It is often said that we judge ourselves based on our intentions while we judge others based on their actions. Even if we work to give other people the benefit of the doubt by associating their actions with good intentions, it is still a factor we cannot know. We are essentially guessing a motive or reasoning behind a conclusion in order to make someone look better, but this way of looking at things is not always a positive thing. We would still be biased because our intent is to make a person out to be better than they probably are. It is often better than the opposite, where the worst intentions are assumed, but the best thing to do is act more like a third party and recognize the level of ignorance that is still going to be present – even in a situation where you are directly involved.
A person cannot judge another perfectly, as there will always be some element of guesswork in the observed action, even when something seems proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Humans are simply complicated creatures despite some of their baser instincts, and individual circumstance adds even more complexity. Once you take into consideration everything you don't know about a person, you can start to understand how many assumption have to be made in order to judge another human being. We can determine in a lot of scenarios whether an action is right or wrong, moral or immoral, but we rarely get a full look at what goes on in someone's head or what is felt within their heart. It is a fundamental barrier to human understanding that can only be partially reduced by communication.
It is said that actions speak louder than words, and in most cases that is true. However, we still make similar assumptions about words as we do actions. We cannot always tell what a person means when they communicate, just as we cannot know the significance or reasoning behind what they are doing. In fact, on the most basic level, both talking and writing are actions, so judging words or general communication is going to require from us the same sort of reasoning that is applied when we attempt to understand what a person is doing physically. Both actions themselves and words themselves are going to have associated values that we will automatically attribute to them when no context is provided. In both scenarios, accurate judgement requires true knowledge of intent. We have to know what someone is trying to communicate just as we would need to know what someone is trying to accomplish and why.
Making assumptions about what is being communicated also means we are assuming what logic they are using, because personal reasoning is what gets us from step A to step B. If we ask somebody a question, the answer may be dependent on why we are asking or how the question was formulated. This is especially an issue when one person recalls empirical information in their mind to form a question, but does not share the information that is recalled. The answer is likely going to just involve the basic reasoning behind the more generic version of the question because it cannot be assumed that the empirical information is known by the one asking the question or is even relevant. The one answering the question may also not know such empirical data as well. To truly communicate, one must also share the context behind their words.
Let me give an example. If I were to ask another person why the next generation of a phone has greatly improved specs or functionality, the answer is obvious. Why wouldn't the next generation be a better product? The question itself would make you think the other person is stupid or not thinking clearly. The problem is that this ignores the whole history of the type of phone that has been produced for several years. If the device has had a negligible level of improvement over the years, but then experiences a drastic change in performance the next year, it no longer remains a simple successor of the old device. Looking at history can create a scenario where details jump out at you because they alter the status quo, but the more general question about why the status quo is what it is instead of why it is specifically changing will naturally cause people to respond negatively. Instead of addressing something specific, you ask something vague, and a person cannot properly make the assumption about what has yet to be communicated.
In many cases, this problem can be solved by restating a question or simply trying to better illustrate what is meant. However, this is not always possible. If someone reacts violently to a misunderstanding, there might not be a chance to alter their perception. If you comment on something online or type an email, there is considerable delay before you can straighten something out because you must wait for someone else to fully state their response (which will be impacted by their misunderstanding). The real way to solve this is for both sides to withhold judgement until it is clear the intent or logic behind the words is known. It can be as simple as asking followup questions, but such a thing can be impossible if we form an emotional response first that directs future activity. The ideal way to communicate is to stop all emotional responses until the values associated with the words are properly validated or corrected by confirming the intent of the individual, and that requires patience.
No comments:
Post a Comment