"The thing that upsets people is not what happens but what they think it means."
- Epictetus, Stoic philosopher of ancient Greece (born into slavery, his real name is unknown--epiktetos in Greek means "acquired.") (55–c.135)
Of course every message we receive must be interpreted by us as to determine its meaning and its impact on us.
But what if what we think a message means is not what the speaker or writer intended?
First of all, written messages may be more readily misinterpreted than spoken messages. It has been said that spoken messages come with facial expressions and body language that make misinterpretation less likely. It's also significant--but rarely mentioned--that face to face communication allows the speaker to react quickly if the receiver seems to have misinterpreted the message, while quick reaction is impossible with written messages.
There are people who read the first sentence of a written message and develop a mind set about the whole message based on those few words. What follows will simply confirm the reader's expectations, or the reader will interpret what follows in such a way as to ensure that the message is understood that way.
Some read through a whole message, but by the time they finish they can only remember the final sentence, so that is what they take as significant, how the final sentence impacts them.
These two ways of understanding messages explain why instructors recommend that any strong message should begin with something positive and end with something positive, preferably with the two positives being different from each other. Some call them warm fuzzies.
Some will fix on one sentence in a message--for no well-understood reason--and interpret the whole message based on that one sentence. That one sentence is all they remember, so that is all that counts to them. Heaven help the writer who uses irony when the reader is one of these. One sentence can easily be taken out of context in such a way that the message is understand as completely different from what the writer intended.
A few will even take part of a sentence--nothing else-- and twist the interpretation of the rest of the message around that. This practice is often used by those who want to blindside the writer with arguments that have nothing to do with the topic but more to do with the political agenda they want to convey. These mud slinger want to disrupt and upset people more than anything else.
Can we ever educate people in such a way that written messages will seldom be misunderstood? This is highly unlikely. I have received high marks on postgraduate papers I wrote that were misguided or weak and poor marks on well researched and presented papers. The differences were in the minds of the markers. Interestingly, I never received a poor mark on a live presentation that was made to a group, even if the material was the same as might have received a lower mark in written-only form.
Now comes the part that is hard to swallow. We can write messages that are so thorough that they are extremely difficult for the reader to misinterpret. However, these tend to be so long that the reader will get bored or annoyed at how much they must read.
Well, this would be a good point to stop then, wouldn't it?
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' long enough to be understood, easy enough to read and cheap enough for everyone to benefit from it.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 41
However, should we shy away from writing because there are so many pitfalls for readers? At some point, we must be bold and say that we will try our best and "Damn the torpedoes!"
I had to giggle at "Am I making myself clear...?" Your point, I believe, was about how awkward it can be to be a reader, whereas I was directing my remarks at writers. But the irony of the part I quoted was just too good.
There is more than one school of philosophical thought that says the only reality is what we perceive. In that case, it's a wonder we ever reach consensus on anything.
By the way, Debra, I love your avatar. Quite apart from the intellect that goes with it.
And Amanda's picture has many layers of messages that go with it for me. Wow! Is this mutual admiration day?
Couldn't we just carry on at great length about social psychology (which I would prefer to think of a psychological sociology) until we bore everyone to sleep? Ah, I can just see people snoring away with their cheecks squashed against their keyboards as I write this.
We'll get back to communication in future articles. Everything I write has an element that related to communication in it.
It's often the intent on maintaining one's own turf that causes us to refuse to budge in a discussion enough to see the common ground between to apparently different points of view.
In a discussion involving Christianity and Islam (I had the Christianity side that time) a Pakistani doctor revlealed to me that not only are Jesus and Mary (the mother) specifically mentioned in the Quran (something many Muslims seem to be unaware of), but that Islam does not even deny the divinity of Jesus. You can imagine how far along a discussion we must have gone for that to be unveiled.
Scratch the surface and we are all alike underneath. It's just that you have to scratch harder with some people and you might not want to scratch others.
Your treading on very thin ice. I promise I will not cut your article to shreds, if you stop spewing anti-religious bullshit.
Bill is not God. He should not speak as if he knew what God has done or not done. He knows damn well that others take such phony authority very seriously, and knows doing this is very much like what he claims in his article is wrong. Belittling things that many very serious people have carefully studied and found great wisdom in is just asking for someone to speak up, and I am just the someone to do it.
John, I did not say what I believe about God, nor did I assign anything I said about the Jesus story as factual. No one has belittled anything. You have taken one part of the discussion and twisted it where no one intended it to go.
But, unless you want to get into a serious discussion of credible sources, I would refrain from using such terms as "phony authority" again. The Christian church's story about the devil knowing what was going to come to pass thousands of years before it happened, then made it happen in Egypt 1500 years before the Bible story in Palestine (verifiable records exist today) is a claim that very few authorities would accept. Don't go down that road, John.
"First of all, written messages may be more readily misinterpreted than spoken messages"
Would that not include something as complex and profound as the Book?
"Now comes the part that is hard to swallow. We can write messages that are so thorough that they are extremely difficult for the reader to misinterpret. However, these tend to be so long that the reader will get bored or annoyed at how much they must read."
Don't suppose this could apply to folks that scoff at the Book, do you?
"But what if what we think a message means is not what the speaker or writer intended?"
