Meanings and intentions misunderstood

[Fitzo]

I'm not sure whether other people have covered this topic, so apologies if they have.

Over the course if my Iife there have been many occasions where I have found it difficult to convey my message to others without misunderstanding.... sometimes with quite far reaching and catastrophic consequences.
Consequently I always try extra hard to be very clear with my language and sometimes use metaphors to further illustrate my meaning. Despite this people still seem to not get what I'm trying to say and go off on a completely different tangent of their own. I can't even describe how angry and frustrated this can make me, but continued to blame myself for not being clear enough or not picking up early enough that they weren't getting it.
I had yet another instance of this today.
In replaying in my mind what had been said, I came to the conclusion that I really had been quite clear, but somehow they still managed to go off track.
So my question is this.
Do you think people really hear (or read) what you're actually saying... or... do they ASSUME they know what you're trying to say so automatically stop actively listening and start thinking about what THEY'RE going to say?
Not that it will change anything of course, but I'm curious to know other people's thoughts on this.

 

[Momo]

Most people, at least in my experience, are not actually listening. They are more concerned with getting their own two cents in. A good listener is rare, I'm afraid your efforts may be going to waste.

 

[Streetwise]

I always remember my mam saying people think about themselves they are not thinking about you
so I think they are just inserting one of the words you used into their latest grudge and and also picking up whether you are being judgemental with your body language.
also probably worrying about something that has them really stressed.

 

[Fitzo]

Most people, at least in my experience, are not actually listening. They are more concerned with getting their own two cents in. A good listener is rare, I'm afraid your efforts may be going to waste.

It would seem you're probably right but it continues to infuriate me nonetheless. And people wonder why I can't be bothered half the time!

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

Do you think people really hear (or read) what you're actually saying... or... do they ASSUME they know what you're trying to say so automatically stop actively listening and start thinking about what THEY'RE going to say?

Boring,boring,la de dah, oh thats terrible, anyway did i tell you i went to the mall and percy was there, you know percy don't you, well, to cut a long story short,al de dah,and then the vicar said, you dont get many of those to the pound, EXCUSE ME I DONT YAWN WHEN YOURE TALKING,anyway you know percy dont you? Well his wife, you used to work at the hospital,did,i tell you about her piles?well shes got piles,her son was in trouble,the usual thing,anyway i bought some fish as we were going to have fish....

Surely,I dont know what you mean
(See sarcasm thread)
A lot,it seems dont actively listen in the first place.

We're disordered - how were we supposed to know conversation isn't to convey information and discuss areas of interest?

Anyway,did i tell you i went to the mall.... i bought 2 fish
NT thinks how big were those fish? I cant have this person outdo me with fish.
NT says : you didnt go to percys fishmongers? Ive heard bad things. We get ours fresh from the dock,still wriggling, we got 3 fish.
NT WINS THE FISH CONVERSATION THINKS I AM BETTER AT FISH CONVERSATIONS.

Thats the other thing - point scoring,one upmanship,outdoing each other over petty nonsense.

But ,I digress, did i tell you I once killed a man talking about the size of his fish...

 

[Fitzo]

Boring,boring,la de dah, oh thats terrible, anyway did i tell you i went to the mall and percy was there, you know percy don't you, well, to cut a long story short,al de dah,and then the vicar said, you dont get many of those to the pound, EXCUSE ME I DONT YAWN WHEN YOURE TALKING,anyway you know percy dont you? Well his wife, you used to work at the hospital,did,i tell you about her piles?well shes got piles,her son was in trouble,the usual thing,anyway i bought some fish as we were going to have fish....

Surely,I dont know what you mean
(See sarcasm thread)
A lot,it seems dont actively listen in the first place.

We're disordered - how were we supposed to know conversation isn't to convey information and discuss areas of interest?

Anyway,did i tell you i went to the mall.... i bought 2 fish
NT thinks how big were those fish? I cant have this person outdo me with fish.
NT says : you didnt go to percys fishmongers? Ive heard bad things. We get ours fresh from the dock,still wriggling, we got 3 fish.
NT WINS THE FISH CONVERSATION THINKS I AM BETTER AT FISH CONVERSATIONS.

Thats the other thing - point scoring,one upmanship,outdoing each other over petty nonsense.

