One of the more common and lamentable tendencies in conversations, particularly in written and online contexts, is the inability of context to be properly understood between writer and reader. As someone who ponders much over issues of communication and miscommunication, I often wonder what sort of information and context needs to be added in order to at least increase the chances of successful understanding, given that the very direct and blunt way I think clearly does not often convey the sentiments and feelings from which my comments spring. I suppose having spent most of my life learning how to hone my words like a sharp sword that it is far easier for my words to cut than it is for them to heal or encourage sometimes. Clearly more time will have to be spent on such matters.
How does one provide a larger context so that one can be understood? It ought to be admitted at the start that providing enough context will not guarantee a conversation going well, or guarantee agreement between two people or two sides in a dispute. Sometimes there are different conceptions of truth, different worldviews, and between different worldviews there can generally only be (at best) an agreement to disagree. What I find, in practice, is that such fundamental worldview differences are rather rare. Far more common is that a comment is made with a particular feeling and that others filter it through their own emotional context and then add all kinds of meanings and signifiers to the text that were not present in the original communication. Once that happens, it becomes a difficult task to provide the context after the fact, when people have hurt feelings.
Tone and body language make a great deal of difference in face-to-face conversation, but even there one cannot assume that everything that is felt will be shown. When these contextual clues are absent, we must be extremely wary about trusting our own interpretations of someone’s writing, in the awareness that we lack key information. Once we are honest and humble enough to admit that we often lack sufficient information to judge one’s intentions, we are faced with a variety of possible actions that can help provide the context. First, we can simply decide to give the benefit of the doubt in any ambiguity, so as not to take offense unless such offense is directly and clearly stated. Second, we can try to find the missing contextual information that we would need to fairly judge someone’s tone and mood. Third, we can admit our ignorance and simply withhold judgment for the moment. Adopting any or all of these solutions, depending on circumstance, is far wiser than assuming that we know what someone is trying to say when we usually do not.
Given that we are all aware of just how harshly and wrongly judged we are by others, it is remarkable how often we trust our own judgments with incomplete information as accurate. All too often we simply do not know what we do not know. If we had some idea of the extent of our ignorance or our misunderstandings, we would be far more humble and far less dogmatic in our claims. We would also be far more understanding to others than we often are. But because we are largely ignorant of the extent of our ignorance, all too often we presume ourselves far more wise and discerning and knowledgeable than we really are. Even when other people can recognize our ignorance, our pride and self-will prevent us from conceding the point, even where it is obvious.
This is all part of the context in which we live and move, and in which we communicate. None of us are impartial fact checkers, and we all have ideological commitments, some of which are solid, but some of which are on extremely shaky ground. Worse, we often have authorities that we rely on that are in contradiction to each other (like, say, the Bible and Austrian Economics or Communism). Even when our worldviews are on solid ground, limitations of time and the fact that many of us (myself included) tend to talk and write about small aspects of large topics mean that the whole context of our actual beliefs and opinions is not often known, at least not from a single post or a single comment or a single conversation. And both giving and understanding that larger context is not an easy matter at all.
Thanks be to God (I really deserve none of the credit myself) that over time I have gotten at least somewhat better at reading contextual clues over the course of my life. And by somewhat better I mean that I can sometimes recognize an awkward situation after the fact, or tell sometimes when someone is uncomfortable and occasionally even understand why. Given my natural tendencies to be blissfully unaware of such matters, such modest levels of achievement represent significant improvement. I do not think myself alone in that, but at the same time, I find that my own difficulties in understanding the contextual clues of others make me more sympathetic to the difficulties other people have understanding my own. I imagine that those people who take the effort to really understand how others think and operate are similarly rewarded with greater compassion and understanding.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Amen! Speaking for myself, I am completely clueless and cannot connect the dots. Although I understand words and how they are defined (and used within sentence structure), the nonverbal learning disorder I was born has never provided the capacity for me to handle the social code of human interaction into their communication. This added dimension layers verbal and even written language into a frustrating exercise for me personally.
