- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following is from a comment in another thread. I want to address it in this post, since I believe recognizing the tendency it highlights – and learning to minimize that tendency – is a critical part of moving through Stage 4 and shedding MUCH of the conflict we experience. It also is a critical aspect of charity, imo. (I apologize to the person who wrote it, since I don’t mean this as a personal criticism at all.) Quote:I got the impression that you were trying to say . . . but maybe I’m reading too much into your comments.
I am a parser by nature, but I also choose to parse specifically to avoid “getting the impression” and “reading too much into (people’s) comments”. I have found in my life that when I don’t parse, and especially when I rely on reading between the lines for what people “mean to say”, I often end up being wrong about what they really meant to say – and sometimes I end up being radically wrong. I have learned this the hard way in too many situations, and I determined quite a while ago not to have it happen again. I have not succeeded completely in that, especially because all of us really do mis-speak occasionally and partly because I don’t always follow my own commitments, but I believe MANY of the things we castigate people for saying and believing are things they don’t say, don’t believe and would be mortified to know that someone thinks they have said and believe those things.
My own general rule is to believe that someone doesn’t mean more than what they say.I know enough liars (including those who will say anything) to know that’s not a universal rule, but I still choose to believe that about someone until they prove me wrong. I also grant people the right to change their minds about things, so I try not to pull out old quotes to dismiss newer ones. (Now, if the “old” quote is only a week prior to the “newer” one . . .) My point is quite simple:
I take a lot of time and spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to make sure I say only what I mean to say – and that I actually say what I mean to say. Seriously, it probably takes me FAR more time per word to post and comment here than it does for anyone else who posts and comments here. I use all kinds of disclaimers and qualifiers to avoid extremes and overly-broad generalizations. (Just as an example, I have reworked and reworded this paragraph at least three times already – just to make sure it is worded as well and clearly as I am capable of wording it.) I still screw up sometimes and write something that doesn’t convey exactly what I mean, but I almost never write something that requires someone to read between the lines to find what I really mean.
I think lots of people are like that – but their ability to accomplish that objective varies radically. I still grant them the consideration of only holding them to what they actually say – since that is what I desire from them. I don’t want to be held accountable for what someone thinks I am implying or assumes I probably mean; I want my words to be taken on their own merit and addressed for what they mean in and of themselves.
When I do that, I find I am offended less often – and I am able to pinpoint more precisely exactly why I am offended when it does occur. I also am able to converse with the other person more productively – since they don’t end up getting defensive over my misunderstanding of their words.
There is not much else that can derail a conversation more quickly than insisting that someone said what they themselves “know” they didn’t say.Why did I write this post? Mostly, it was to encourage everyone here and elsewhere to perhaps slow down a little, focus solely on what others actually say and look for ways to view what is said charitably – even if you then move on to real disagreement with what it said or written. In this case, I believe the Golden Rule is about as universal as it can be.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t want to be held accountable for what someone thinks I am implying or assumes I probably mean; I want my words to be taken on their own merit and addressed for what they mean in and of themselves.
[/quote]
What you say is interesting but in something as almost one dimensional as an internet forum taking words on their own merit can be problematic. In face to face conversation the words are only a part of what’s going on. Tone of voice, facial inflections, body language, etc. all go into trying to interpret and process another’s conversation. In a forum like this words alone can be extremely limiting. If you’re acquainted with a person’s other posts you may begin to place the words in the context of the person as a TBM, sincere skeptic, sarcastic smart ass, or nice person with something worth reading. As careful as you might try to be or expect others to be you have to basically be ready to do two things. Assume good will and be ready to explain yourself. If someone says you said black when you know for a fact you said white, it may not be because the other person is stupid or has English as a second language. Sometimes we hear and don’t or see and don’t. The best thing as I said is to assume good will and be ready to explain yourself and if the person still says you said black, then ban them. Or something.
