I was very impressed with this comment, Smith. I am big on communication - the ethics, philosophy, and debate over its necessity. You illustrated the very point I usually fall back on: people are not mind readers. How can we expect other people to truly comprehend our intentions, thoughts, et cetera without communicating them to the best of our abilities? Are we not at fault if we believe that "Well, I shouldn't have to explain." These words are often said with contempt and typically, out of frustration.
People get easily frustrated when another person fails to understand what is being communicated. This brings up the question, "Who is really at fault?" Is it the person who has tried and tried again to explain him or herself? Is it possible that the listener doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend, or has the speaker not tried enough? At what point do we draw the line? At what point is the fault now that of the listener and not that of the speaker and vice versa?
Or... is the limitations of language to blame, rendering both the speaker and the listener blameless? If that is so... then what is the point?
What is the point? And thus... we come full circle in the argument.
It can go either way and sometimes both are to blame a little. As they say, it takes two to tango. Both the speaker and the listener need to give an effort for communication to be possible.
I have to say I agree with MOG. I believe it depends on the situation. Sometimes it is the speaker because they do not explain well enough or they do not try hard enough. It can be the listener who is at fault also if they do not listen well or at all or try to put forth some effort in trying to understand or at least ask questions about what they do not understand. I guess it can be hard to think of words to say how we feel. We are only as limited as our vocabulary.
Sometimes we have to let go of those who have hurt us and go on. We can take away the lesson the encounter gave us but if we hold onto that person we are only harming ourselves. We need to keep those that are honest and love us. Who know when they should say something even if it may hurt us but knowing that it will also help us. That is what true friendship is. Someone who can be frank and candid and let us know when we are doing good and when we mess up as well as be there for us as we are for them. Sorry if I am rambling on. I guess I am feeling sentimental.
You brought up an interesting set of thoughts when you said: "At what point do we draw the line? At what point is the fault now that of the listener and not that of the speaker and vice versa?"
While it is in our nature to explain ourselves, the communication gap often coincides with the maturity level of the speaker and the listener. If the listener cannot grasp the concepts that are spoken, often times both parties wind up in blame for the lack of understanding the other's point of view.
Regional thoughts that go along with the linguistics of their surroundings can generate confusion and thus create a gap in understanding if the proper use of the language is ignored. Semantics used could generate confusion as well in an online discussion setting. It took me several passes to read the entry to understand that objective reasoning was not going to happen in the discussion forum that I was participating in. Everything about it was called in slang, "wank".
It was this form of literary ripping that generated the tone that everyone that had participated in it, including myself, were out to "get" one another. The arguments were not sound, they were shallow, thin and very harsh. The words used were similar to razor blades that made tiny cuts to anyone that responded and it was laughable at best when I did engage in a verbal spar.
Going with the thoughts of is the speaker or the listener blameless in this matter, it highly depends if either side is willing to relent. There really was no point in the entry other than to rip apart the one in question who was the topic of discussion. Most of the ones participating were sycophants.
People get easily frustrated when another person fails to understand what is being communicated. This brings up the question, "Who is really at fault?" Is it the person who has tried and tried again to explain him or herself? Is it possible that the listener doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend, or has the speaker not tried enough? At what point do we draw the line? At what point is the fault now that of the listener and not that of the speaker and vice versa?
Or... is the limitations of language to blame, rendering both the speaker and the listener blameless? If that is so... then what is the point?
What is the point? And thus... we come full circle in the argument.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Sometimes we have to let go of those who have hurt us and go on. We can take away the lesson the encounter gave us but if we hold onto that person we are only harming ourselves. We need to keep those that are honest and love us. Who know when they should say something even if it may hurt us but knowing that it will also help us. That is what true friendship is. Someone who can be frank and candid and let us know when we are doing good and when we mess up as well as be there for us as we are for them. Sorry if I am rambling on. I guess I am feeling sentimental.
Reply
While it is in our nature to explain ourselves, the communication gap often coincides with the maturity level of the speaker and the listener. If the listener cannot grasp the concepts that are spoken, often times both parties wind up in blame for the lack of understanding the other's point of view.
Regional thoughts that go along with the linguistics of their surroundings can generate confusion and thus create a gap in understanding if the proper use of the language is ignored. Semantics used could generate confusion as well in an online discussion setting. It took me several passes to read the entry to understand that objective reasoning was not going to happen in the discussion forum that I was participating in. Everything about it was called in slang, "wank".
It was this form of literary ripping that generated the tone that everyone that had participated in it, including myself, were out to "get" one another. The arguments were not sound, they were shallow, thin and very harsh. The words used were similar to razor blades that made tiny cuts to anyone that responded and it was laughable at best when I did engage in a verbal spar.
Going with the thoughts of is the speaker or the listener blameless in this matter, it highly depends if either side is willing to relent. There really was no point in the entry other than to rip apart the one in question who was the topic of discussion. Most of the ones participating were sycophants.
Reply
Leave a comment