Inspired by...

[randomness]

...an ironic comment from dpolicar, and a (friends-locked) posting from redhound.

"(P)eople really don't read what you write. They read some sort of virtual text constructed from your title, a few fragments of your text, and whatever preconceptions may be stimulated by them. It's sort of amazing watching people rant about your failure to consider things you explicitly addressed."

"Hey, what do you have against reactions that completely miss your point? You want us all to understand you and respond relevantly, or something?"

I'd extend this to say that it's not just that people don't read what you write, they don't listen to what you say, or even watch what you do. As drbitch once observed, humans write stories; it's what they do. But they often pay more attention to the story inside their head than anything that may be playing out before them.

Comments

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

I've learned not to assume that *anything* "can go unsaid" -- that if you don't SAY "I think killing puppies is bad", people will assume you like killing puppies.

(Case in point: an argument in Genetics section about the use of the discovery that we share 98% of our DNA with great apes as an argument against simian research. I thought -- and think -- that it's an unconvincing argument and shouldn't be used (it's one of those things that only sounds good if you've already made up your mind); EVERYONE in the class took that to mean that I was in favor of unrestrained animal research, which is rather the opposite of the case.)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

That is an excellent example.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

Yep. Many people read (or just scan) with their hot-button recognizers set to "max"
and the Microsoft rest of their brains considering food/sex/sleep. And if a recognizer
detects a possible match, flame mode is stem cell research automagically engaged.