Interesting, GBSmith. Prior to your post, I would have maintained that the words are the only thing we have to rely on, judge, or interpret in a message board such as this. But, you’re quite right in that previous experiences reading a particular posters comments can certainly taint or influence our interpretations. Words are still primary, but we may pick up certain subtleties that might only be available to those who have read that person’s messages time and again. I’ve noticed that phenomenon especially on here, being somewhat new and somewhat sporatic. Other people interpret comments far differently than I would, but then I realize that their interpretations were based on previous information that I didn’t have. There is an oft misquoted study by a researcher named Mehrabian that identifies how much communication occurs through words alone. The answer, if I remember correctly (this may be another example of someone misquoting Mehrabian), is that words communicate about 7% of the message, tone of voice about 32% and body languge about 62%. Now, the study really looked at the communication of emotions and feelings. Words convey relatively little of that. But, obviously on a message board, words are still primary… most of what we communicate must be with the words. So, if we’re used to not being so careful with our words, it would make sense that we may have trouble getting our point across at times because no one can see that sly halfway crooked grin as we slyly type, or how hard we s t r i k e the keys when we’re pissed.
I always liked Yogi Berra’s quotes. He used to say something like, “I didn’t really say most of the things I said.”
So what if you have a relationship with someone (spouse, family, or even fellow forum poster) who reads into your words, as GB stated, based on prior history? Is it important to get them to parse words like you do, or establish how we should take the words said as face value to understand each other, or if they are different in personality, and just don’t communicate that way and are confident their prior experiences have shown they are more often right when reading into things, can we convince them they can’t do that…or do I have to change how I communicate to just continue to clarify until they get it?
Communication between individuals is difficult.
Quote:Communication between individuals is difficult.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Absolute Truth!
Fwiw, if I know someone is prone to misunderstand me, I do feel a responsibility to take even more care in what I say and how I say it – OR to stop talking with them. Either option is a legitimate option.
Ray, I think that no matter how much effort we put into writing something, how pithy, precise and transparent we seek to make it, there will always be people who misunderstand it, misinterpret it, or project their own meanings onto it. It’s inevitable. I think this is because language is never as precise as we’d like to think. Even common words and phrases have slightly different meanings to different people. Believe me, this has kept linguists, and philosophers, and would-be semioticians studying their entire lives, trying to work out the meta-discourse of everyday conversation.
Sometimes we have to try and guess the meaning of stuff when it’s unclear. And we always have to try and work out what the other person is thinking when we read something. This goes awry of course.
Sometimes people use a lot of subtext and double meaning in their conversations (I don’t sense that you do, Ray), and they may project that onto other people. I once tried to calm an Internet discussion down by pleading privately with one of the people. Result, I was called a sleaze, and accused of threatening said person. They posted my private emails to the group, and the whole purpose was undone. They had read a whole bunch of hidden messages into my writing. I was upset, because an individual, who had never been to this country, was stirring up enmity between several people I knew about situations I had witnessed myself. I wanted to stop more pain and bickering, not censor or mug the conversation.
Quote:Ray, I think that no matter how much effort we put into writing something, how pithy, precise and transparent we seek to make it, there will always be people who misunderstand it, misinterpret it, or project their own meanings onto it. It’s inevitable.
I agree, Sam – but I can try my hardest not to be one of them. I really believe that is a core aspect of charity.
I have participated for quite a while in the Bloggernacle, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a discussion thread and wanted to just scream – because people were talking past each other and not appearing to even be trying to understand the post and the other commenters. I’ve also read posts and threads criticizing a particular General Conference talk or apostolic statement, and, as often as not, my immediatae internal response was, “That’s not what the person actually said!”
There’s an important concept in here – that we often create our own issues when none need exist.“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” – so I try really hard not to create issues that need not be. One of the ways I do that is not allowing myself to read between the lines when I am conversing with others – unless, as has been mentioned, I have a history with that person and understand what they mean when they say certain things. Even then, however, I have found that it is way too easy to read those things into statements from those people when they really aren’t there. Quote:“We don”t believe what we see; we see what we believe.”
