was ok to say, you moron!” to the fate of nations resting
on professional examinations of diplomatic exchanges, trying to ensure that
precise meanings are understood. Yes, I know the image I used before this paragraph is used quite a bit, and I dislike it because ONE of them is right. A third party put a 6 or a 9 on the ground, and intended it to be interpreted in the way THEY saw it. But how do we KNOW their intent? We don't!
Children, perceiving themselves as the center of The Universe, often make up
their own languages and are frustrated when the adults around them don’t
understand. This is part of the process of learning that one is simply a single
mote in a vast dust storm known as The Universe, and the other motes don't revolve around us, but rather we ricochet off each other quite chaotically. Adults don’t have that luxury
very often. Someone who is expected to behave and communicate in an adult
manner must THINK about what they are saying. Caution must be exercised in
their word choice, with a consideration for the audience.
Today’s blathering idiocy was inspired by my scrolling through The Week’s
website and seeing an article about Elif Batuman's book The Idiot.
Ms. Batuman addresses the linguistic challenges we face by pitting a potential
romantic couple against each other with conflicting communication methods. She
brings up the idea of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language determines the
way you view and organize experiences in your mind. I mention this only as a
small part of the overall subject. The language we use in our own minds
(normally our first, “native” language) has a strong influence on how we feel
about the ideas we're trying to contemplate, and the language we use when speaking or writing places
specific limits on how we are able to convey concepts. In The Idiot, the author
writes
It was a curse, condemning you to the awareness
that everything you said was potentially encroaching on someone else's
experience, that your own subjectivity was booby trapped and set you up to have
conflicting stories with others. It compromised and transformed everything you
said. It actually changed what verb tense you used. And you couldn't escape.
There was no way to go through life, in Turkish or any other language, only
making factual statements about direct observations.
Anyone who has learned multiple languages can relate. Some languages lend
themselves to mathematics or engineering because of their precise approaches to
material existence or manner of expressing numbers producing an ease of
mathematical comprehension. Other languages provide a poetic approach that is
both emotive and descriptive, while unable to capture specific empirical ideas.
Moving from the macro-scale (German vs French) to the micro-scale, does my
neighbor mean the same thing as I when describing an event? Does my companion
convey immediacy or importance the same way as I? Often the answer is no, but
we don’t recognize it unless circumstances unfold such that we’re hit upside
the head with the realization.
Much of the research into this that is provided for public consumption focuses
on romantic relationships. The general theme is along the lines of “Men are
from Mars, Women are from (insert really distant planet here)”. Generalizations
are made, sometimes legitimately, often not. “But he/she said X!!”. Certainly,
but YOUR interpretation of ‘X’ is not the same as his or hers. And thus the
crux in that environment. But I believe this…challenge (?) extends further than
can appropriately be labeled Men vs Women. In my experience, each individual
has slightly different language usage, and 99.9% of the population either
doesn’t see it, or doesn’t think it’s important. One sibling, who may have a
high-reactive neurological make-up and thus is introverted to some extent, has
a different idea of what the word “exciting” means than their sibling who is a
low-reactive extrovert. They grew up in the same house, with the same parents,
same teachers, same city all their lives, but the word “friend” means something
different to each of them. Now expand out to the neighbor, who has different
parents, is a year older or younger than you, and had a cat rather than a dog.
Maybe one of their parents is an immigrant, and that parent’s native language
has only one word for “snow” because their ancestors didn’t experience snow
much, whereas you may have had an Inuit grandparent, and so learned 30 words
for “snow”, each being used dependently on the texture, density, weight, and
other characteristics of frozen water drops. How would a conversation about
skiing proceed? It would seem to be the same, but tiny differences would lead
to minor misunderstandings. Minor misunderstandings lead to different actions and reactions, which lead to major anger.
What if your audience is from a culture that doesn’t value precision in their
actions and products? "Early is on-time. On-time is late" makes perfect sense to me, but may never occur to someone from the culture I currently live in. What if, despite growing up in the same town as you,
your neighbor's parents’ or grandparents’ native language leads them to devalue a gender?