But ,I digress, did i tell you I once killed a man talking about the size of his fish...

Hahaha......
But you know what makes today's misunderstanding more frustrating? A good part of this was actually by email and text. I just don't get it!!!! Obviously....

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

Hahaha......
But you know what makes today's misunderstanding more frustrating? A good part of this was actually by email and text. I just don't get it!!!! Obviously....

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

Imthink a lot of this stuff has to do with our trait,as described by others, of taking things literally.

The corollary is, the other party has taken no time (doesnt need to) to think there is another way of understanding the world.
They have subconsciously, througn socialization, internalised social assumptions and contexts within everything read and said..

They find it impossible just to take things as they are.

I'm only just starting to realise what a massive difference that is.

It is 'literally' everything.

If i was being more unkind,with a generalisation, they way they get on is just daft.

But everybody's doing it. All competing on the unnecessary to be more daft, to be the king or queen of the daft.

At least I'm deliberately daft. Apart from some of my examples in the clumsy thread and others
Defeated my own argument
now that is daft.

 

[Gracey]

My husband informs me that it's the way I say things that can wind people up. (Delivery)

Quick example,

Situation : the rehoming centre's/ pound's policy on bringing the resident dog of the household to meet the potential new family member being adopted.

I was questioning this during an interview to assess our (mine and husband's) suitability as possible adoptees of a particular dog from a rehoming centre.


When asked "Have you brought the resident dog with you today to meet the pup?"

"Eh? Bring him here? (puzzled) ...
...even though it's my home and I get to decide who squabbles and the behaviour of animals in it?"

My husband let me know afterwards, I sounded arrogant.


In my mind there is no democracy or majority vote when it comes to dogs living under the same roof as me. It's that simple.
There's a natural dynamic amongst the two legged and four legged residents.
The four legged follow instruction or guidance and are rewarded in some way for doing so. (Encourages repeat, desired behaviour)

Is that arrogance?

Or a belief in a tried and tested method that actually works for us?

 

[Gracey]

It would seem you're probably right but it continues to infuriate me nonetheless. And people wonder why I can't be bothered half the time!

I don't bother alot of the time either. Alot of people hear me but don't actually listen to and understand what I've just said.
I have to wonder if my intonation isn't dramatic enough or I'm not embelishing the facts with enough fluff and glitter to retain listeners attention.?

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

My husband informs me that it's the way I say things that can wind people up. (Delivery)

Quick example,

Situation : the rehoming centre's/ pound's policy on bringing the resident dog of the household to meet the potential new family member being adopted.

I was questioning this during an interview to assess our (mine and husband's) suitability as possible adoptees of a particular dog from a rehoming centre.


When asked "Have you brought the resident dog with you today to meet the pup?"

"Eh? Bring him here? (puzzled) ...
...even though it's my home and I get to decide who squabbles and the behaviour of animals in it?"

My husband let me know afterwards, I sounded arrogant.


In my mind there is no democracy or majority vote when it comes to dogs living under the same roof as me. It's that simple.
There's a natural dynamic amongst the two legged and four legged residents.
The four legged follow instruction or guidance and are rewarded in some way for doing so. (Encourages repeat, desired behaviour)

Is that arrogance?

Or a belief in a tried and tested method that actually works for us?

Thats annoyed me and i dont ever want a dog.

Sounded arrogant = didnt follow rules without thought that someone made up,which may or may not be a stupid rule (irrelevant)

It seems to be a rule designed to protect the dogs interest, so they can reject you (or simply feel power as they got,you to follow a stupid rule)

I definitely have come across like that a thousand different times. Didnt realise.
Never question, only obey the rule. Which nobody knows why it is there.

Normally i can be interested 'why does.....' they dont know,dont care. and so get annoyed with you - ours is not to reason why,ours is just to......

Lets just say it is a habit i have to work on

Dont think I'll work on it that hard.

 

[Fitzo]

My husband informs me that it's the way I say things that can wind people up. (Delivery)

Quick example,

Situation : the rehoming centre's/ pound's policy on bringing the resident dog of the household to meet the potential new family member being adopted.

I was questioning this during an interview to assess our (mine and husband's) suitability as possible adoptees of a particular dog from a rehoming centre.


