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

[drwex]

Not only do people do this, but it's necessary. The problem is that one cannot understand in the abstract. Understanding only comes by relating new information (what you're hearing) to what you already understand.

((Aside: I'm excepting the few brialliant creative leaps here - just stick to ordinary conversation.))

So if this is how we understand then it's clear why people go off on their own stories. They're trying to relate what they heard to what they already understand. In effect, they're creating a story in their heads. If that story wanders too far afield from what they expect then they treat it as erroneous and discard it.

This is also highly sensible behavior because no matter what, we have to build an internal model of what the other person is conveying. Almost by definition, the model is less rich and detailed than the original presentation (the map is not the territory). Errors occur when models are built by discarding the _wrong_ information or by highlighting what might be insignificant points. However, it's futile to rail against the model-building process or to assert that you don't do it.

If you accept the foregoing (which is consonant with the best research I know of in psycholinguistics and mental models) then the question is not "What's wrong with these idiots listening to me?" but "How can I make my presentation more amenable to creating the models I want the listeners to create?"

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You're disagreeing with something I'm not saying. Which is delightfully meta.

However, it's futile to rail against the model-building process or to assert that you don't do it.

I don't believe I'm doing the former, and I certainly deny I'm doing the latter.

On the main points, in fact, I think we're agreed:

I (paraphrasing drbitch) said: "humans write stories; it's what they do."

You said: "They're trying to relate what they heard to what they already understand. In effect, they're creating a story in their heads."

I said: "But they often pay more attention to the story inside their head than anything that may be playing out before them."

You said: "Errors occur when models are built by discarding the _wrong_ information or by highlighting what might be insignificant points."

Finally, you said: "the question is not "What's wrong with these idiots listening to me?" but "How can I make my presentation more amenable to creating the models I want the listeners to create?""

In the thread I said: "Perhaps I'm explaining myself badly, and my observation is coming across as a commentary against social change?"

I am observing how often the errors seem to occur, however. (And quoting a couple of well-spoken friends for humorous effect.)

[drwex]

Yes, I think we're largely in agreement. I was mostly disagreeing with some of your respondents. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Not a problem. Actually, I've been tickled by the self-referential nature of some of the comment threads.