LikeLike
Right, and that is a major difficulty. That difficulty works both ways, as I find that other people are often equally unable to put together the pieces successfully because the right clues are not given. It would appear, at least from our anecdotal experience, that the same absence of an ability to read the social cues of others leads to an inability in giving other people those same cues as well. Theoretically, then, paying attention to the cues one was sending might make it more possible to pick up on the cues others were sending, but clearly help from God in the matter would be much appreciated also.
LikeLike
Human communication is a challenge extending beyond the mere knowledge of a language.
Misunderstandings may come from evil spirits bent on destroying you, others, or just simpler human misunderstandings.
I’ve found it’s best to surround myself with people who seem to understand me easily. Some others, that I may even want to be close to, seem to not be able to understand me for whatever reason.
Perfect communication cannot be attained between imperfect people. Perfection can hardly be attained in anything.
I really agree with this blog. I’ve been where you are, worked it out to a great extent & gone onward, but the basic principles always exist in conversations between people.
There’s nothing that can be done to bring to minds together in some cases. I just choose to leave those people alone who don’t understand me. We cannot be good friends with everybody. But enemies can usually be avoided.
I’ve developed a style of communication where I tend to emphasize commonalities & minimize differences. You delicately learn their positions & then respect them. You conservatively or humbly state your own views, in a non-dogmatic fashion, even if you are convinced of the rightness of your view. Saying something like, “It seems to me…”, or “the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate…”. This style of conversation keeps defenses low & pleasantness high. All depart having had a congenial conversation, even discussing differences but without personal attacks.
I’ve always had the impression that the English have traditionally been excellent at being gentlemanly & cordial even in trying situations.
Even with worldly Christians I choose usually to emphasize our commonly help beliefs & principles, rather than the prickly details of our differences.
Perhaps conversational skills have been somewhat neglected in our computer age. Traditionally we’d learn them by listening to others, or reading fairly well written literature.
If we meet someone who simply can’t grasp who we are, or who continues to jump to erroneous conclusions about who we are, they are just one we don’t want or need in our life. They’d make our life a living nightmare. Try once or twice, but quickly move on to greener pastures. Like sales, its a numbers game. There will always be some there who don’t want, or don’t realize the value of what we are selling.
LikeLike
Well, your comments are quite wise, and I do agree, but there are many cases where one has to deal with others even where there is not an initial understanding. I’m generally pretty patient when it comes to understanding where others come from, but I’m also aware that I generally require the same sort of patience myself. As someone who reads very good literature I find that I have developed an elegant prose style, but unfortunately that style has not been able to convey the desired message in many circumstances, and so I am pondering what needs to be changed about it, and how to change it. It is a work in practice, obviously.
LikeLike
Bravo! Bravo! (Clapping rapidly!) You had me laughing as I read this piece. Partly because I’ve been where you are – rudely beginning to learn our own weaknesses, & partly because you just describe my feelings & thoughts so well! I feel I know exactly what you mean! (Notice the qualifier here?). Hahahaha!!
I used to think I was so perfect in my memory. I was SURE of some thing. Really, I was. & then evidence was brought forth that proved I was wrong! Oh man! I was really shaken, because I KNEW I was right in my recall. I began to doubt myself more often that, & not be so dogmatic.
Lol! I needed that good laugh. 🙂 it really is timeless truth. It really seems a shame that we humans waste time relearning what others have already gone through. But God wants us each to learn, so we must each go thru the same classes & grades in school.
LikeLike
I’m glad you appreciated the laugh. We all need a bit of humor sometimes.
LikeLike
If it is of any consolation, I am STILL realizing the weaknesses of my own judgments of situations & of others. I’ve forgotten what is was now, but just about a day ago I realized some of the knowledge I’ve just ‘gone on’, lived by, & acted upon was simply due to something or way my parents had taught me. Yes, I trusted them as parents, but it’s 30 years afterward now. Shouldn’t I revisit & check out all the facts they purported that I base my judgments upon? Wouldn’t any good scientist research to check his basis of facts? Well, maybe not. Its so easy to just not take the time to look into that. (Whatever it was in my case, it was a very small issues or matter. I think it was something regarding food or diet that I have practiced unthinkingly for decades without questioning it.)