When asked "Have you brought the resident dog with you today to meet the pup?"

"Eh? Bring him here? (puzzled) ...
...even though it's my home and I get to decide who squabbles and the behaviour of animals in it?"

My husband let me know afterwards, I sounded arrogant.


In my mind there is no democracy or majority vote when it comes to dogs living under the same roof as me. It's that simple.
There's a natural dynamic amongst the two legged and four legged residents.
The four legged follow instruction or guidance and are rewarded in some way for doing so. (Encourages repeat, desired behaviour)

Is that arrogance?

Or a belief in a tried and tested method that actually works for us?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.

Are you saying you disagree that a potential new four legged member of your family needs to meet the existing four legged member/s?

If so I'm afraid I disagree. I used to work at a shelter and we NEVER let any dog go to a new home without making sure they got along with any other dogs. Many of these dogs have been traumatized by previous experiences before getting to the shelter and they want to make sure the transition to a new environment is as stress free as possible. Dogs are no different to people when it comes to liking or not liking other members of their species. Some just don't like each other on sight and humans can never predict how their dog will react. This policy exists for a very good reason. Any shelter will try their best to avoid any possible further trauma for these sometimes very fragile dogs.
Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here. Wouldn't be the first time

 

[dragoncat16]

How are you going to be able to tell how two dogs will get along with each other in the future just by having them meet one time? With cats you just keep them in separate rooms for a day or two, and then they learn to tolerate each other. I've had cats all my life, and that has worked every time. As long as you give them individual love and attention, they will thrive. Perhaps dogs are different, but as dogs are usually more sociable than cats, I would have thought that would make it easier for them to get used to each other.

Anyway, regarding the communication issue with humans, I have been researching the psychological concepts of confirmation bias and selective perception to try to explain a situation I have suffered at work. Confirmation bias makes people interpret incoming information in a way that supports their world view. Selective perception makes people pay more attention to or give more weight to information that supports an already held opinion, than to information that doesn't support it. I have come to the conclusion, just from my own experience, that NTs more readily employ these devices than we do.

Thus, when we have a conversation with an NT, if you seem not to agree with their own opinion, they are already ignoring pretty much everything you say, or they are interpreting it in a way that twists it around to support what they already think.

It is their problem, not yours, but it is annoying, especially because they will never ever ever admit that they have the problem. The problem will always be yours, as far as they are concerned, especially if they know you are "different". This is because confirmation bias and selective perception will not allow them to acknowledge that they might have a flawed perception. These concepts are actually survival mechanisms, which NTs need because they form opinions so readily and then they desparately do everything they can to hold onto that initial opinion even if it's totally ridiculous.

 

[Fitzo]

How are you going to be able to tell how two dogs will get along with each other in the future just by having them meet one time? With cats you just keep them in separate rooms for a day or two, and then they learn to tolerate each other. I've had cats all my life, and that has worked every time. As long as you give them individual love and attention, they will thrive. Perhaps dogs are different, but as dogs are usually more sociable than cats, I would have thought that would make it easier for them to get used to each other.

Anyway, regarding the communication issue with humans, I have been researching the psychological concepts of confirmation bias and selective perception to try to explain a situation I have suffered at work. Confirmation bias makes people interpret incoming information in a way that supports their world view. Selective perception makes people pay more attention to or give more weight to information that supports an already held opinion, than to information that doesn't support it. I have come to the conclusion, just from my own experience, that NTs more readily employ these devices than we do.

Thus, when we have a conversation with an NT, if you seem not to agree with their own opinion, they are already ignoring pretty much everything you say, or they are interpreting it in a way that twists it around to support what they already think.

It is their problem, not yours, but it is annoying, especially because they will never ever ever admit that they have the problem. The problem will always be yours, as far as they are concerned, especially if they know you are "different". This is because confirmation bias and selective perception will not allow them to acknowledge that they might have a flawed perception. These concepts are actually survival mechanisms, which NTs need because they form opinions so readily and then they desparately do everything they can to hold onto that initial opinion even if it's totally ridiculous.