I tried studying one language that has blatant sexism built-in. It’s no wonder
members of that culture, men and women both, are misogynist; they’re saturated
with the idea that women are low-value members of society at an existential
level, and from before birth. Because they THINK in that language, there’s
little opportunity to conceive of another potential reality. How do you
communicate certain concepts with someone who’s fundamental perceptions of The
Universe are so dramatically different from yours that they are incapable of
understanding many of the ideas you hold as universal constants? Additionally,
how can you trust your own ability to understand THEM well? How can you reasonably expect to engage in ANY effective communication?
When speaking on a subject which I care deeply about, I have a tendency to
default to a rather precise articulation of American English. A few years ago I
realized that my subconscious intent was to convey my thoughts as precisely as
possible in order to avoid miscommunication. Guess what; it’s self-defeating.
Few people speak that way. I end up confusing most of my audiences. Conversely,
most people speak with slang, in a somewhat-vague manner, expecting their
audience to “just know” their meaning. To someone like me that’s infuriating.
It’s confusing. It’s frustrating. The only difference is that I recognize the
difference. Other than that, we’re both facing the same problem.
I’m not especially fond of the Huffington Post, but I ran across this article recently, and thought this paragraph quite appropriate:
What then is to be done if we are all speaking different languages
despite using the same words? Shall we stop trying to communicate altogether?
This is not a viable solution, as we still want to reach each other and be
known, still want to dialogue and exchange ideas. Because the system is limited
does not mean we limit our use of it. Rather, what is important is that we
recognize and honor the limitations of language in the face of our desire to
know each other, and keep all of this in the front of our consciousness. We
must continually remind ourselves that what we mean with our words is probably
not what another is hearing. When we receive feedback, in whatever form, that
we not immediately react to another based on the assumption that what we said
is what the other heard or more importantly, understood. Sometimes the response
we are receiving is indeed about what we meant, but so often it is not. We can
interrupt a large majority of the conflict that arises in our relationships
just by recognizing and staying mindful of the infinite variations in meaning
that exist within the very same words.
Taking a moment to recognize that what I thought they said might not be what
THEY thought they said would make an immense difference. Unfortunately we live
in a world that teaches us to make assumptions and to react from emotion.
Lovely words from various poets say “feeling is everything”, and western
society has taken this so far as to burden us with social expectations of
instant, emotional, reactions to everything, and to have quick verbalizations
of our emotions. The lyrics “Say what you wanna say / And let the words fall
out / Honestly I wanna see you be brave” have always irritated the heck out of
me. It’s a lovely-sounding song, but it encourages knee-jerk reactions to
thoughts and emotions that are dangerous. There's nothing "brave" about being uncaring of someone else's position on any given issue. There's noting "brave" about giving-in to impulses and not caring if your audience understands your or not, is offended or not. The song pressures the listener to never
consider their words and tailor them to their audience, but rather blurt-out
whatever they are thinking in a way THEY understand, and damn the
misunderstanding, full-speed ahead!
One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers, Stranger In A
Strange Land) wrote
“Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid
excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where
people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naive, the
unsophisticated deplore these formalities as ‘empty,’ ‘meaningless,’ or
‘dishonest,’ and scorn to use them. No matter how pure their motives, they
thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best. ”
While he was specifically referring to formal behavior between individuals
(calling someone “sir” or “ma’am”, showing respect, etc), the idea can be
applied here also. Keeping in mind that interaction between people, even those
ostensibly similar, is far from efficient and effective, we should show some
respect to our audience and make allowances for different communication
methods. Perhaps I communicate urgency in a way that you interpret as a lack
thereof, and vice-versa. Thus if I were to attempt to communicate that I wished
to engage in a specific activity or task immediately, you may believe that I
see it as non-emergent and get angry when I begin that task right away while
you felt something else was more important and perceived me as feeling similarly. Does this make sense? Semantic difference make an actual difference. The results of a miscommunication may be minor, or they could cause a long-term mess!
I wish I had an answer. I wish I knew of some technique that would influence the entire species such that we'd all interpret every word and concept the same way. I don't. All I can do is take these challenges into account in everything I do. I can try to recognize when related problems exist, and give benefit-of-the-doubt. I can ASK that others do the same, but I can't reasonably demand it.
Just know that if I'm using precise words and technical terms, I probably care about the subject quite a bit and am trying MY damnedest to get a specific message across. I'll try to not do that, and take my audience into account instead. Now could the rest of the world please do the same?