I think this applies often when interpreting what people say, especially, as has been mentioned, when we don’t have the extra clues that usually accompany face-to-face communication. Without those clues, I believe it is important to err on the side of charity and parsing rather than assumption (
which almost always is negative) and intuiting. Assume good will. Sometimes it just comes down to that. Internet discussions are different that any others in that you think of what you want to say, write it, edit it and then post it and nobody interrupts you. The points you want to make may be based on what someone said five posts ago and in doing so may ignore or contradict what someone wrote just before you. You may be angry or upset by a cheap shot that someone took just to draw a little blood or score a few points by being cute or sarcastic. We can’t control those sorts of things but only our responses to them. But as careful as we think we’re being with what we write we shouldn’t be surprised if someone doesn’t get it. I’ve made what I felt were careful and reasoned comments on Mormon Matters and have people respond with so much sarcasm and disdain that it oozed off the screen and down onto the keyboard. You can reply in kind but that’s how wars start. And just like no one wins email fights, no one wins internet arguments. Enough pontification for one night. Ray, this happens to me all the time on discussion groups. I can’t tell you the number of times I have to ask people to go back and read what I actually said, as opposed to what they think I said. Occasionally, I’ll wish I phrased something in a different way, but that’s another matter. Old-Timer wrote:The following is from a comment in another thread. I want to address it in this post, since I believe recognizing the tendency it highlights – and learning to minimize that tendency – is a critical part of moving through Stage 4 and shedding MUCH of the conflict we experience. It also is a critical aspect of charity, imo. (I apologize to the person who wrote it, since I don’t mean this as a personal criticism at all.)
Quote:I got the impression that you were trying to say . . . but maybe I’m reading too much into your comments.
I am a parser by nature, but I also choose to parse specifically to avoid “getting the impression” and “reading too much into (people’s) comments”. I have found in my life that when I don’t parse, and especially when I rely on reading between the lines for what people “mean to say”, I often end up being wrong about what they really meant to say – and sometimes I end up being radically wrong.
My own general rule is to believe that someone doesn’t mean more than what they say.…I don’t want to be held accountable for what someone thinks I am implying or assumes I probably mean…When I do that, I find I am offended less often – and I am able to pinpoint more precisely exactly why I am offended when it does occur…In this case, I believe the Golden Rule is about as universal as it can be. In case anyone is wondering, it was me that said this. I’m sorry if I offended anyone and I don’t really mean any harm or disrespect to Ray or anyone else on this forum. I’m not consciously trying to read people’s minds or dismiss their arguments or ideas out-of-hand without trying to understand the points they are trying to make. I think part of it is just an unconscious thing where we tend to categorize people into stereotypes like TBM apologists, skeptics, cynics, etc. without really thinking about it and then it’s easy to start to expect their thought process to follow a certain pre-determined pattern regardless of what they actually say or don’t say.
I understand if people get offended by this because it bothers me too as much as anyone if people do the same thing to me because I feel like I’m unique and that no one really knows exactly what I am thinking and why no matter how well I try to explain myself. I guess it’s always easier to criticize others than to step back and look in the mirror. These misunderstandings are hard to avoid in an open forum like this and there are many blogs out there that are a lot worse than this one as far as that goes but I’ll try my best to avoid this kind of thing as much as possible from now on.
DA, I really didn’t mean this as any kind of a rant toward you. Please believe that. Old-Timer wrote:DA, I really didn’t mean this as any kind of a rant toward you. Please believe that.
No I don’t really think that and I don’t take these comments personally. This idea applies to more people than just me. It’s fairly easy to just assume you know that Ray thinks this or someone else thinks that without paying much attention to their latest comments. Sometimes we lose patience and start to think “I’ve heard this all before” and start filling in the blanks even if these assumptions are not exactly accurate. In any case, I really didn’t mean to misrepresent anyone or claim that they said things they didn’t so if it ever sounds like that just let me know and I’ll admit when I am wrong.
Quote:It’s fairly easy to just assume you know that [someone] thinks this or someone else thinks that without paying much attention to their latest comments.
Sometimes we lose patience and start to think “I’ve heard this all before” and start filling in the blanks even if these assumptions are not exactly accurate.I’d kind of like to go back, re-write this post, and just make it be DA’s comment above. Perfectly said.