Surely you are not immune to this shortcoming, are you?
So what the heck is the point of your article, if it is not that people should be careful what they presume? I would think someone as learned as yourself would know better than to pass judgment on four billion peoples sacred text. Or were you just talking about what others should be careful of?
Sometimes people just want to talk about what they want to talk about, they lack an ability to focus or should I say stay on point?
"As well as {shudder} the fact that the entire Jesus story was stolen from the Egyptians"
Looks pretty much like this;
"I did not say what I believe about God, nor did I assign anything I said about the Jesus story as factual"
...ain't gonna fly.
The similarities that any story in the Bible may have to any other stories in no way proves they were "stolen". To think it does is a violation of the most elementary of logical principles, as well as denies the very explanation for this coincidence that the Bible itself would provide. One must be very careful in presuming what Gods can do, they're Gods.
Further, without some actual translation of these Egyptian stories, how do you know this is not a non-fact? Do you ascribe impartiality and infallibility to the vague rumors you've heard?
That date can be fairly easily calculated as the date of Christ's conception, not birth. But you see, what Constantine did, in no way could undo the truth of the bible, if any. To look at the actions of those that pollute the Word, as a measure of its validity is fallacious reasoning, and need not be countered with arguments of any kind. Men are not God. No where in the Book is any celebration of that date called for, and what someone may do on it, cannot violate its significance.
Wikapedia yielded this brief description;
"In Zoroastrianism, Mithra came into increased prominence as a major entity in the hierarchy of Angels as one of the protectors of human welfare. The Mazdaist/Zoroastrian Mithra is a member of the trinity of ahuras, protectors of asha. In later Persian culture Mithra became Meher, the protector of truth and justice, and as the source of cosmic light.
The reform of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) retained the multitudes of pre-Zoroastrian deities, reducing them in a complex hierarchy to "immortals" who, under the supremacy of the Creator Ahura Mazda, were now either ahuras or daevas, as all of the cosmos was now part of good or part of Evil."
This is hardly the same "trinity" as the Bible describes.
Debra, John has a right to believe what he will and to ignore what he wants to ignore. It's a shame that he has assigned statements to me that I had not intended. For example, John has taken a part of my comment that said "Debra, do you really want to get into Osiris, Isis and the "other" Last Supper? As well as {shudder} the fact that the entire Jesus story was stolen from the Egyptians (except for the One and Only Son of God part)?" and assumed that I was stating fact that I believe and support. "Do you really want to..." was certainly not a commitment from me. It was a simple reference to a different story.
John, Debra has a good point that if you are going to discuss various flavours of a story, you should first have read the literature. To claim that one is truth and the rest are, in effect, the works of heathens or the devil (my interpretation of your words) is not a practical way to conduct your part of a discussion.
Everyone, including me, is capable to misinterpreting the words of others, especially written words. That was the main point of the article. My suggestion was that you back away from this discussion before your emotional but fact-deprived comments make you look bad to other readers.
I regret that this discussion has upset you. No one has tried to knock you of your safe pedestal. You jumped off yourself.
Good night everyone.
The date is calculable due to Mary's immediate visit with her cousin, who was six months pregnant with her child; John the baptist. Because the date of his birth is calculable, as given in terms of the rotation of Levitical priest (each being one month in duration), one can calculate Christ's date of birth, given a "perfect" term of nine months.
You needn't apologize or worry about my standing (excuse the pun), I am not, as Bill can't seem to resist claiming, in the least upset or threatened. I am merely doing what should be done whenever people slight the truth of any serious matter.
I look forward to many a good meeting with you as well.
You were caught in a rather blatant "mistruth", and a heap of violations of your own articles admonitions. Your parting shots are proof only of your own arrogance. It is unfortunate that all resistance to malicious attacks on peoples faith is so readily ascribed to motivations that are often those of the attacker themselves.
people have many prejudgements, yes, they do come from religion too , their upbringing whatever.
if only we accepted that everything written or spoken is an interpretation and not claimed to have a monopole on wisdom , oh, what a wonderful world it would be
It seems some folks think it is just fine to make any form of unsupported claim about religion they wish. Had Bill made similar bold proclamations about politics, or a race of people, or a scientific theory; no one would think twice about how I responded. The man basically called me an idiot, I see no reason not to speak up.
It is amazing to me that you do not think this;
"As well as {shudder} the fact that the entire Jesus story was stolen from the Egyptians (except for the One and Only Son of God part)?"
...would be an affront to a person that believed the Bible to be the word of God. He had every opportunity to back up his claim, and I gave him fair warning that if he continued his overblown declarations I would respond as I did. The man is an adult and I see no reason to sit on my hands while he blows smoke.
You will not find me declaring the stupidity of those that do not believe in God, or any form of Holy book, it's rude and presumptive. I have in fact "dressed down" people for doing just that. An educated person should know better, not be excused because he is.
Words alone are a rickety medium for communication, though they are a very useful medium and, oftentimes, the only medium for mass communication and also a vehicle for passing information from generation to generation.
The endless interpretations of legal manuals and the Holy Scriptures make us to accept humbly that the realities of life cannot be contained within the confines of the written word.
You are not boring us, Bill, with your lectures on, what you call, psychological sociology. These short articles are easy to follow.