LikeLike
I don’t think that anyone will ever cease finding out things that we need to improve on. We have to be really aware of the fact that God knows the heart and we do not, and never forget that fact in our interactions with others, because the way others talk about situations is so different than the way that we think about them.
LikeLike
When it comes to finding people with which I can discuss a complex or controversial subject in depth & fairly dispassionately there seems to be very few. For this reason & others common communications remains fairly shallow. I’m stating the obvious.
I also understand the references to ‘body language, & ‘cues’ of which I also am fairly ‘clueless’, but maybe not as much as some. I’ve read & studied about that more this year & am happy to have learned a little better what to look for. I’m too plain & blunt, & that seems off-putting to some others. Pity normal people for that. 😉
I may be slightly missing a point of this piece in that I don’t get this quote, “there are many
cases where one has to deal with
others even where there is not an
initial understanding”. Does this refer to when two parties begin ‘at odds’ so to speak, as in real conflict resolution where an entire bridge must be built? Or just when two have such divergent backgrounds that their basis of understanding is practically nonexistent?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to co-opt this comments section on my own musings, but I enjoy a good discussion occasionally on a subject that I think I know. (I try to inert qualifiers everywhere now! Lol. They’re sort of like legal disclaimers, both for liability reasons & as an ‘out’ for obvious reasons.)
TK
LikeLike
I’m someone who is generally very blunt and I tend to come off far more harshly than I really feel. For example, when I am frustrated and annoyed people think I’m steaming out of the ears, and I’m not even really upset. (If they are afraid of my frustration, they should see what my temper really looks like. Or maybe not.) Finding people to talk about subjects dispassionately may be difficult. I’m certainly not perfect in that regard myself.
Concerning the quote I made, what I meant was that there may be people that have to deal with each other even if they do not have a bridge to comprehend where others are coming from and one has to be built from scratch. While I would agree that when it comes to friends that we choose for ourselves that we ought to find people that can understand us reasonably quickly and well (there is no sense in wasting time with the uninterested and unsympathetic), there are some people one does not choose to deal with but has to deal with anyway (family members, coworkers), and we ought to be able to make the best of it anyway.
LikeLike
* I read part of this article to my Mom today. She liked it a lot. 🙂 We had been having conversation while we worked a few days ago about how her ‘boyfriend’ just doesn’t ‘get’ when she’s upset, or why she gets upset. They love each other a lot & have so much in common, but this one issue causes sharp division, & because of it they have decided after five or so years to just be friends.
* The gentleman will say or do something that ‘rubs’ my Mom ‘the wrong way’. Then she gets a bit perturbed. He takes offense that she is disturbed & starts to explain that she shouldn’t be upset, he simply meant so-and-so.. She says, “Please just be quiet a while for me to calm down.” But he won’t do it. He keeps going on & on. Evidently he cannot detect when, what or why she gets upset over things said.
* Mom explained to me that she has a few sensitivities. She said she grew up & lived most her life in a less than ideal circumstances. She said it is understandable that she has these little issues. They’re part of her nature. She has tried to explain to him these things but he just clams up when she is talking. He doesn’t seem to ‘get’ her in this most important way. (He is in his 80s & has had a remarkable life, marriage, & career in real estate probably being worth (or certainly having earned) well over a million dollars. He is still active in business. Yet he struggles with these relatively simple relationship issues & he just can’t understand my Mom. 😛
TK
LikeLike
That’s sad and funny at the same time. I hope it won’t be like that between me and others. I certainly have lived my life in less than ideal circumstances, and I’d like to think that I’m understanding of others and their sensitivities, but obviously I have some work to do on that count to demonstrate it effectively. I have some time though before I end up like your mom and her friend.
LikeLike
Pingback: Shared Context And The Length Of Writings | Edge Induced Cohesion