Old-Timer wrote:Why did I write this post? Mostly, it was to encourage everyone here and elsewhere to perhaps slow down a little, focus solely on what others actually say and look for ways to view what is said charitably – even if you then move on to real disagreement with what it said or written. In this case, I believe the Golden Rule is about as universal as it can be.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I’ve been on other LDS sites, and I’ve been amazed at how rude apparently active Church members can be to others. For example, I’ve seen some people get accolades from others by making consistent judgments about people’s character. Someone posts a problem they have, and then someone responds:
“I think you have a victim complex and your whole post drips of “woe is me”. Sometimes you just have to suck it up”.
or, here’s another one:
“I think you’re needy and overzealous”
or
“I think you need to repent and stop being such a whiner”.
Comments like those never create goodwill, and there are certainly nicer ways of helping peolple see character weaknesses, if they can even be identified by “reading between the lines” in their posts (I think there’s some question about whether such character judgements are even accurate by the way).
I often reach out to the casualities of such harsh behavior, and private message them showing support. They always write back thanking me.
And, while I’m on this, I would hope that when someone commits themself to a forum, others would make note of when they stop posting, or welcome them back after a long absence. The harshness I see in some posts, and from moderators on other sites (not this one yet) makes me wonder if anyone cares about relationships anymore on on online discussion forums in general. I think we should — they are supposed to be ‘communities’ which by their nature should provide people with a sense of belonging.
I think this is really interesting and relevant to online discussion forums. I too have been blasted by others over something they THOUGHT I said, when in actuality I didn’t mean THAT interpretation to come to the fore.
And when you try to explain yourself, people think you’re just trying to talk yourself out of what you just said. They simpy refuse to believe you when you explain what you actually meant.
This gets even worse when you have had an unpleasant experience with someone in the past. Every time they read something you write, there is the possiblity of “relationship interference’ — where the negative experience in the past causes them to distort or personalize your meaning in the present.
I’m not sure how to overcome this. I have one situation now elsewhere where someone repeatedly made character judgments of others to the point of being offensive — to new members of the forum, etcetera. Recipients of the harsh comments would respond with “Fine, I just won’t come here anymore then”, they were so offended. I routinely showed my support for these people by sending them a private message to smooth the situation, showing my support for them in spite of the harsh treatment they received from others on the forum. The harsh people also did it to me and I kept letting it go, and letting it go. One of these harsh posters had a long history on the forum, and seemed to be able to make harsh comments without impunity. Often, they were backed up by a moderator, which made it even worse. Now, these were openly harsh comments like “I think you’re immature, petty, and needy. And I think you need to repent”.
I took it upon myself to send a private message to the worst of them indicating my concern that such comments were unhelpful to others, hurt relationships, and that I found them offensive. I tried to do this in kindness and in gentleman’s language. Afterwards, I showed an increase in love by giving thanks, responding favorably and kindly to posts, and chiming in on joke-related discussions.
Unfortunately, the person never responded to my private message. This proved to be a mistake. I noticed an increase in opposition from this person afterwards, culminating in chastising me for being overly snappy in my posts, and other nasty comments borne out of negative interpretation of my words. I value my participation in that other forum, however, this person now ruins the experience for me, because s/he tends to hijack many discussions I start, or participate in, with “relationship interference” comments, such as “kindly stop being so [place perceived character weakness here]”.
Here are some principles I try to abide by, and please forgive me if I ever seem to violate them here; it’s not intentional:
1. Always be nicer than you think you should be.
2. Try to assume the best motives in people consistent with the facts.
3. Avoid inflammatory language. Use the words “disturbed”, “concerned”, and not “upset” or “angry”, for example.
4. Avoid the temptation to one-up people. Hold your tongue and let the moment or opportunity to do so pass.
5. When someone who has offended you reaches out to you with a question, answer it nicely and with appreciation. Don’t use it as an opportunity to put them down.
6. If the person who offended you gets ganged up-upon by others in the forum, or if people start disagreeing with them, don’t join the fray. Let the moment pass.
7. Use private communication to iron out relationship issues so you don’t further damage relationships by placing the conflict in an open forum.
I believe online relationships are just as important as face-to-face relationships, and I hope/think the Savior would think the same thing….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.