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

[ketzl.livejournal.com]

Quite true, quite true.

[marith.livejournal.com]

If I were a script-writing sort of person I would now want to create a filter you could pass a post through to see how your readers might perceive it. Maybe even with a few different bias settings and a predicted response...


Setting: Luddite

"Blah blah blah you write. Blah blah blah virtual text blah blah fragments blah, and blah stimulated by them."

Predicted reaction: "Stimulated by virtual text? Ew!"

[cmat.livejournal.com]

"(P)eople really don't read what you write. [...] watching people rant about your failure to consider things you explicitly addressed."

I did go through a phase when I found that I was having trouble with people not reading what I wrote. After some experimentation, I concluded that it was partly caused by what I wrote; I could improve it by being concise, being funny, and generally vetting my own writing for clarity and simplicity. Which is not to say anyone should ever start ranting without making sure they have full information. I'm just saying it's not something where the author is always completely helpless.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure.

In fact, the thread starts with my wondering if I was explaining myself badly. I will totally grant that my failures as a writer might contribute to the lack of comprehension on the part of my readers.

However, redhound is one of the funniest men I know, and he has a talent for coming up with pithy summations. He writes extremely well, and once (barely) made a living of it. And yet he reports this problem.

So I have to conclude there is something going on here that even excellent writing cannot address.

[chris-warrior.livejournal.com]

i just wanted to let you know i actually read this. ;P

[kimberlogic.livejournal.com]

*wry smile*

Another actual reader, who found these words to be very, very true to life. I think people really do hear or read or see the first few words/actions and then from there, much of the time, they're in their own heads. I try to curb that in myself, since I find it highly isolating and unfortunate much of the time from either side.

It's a fair cop

[shakati.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's the way I read email, all right.
But I'm aware of it, so I try not to rant.

[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.)

[tcb.livejournal.com]

(P)eople really don't read what you write.

this reminds me of something I'd heard about and even done a couple of times.. when writing some sort of internal document, stick a word in, say.. "Configure and then mount the kangaroo via NFS, and verify that the data is intact."

and see if anyone notices..

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I think that this varies widely by speaker and hearer (or writer and reader). David Mamet certainly believes it--I never really enjoyed his work, for all its critical acclaim, and then I read an interview in which he made this claim, that people never really listen to each other or manage to communicate. Suddenly everything he's written made a lot more sense to me. But it's not the world I choose to inhabit.

I think That List has been a very good training ground (or, perhaps, trial by fire) for me, in terms of anticipating the arguments and covering the bases. But there are still people I pretty much won't interact with, because I'm not interested in being a special effect in their one-person show.

[(Anonymous)]

Just throwing in my 2 cents and saying I disagree. Sure, people don't always listen/read, but rarely paying attention? I'd like to give the people I know a little more credit. I mean, if you aren't going to read something, then why "read" it? And if you don't think people are listening, why say it? Also, just because someone doesn't respond to every point you make doesn't mean they didn't read/hear it; they just aren't responding to it.

On a separate note, of course people pay more attention to themselves than anyone else. What else would you expect?

~Rachel~

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I think that this varies widely by speaker and hearer (or writer and reader).

Clearly.

David Mamet certainly believes it--I never really enjoyed his work, for all its critical acclaim, and then I read an interview in which he made this claim, that people never really listen to each other or manage to communicate. Suddenly everything he's written made a lot more sense to me.

I must say I'm of two minds about Mamet. His writing can certainly be clever. On the other hand--and I freely admit this may reflect more on the quality of undergraduate staging than his gifts as a playwright--I've never particularly had a great time at an actual performance.

But it's not the world I choose to inhabit.

You are, I think, exceptionally good both at expressing yourself and at listening to others. I think that certainly helps you choose which world to inhabit.

But there are still people I pretty much won't interact with, because I'm not interested in being a special effect in their one-person show.

I think I need to learn to do this. I've been a little too indiscriminate about interacting with judgmental people with too many preconceived notions about my life. And it's not that I'm saying or writing anything to them, it's that I'm living my life and having it be misinterpreted.

It proves a point I already really knew: the ultimate pointlessness of living your life for the benefit of onlookers. But while I rather expected this from my relatives I guess I was surprised to get it from my peers.

(I love your phrasing, btw.)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Really? Neat! :)

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

I hate to say this, but that would just leap right off the page at me...

[cmat.livejournal.com]

Natürlich; I hope I didn't come across as implying otherwise. And "failures as a writer" is much stronger than what I meant! Didn't mean to imply fault/blame. Just that we all are and are surrounded by faulty readers, so there's some mileage to be gained in treating it as a fact of life and trying to work around it as best we can.

Didn't mean to seem critical; if I did, I apologize. I'll go read the actual thread now, shall I? :-)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Didn't mean to seem critical; if I did, I apologize.

Not at all. I'm being self-deprecating for contrastive effect. redhound really does write much better than I do. He's gifted, and I'm just plugging along.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

That is an excellent example.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Sure, people don't always listen/read, but rarely paying attention?

I don't see where I wrote that people rarely paid attention. I mean, it's an interesting idea, but I don't see where I said that. What I did say is that people often pay more attention to the thoughts they bring with them than what's being said to them.

