4 ms·
I think the reason the author wasn’t _hearing it_ was that what she said didn’t make _sense_ to him. He couldn’t see the rationality of her argument (ratio = pr
by redbar0n 5y ago
I think the reason the author wasn’t _hearing it_ was that what she said didn’t make _sense_ to him. He couldn’t see the rationality of her argument (ratio = proportion), evidenced by his estimation that her reaction was wildly disproportionate. Perhaps because it was never about rationality/proportionality to her. She had a fundamentally irrationally based argument, and sometimes that’s ok and should carry value. The dirty dishes just _gave her a bad feeling_, and his response was akin to saying: but it shouldn’t!
I think the problem goes deeper than communication and listening: _he was valuing his judgement above hers_.
(There’s a word for people who are only willing to listen to their own advice/judgements and not comply with anything that doesn’t make _sense_ to them: headstrong.)
Maybe he valued his judgement higher because his judgement was rational and her point of view was irrational (based on emotions). I think this is a typical problem rational minded people (like HN readers) are likely to face in interpersonal relations. Especially if they have a belief system that values rationality above everything else.
- zelphirkalt 5y agoI finally have a word for that (headstrong), thank you. I have observed this about myself in many situations. People need to convince me of something, by "subjectively rational argument" rather than "because I feel so arguments". While I might be willing to do things that do not take much effort, even when they do not make that much sense, depending on the standing the other person has in my book, I am not willing to do things, that I am not convinced are making sense, when they go against my principles. And I do have some of those. Headstrong it is then.