Avoiding Misunderstanding
A lot of people
complain that others extend the point being made to far more than what was
intended. Or to apply in contexts well beyond the intended scope. Note that I
am talking of misunderstanding of the genuine
kind here, not the deliberate one
practiced by politicians, journalists and those with an agenda.
Some of it is
unavoidable because the listener brings their perspective to the table. At
other times, the history and track record of the speaker contributes to the
problem. So is there no way out? Or can people put out explicit statements of
what they don’t mean, call out the
point beyond which they don’t want
their argument to be extended? Yes, this is hard work, but surely it is worth
doing if the topic is important enough, right? After all, it isn’t fair to
blame others for not seeing your point when you don’t put the effort to see why
they don’t see your point or the …
OK, so let’s see
how things played out when people have tried this approach of anticipating and
pre-empting misunderstanding.
Rachel Carson’s
1962 book, Silent Spring, was highly
controversial. Was the author criticizing all
tech and its adverse impact on the environment? Or was she presenting a more
nuanced take on the topic? Carson herself anticipated this criticism and tried
to forestall it with this passage at the beginning of the book:
“It
is not my contention that chemical pesticides must never be used. I do
contend that we have put poisonous and biologically potent chemicals
indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their
potential for harm.”
Few noticed these
lines. And so the book became controversial anyway!
So is this
approach doomed then? Let’s take another instance, this time the lines Richard
Dawkins wrote in Selfish Gene.
Anticipating that many would (to use the football phrase) attack the player,
not the ball:
“I know I am in danger of being
misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case
from an advocacy of what ought to be the case.”
In Dawkins’ case,
people did notice the line. While many disagreed with the theme of the book and
argued against it on merits, few went around saying that Dawkins was advocating
a dog-eat-dog world as the world we should aspire for.
So I guess there’s
hope after all. Just that there’s no fool proof method to avoid genuine
misunderstandings.
The subject of this blog has been something I have pondered for decades.
ReplyDeleteIt is still my belief that communication is among the toughest challenges of life. As the blog clearly states, "Some of it is unavoidable because the listener brings their perspective to the table", that is a major issue. That is Problem 1. 'Listening intrinsically' is almost a Herculian task, because most of us, by habit, hear while mind goes on filtering out parts of what is said and adding what one wants to be heard, entirely because, "That is what I want!" And, some people do introspect and come to a high level of objective view; many believe they are pretty objective while others particularly those who claim objectivity are bogus; the rest don't have any idea or interest in objectivity. No the major part of communication problem, it appears to me, lies is "paradigm penetrability"! Each one has a rigid paradigm, like as if the shell is made of some un-machinable iron alloy. :-)
Problem 2 is that many of us are capable of using words that convey ambiguously or without clarity. When confronted, we respond with, "I said if very clearly. Ask anybody!" In any case giving right words to thought is a great art and science. Not easy at all.
Problem 3: There is an inherent difficulty is most ideas and domains. If we leave aside the Western material sciences, I am yet find any method of even proposing a bench mark to evaluate something on truth, values, meaning, utility combined. Who can say, "This photo or painting deserves the first prize while another only second and yet another just third. Are rejected ones by the prize committee truly lacing in merit? Could it be that the judges lack merit to evaluate? This kind of scenario permeates through all domains.
I sometimes feel if any argument is worth a dime, because any argument can be drowned in opinion-driven words.