I'd like to give the people I know a little more credit.

Sure! But the people you know are a bit more worthy of it than the people I'm referring to. I'm guessing here, but if you're the Rachel I think you are, most of the people you and I know in common are less judgmental--at least about my life--than the people I'm thinking of.

I mean, if you aren't going to read something, then why "read" it?

I don't know why people do it, and I won't guess. I have to trust the observable evidence that they do do it, though.

And if you don't think people are listening, why say it?

That's fine advice, actually. I try not to say things to people who aren't listening. I'm not as good at that as I'd like, but I like to think I'm improving.

The problem is that people are listening, just not to the things I'm saying, but attributing those things to me nonetheless. So it's entirely possible they'll make their judgments in the absence of any words from me at all.

Also, just because someone doesn't respond to every point you make doesn't mean they didn't read/hear it; they just aren't responding to it.

Lack of response to points I'm making isn't the problem here. It's response to points I'm not making, but that they imagine I'm making.

On a separate note, of course people pay more attention to themselves than anyone else. What else would you expect?

In general, am I surprised that people pay more attention to themselves than anyone else? Not at all.

On the other hand, it seems pointless to talk when people choose not to pay attention to what you're saying in favor of their preconceptions of what they think you're saying.

~Rachel~

(Here, I was going to ask which Rachel this was, but from the voice I have a pretty good idea. And your two cents are always welcome, disagreement or no.)

[muffyjo]

We are all subjective characters in the plays other people are writing. On the other hand, it's amazing we communicate at all. I often find that what I say and what I realize other people hear are two different things. Amusingly enough, most the time I don't bother to correct folks, because what conclusion they came to is just as good as the one I got to so it really doesn't much matter. But on occasion I meet people who end up in the same place as where my thinking was going, and it's a really warming and bonding experience for me.

[muffyjo]

Actually, we had a CD burner that was a kanguru duplicator with a built in hard drive so there is a realistic chance that I would have read that sentence, thought your spelling was off and kept going should I have thought you were trying to attach it to the computer box (server/desktop) you were describing.

[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.

i know what you mean...

[midsummernd.livejournal.com]

Having been misinterpreted in life and in writing more than once this week, I know what you mean.

I think that as a reader of people and of words, I read on two levels: There's the kind of critical reading that I do with my eyes and my brain, and then there's reading on a gut level. Most of the time, I don't need to read half the words in a book to get the gist of it, or watch half the things my friends do to pick up on their mood, their attitudes toward other people, situations... You could say this is cheating, it's the Cliff's Notes version of human interaction, but it's necessary. If I were to involve myself in understanding everyone else's position all the time, I would be a postmodernist, but I would also be really tired.

Granted, this means that if I want to then comment on what other people are doing with their lives, I ought to sit down and shut up until I've actually read critically. Or I'll end up in class thinking that the narrator was a woman when on page thirteen he clearly refers to himself as Arthur.

The most damning thing about being misinterpreted is getting praise for something I totally disagree with, or just hated. I keep hoping someone will turn around and say, "you know, that's just b.s."

Re: i know what you mean...

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

If I were to involve myself in understanding everyone else's position all the time, I would be a postmodernist, but I would also be really tired.

That's priceless! I really laughed when I read that. :)

And your overall point? Very true. Close analysis of everything someone does, says, or writes is extremely tiring. I mean, it reminds me of a couple of the late stages of relationships that went sour, for me: "what does she mean by this word?" "why is she saying it that way?" "is she thinking of it this way or that way? Or maybe this other way?"

And if you're really lucky, they're doing the same kind of hamster-wheel thinking about you.

Man, that was horrible. I didn't have time for anything else.

Or I'll end up in class thinking that the narrator was a woman when on page thirteen he clearly refers to himself as Arthur.

Oops. :)

I keep hoping someone will turn around and say, "you know, that's just b.s."

There are people in my life whose company I treasure, not only for their willingness to tell me I'm full of it, but also because the same personality that permits them to call me on it makes them great people to be with.

[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.

[dianec42.livejournal.com]

"Also, just because someone doesn't respond to every point you make doesn't mean they didn't read/hear it; they just aren't responding to it."

Lack of response to points I'm making isn't the problem here. It's response to points I'm not making, but that they imagine I'm making.

Will I get hit if I suggest that maybe Rachel was engaging in a little of this behavior herself here? (-:

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

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

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Some of these comment threads have been wonderfully meta.

[gracest.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed reading the comments on this thread - so many intelligent and telling points were made - and was quite tickled by the meta-ness.

There's so much scope for misunderstanding, even with communicators and communicatees who are both intelligent and listening (to some extent). Which is why I try not to react emotionally, let emotion manifest itself, or use value-laden words (most of the time). I might so easily have gotten it wrong, and then things will really go pear-shaped.

Consequently, I get irritated when people let fly - that's so pointless & unhelpful.

Here's a possibly inflammatory comment - my sense is that in general, compared to other cultures, the average American is quicker to speak using stronger language with less to go on.

This can be really annoying in anybody. It's a constant struggle to guard against it in myself, of course.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is a mere observation prompted by the post, and isn't meant to address any point that I have imagined anyone has put up :)