4 ms·

> But people do get it wrong, and a girlfriend once confessed to me, somewhat exasperated: "I can't read you". To which I said: "You should try listening to me

> But people do get it wrong, and a girlfriend once confessed to me, somewhat exasperated: "I can't read you". To which I said: "You should try listening to me instead". > Communication ≫ Reading Mostly true, except sometimes people have a habit of saying one thing and doing another. Ultimately, actions are all that count in a relationship. Maybe that's what she was responding to?

mpweiher 1y ago
Nope, the exact opposite. I was and am extremely congruent between my actions and my words. This is not easy. She ignored my words, tried and failed to "read" me instead and then was baffled when my actions were congruent with my words and not her reads. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Ntrails 1y ago
  A tremendous frustration at the inability to say what you mean and mean what you say has plagued me for years
- etruong42 1y ago
  I'm going to assume a hetero relationship, in which case your experience is a common one. Intersex communication is trickier than intrasex communication. The lived experience between men and women are different (duh). One way I have rationalized the experience of "women not saying what they mean" and "women not listening to what men say" that have some acceptance among women I'm acquainted with is women having the common experience of being considered pushy when communicating in ways that might be called "direct" if a man were to say the same things. So out of necessity, women may end up communicating indirectly and women may end up reading between the lines for reasons that are very easy to empathize with once considered. Communication is so automatic for us that we may not even realize or understand how we communicate. So many people don't even take the time to understand their own thoughts, and understanding our own communication is many times harder because you have to inspect your own thoughts and be constantly building a model for how your communication is affecting the minds of the people around you. You had a specific idea for how communication works, just because you're both speaking the same language (e.g. English), in many ways, you might not have been speaking the same language since the ideas one person intended to transmit in good faith still did not end up in the mind of their audience.
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    I'll just point you back to my original post in this thread: yes, I used to even be very impressed by this, and also just accepted that there are two different but otherwise equal forms of communication. I have since learned better. These two forms of communication definitely exist, for example Paul Watzlawick refers to them in axiom 4 of his 5 axioms of communication: Human communication involves both digital and analog modalities: This axiom refers back to the use of non-verbals and system strategy explained in the first axiom. It is mostly related to the digital content of communication within a relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axi... However, these are not co-equal. As I wrote, analogue communication can be very precise, you can often get very fine nuances across. But it is also always open to interpretation and hence error prone. Precise but not accurate. Since it is always open to interpretation, it simply cannot be used for verification, but that is exactly what some people use it for, especially women. This is understandable, but leads to catastrophe, because it is based on tuning in emotionally, so it fails horribly when the receiver is emotionally involved. It's a common theme that otherwise really receptive and aware women fall for people who everyone else can clearly see are horrible. How? Reliance on analogue communication/"reading". It ain't reliable. "However, analogue and digital in terms of communication have nothing to do with this physical definition of the term. When we communicate, analogue means that what is said is open to interpretation, it includes facial expressions and gestures and means non-verbal communication (e.g., rolled eyes, grimaces). Digital, on the other hand, means that what is said refers only to the factual content (e.g., the statement "the experimental report must be prepared") and leaves no room for interpretation." https://www.iapm.net/en/blog/axioms-of-communication/#idx5 https://www.iapm.net/en/blog/axioms-of-communication/#idx5 One of the areas where I learned to use analogue "communication" (receiving-side) is interpreting poems: you first leave yourself open, read the poem and let it induce feelings in you. That's the analogue part. Then you interpret those feelings the poem induced, and try to find out how the text did that. If you just interpret poems "digitally", it probably won't work at all. If you just interpret it using your analogue receptors, your interpretation will be flat. Combine both: that's the ticket! But everyday communication is not poetry, and in particularly poetry is not a very good medium for verifying communication. Anyway, I can highly recommend Watzlawick's writings.

mpweiher 1y ago

Nope, the exact opposite. I was and am extremely congruent between my actions and my words. This is not easy. She ignored my words, tried and failed to "read" me instead and then was baffled when my actions were congruent with my words and not her reads. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ntrails 1y ago
A tremendous frustration at the inability to say what you mean and mean what you say has plagued me for years
etruong42 1y ago
I'm going to assume a hetero relationship, in which case your experience is a common one. Intersex communication is trickier than intrasex communication. The lived experience between men and women are different (duh). One way I have rationalized the experience of "women not saying what they mean" and "women not listening to what men say" that have some acceptance among women I'm acquainted with is women having the common experience of being considered pushy when communicating in ways that might be called "direct" if a man were to say the same things. So out of necessity, women may end up communicating indirectly and women may end up reading between the lines for reasons that are very easy to empathize with once considered. Communication is so automatic for us that we may not even realize or understand how we communicate. So many people don't even take the time to understand their own thoughts, and understanding our own communication is many times harder because you have to inspect your own thoughts and be constantly building a model for how your communication is affecting the minds of the people around you. You had a specific idea for how communication works, just because you're both speaking the same language (e.g. English), in many ways, you might not have been speaking the same language since the ideas one person intended to transmit in good faith still did not end up in the mind of their audience.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  I'll just point you back to my original post in this thread: yes, I used to even be very impressed by this, and also just accepted that there are two different but otherwise equal forms of communication. I have since learned better. These two forms of communication definitely exist, for example Paul Watzlawick refers to them in axiom 4 of his 5 axioms of communication: Human communication involves both digital and analog modalities: This axiom refers back to the use of non-verbals and system strategy explained in the first axiom. It is mostly related to the digital content of communication within a relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axioms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick#Five_basic_axi... However, these are not co-equal. As I wrote, analogue communication can be very precise, you can often get very fine nuances across. But it is also always open to interpretation and hence error prone. Precise but not accurate. Since it is always open to interpretation, it simply cannot be used for verification, but that is exactly what some people use it for, especially women. This is understandable, but leads to catastrophe, because it is based on tuning in emotionally, so it fails horribly when the receiver is emotionally involved. It's a common theme that otherwise really receptive and aware women fall for people who everyone else can clearly see are horrible. How? Reliance on analogue communication/"reading". It ain't reliable. "However, analogue and digital in terms of communication have nothing to do with this physical definition of the term. When we communicate, analogue means that what is said is open to interpretation, it includes facial expressions and gestures and means non-verbal communication (e.g., rolled eyes, grimaces). Digital, on the other hand, means that what is said refers only to the factual content (e.g., the statement "the experimental report must be prepared") and leaves no room for interpretation." https://www.iapm.net/en/blog/axioms-of-communication/#idx5 https://www.iapm.net/en/blog/axioms-of-communication/#idx5 One of the areas where I learned to use analogue "communication" (receiving-side) is interpreting poems: you first leave yourself open, read the poem and let it induce feelings in you. That's the analogue part. Then you interpret those feelings the poem induced, and try to find out how the text did that. If you just interpret poems "digitally", it probably won't work at all. If you just interpret it using your analogue receptors, your interpretation will be flat. Combine both: that's the ticket! But everyday communication is not poetry, and in particularly poetry is not a very good medium for verifying communication. Anyway, I can highly recommend Watzlawick's writings.