First of all, dogs ARE different to cats. Dogs are pack animals and they always have a hierarchy within their pack so they usually seek to assert their domination over others straight away. How the other dog reacts to that is usually visible very quickly. They either recognise the other dog as the alpha and submit or they don't. Many dog owners are not aware of their dogs dominant personality because their dog recognises THEM as the alpha. But the dog will always seek to assert themselves over another potential members of the pack.

I agree with your view in the scenario you have described with people where there is a difference of opinion,
however in the situation I was discussing about today's misunderstanding I THOUGHT I was being understood until it later became obvious we were talking at crossed purposes as opposed to disagreement. The more I tried to clarify my intention the worse it became. This is where I believe they were not listening because they were arrogantly assuming they KNEW what I was trying to say.
I hope you understand me but I have to admit I'm tired and not making a whole lot of sense even to myself at this point!

 

[OkRad]

Boring,boring,la de dah, oh thats terrible, anyway did i tell you i went to the mall and percy was there, you know percy don't you, well, to cut a long story short,al de dah,and then the vicar said, you dont get many of those to the pound, EXCUSE ME I DONT YAWN WHEN YOURE TALKING,anyway you know percy dont you? Well his wife, you used to work at the hospital,did,i tell you about her piles?well shes got piles,her son was in trouble,the usual thing,anyway i bought some fish as we were going to have fish....

Surely,I dont know what you mean
(See sarcasm thread)
A lot,it seems dont actively listen in the first place.

We're disordered - how were we supposed to know conversation isn't to convey information and discuss areas of interest?

Anyway,did i tell you i went to the mall.... i bought 2 fish
NT thinks how big were those fish? I cant have this person outdo me with fish.
NT says : you didnt go to percys fishmongers? Ive heard bad things. We get ours fresh from the dock,still wriggling, we got 3 fish.
NT WINS THE FISH CONVERSATION THINKS I AM BETTER AT FISH CONVERSATIONS.

Thats the other thing - point scoring,one upmanship,outdoing each other over petty nonsense.

But ,I digress, did i tell you I once killed a man talking about the size of his fish...

Fridge, you have been eavesdropping on my conversations at my local place I have to go every day! Word for word, my friend

 

[Ambi]

I think people do think more about what they want to say than actually listen to what you are saying. I also think many NTs take in information through a filter - so they automatically only see what you are providing through the blockages and/or coloring of that filter - that can alter their perception of what you are saying, they only receive part of the message, that can change the meaning for them (I find that VERY frustrating). Next, I think NTs have different reasons for communicating, and so can misunderstand the purpose/intention of what we are saying, then give inappropriate responses. Or for example, if an NT approaches me, they may ask about something they happen to know I do or am interested in. I would think they want to talk about that thing - no. Many times they are just trying to say hi, acknowledge me, start a conversation, start a bond....and all of that isn't even just about that. It's about greater tribal dynamics. And I think many might not even admit to that.

 

[dragoncat16]

I agree with your view in the scenario you have described with people where there is a difference of opinion,
however in the situation I was discussing about today's misunderstanding I THOUGHT I was being understood until it later became obvious we were talking at crossed purposes as opposed to disagreement. The more I tried to clarify my intention the worse it became. This is where I believe they were not listening because they were arrogantly assuming they KNEW what I was trying to say.
I hope you understand me but I have to admit I'm tired and not making a whole lot of sense even to myself at this point!

I was just giving an example of where someone disagrees with you. In your case, it seems that the misconception the NT had was that they understood what you were saying, or else that what they thought was a more important topic of conversation. Either way, they felt they didn't need to listen further to you.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I myself do listen to the other person and have trouble blocking out information that is irrelevant to the current topic (i.e. I don't think I exhibit confirmation bias and selective perception as much as typical NTs do, perhaps because I consider my own opinions to be a fluid concept based on the entirety of available data as it comes in). Then I will pick up on one of the irrelevant things and the conversation goes that way, and what I had wanted to contribute to the original topic gets lost. I have found that NTs are very good at blocking out information that weakens the point they are trying to make, whereas I will often hone in on claims others make against my point, even just to say why it is irrelevant or based on faulty logic, or not as important as they are claiming. Thus, I give strength to their argument by acknowledging it, whereas my perfectly valid statements are ignored and it's as if I did not make them at all. Once the conversation goes that way, I have lost, even though logically I have the stronger argument, just because the other person will not listen to me properly. It's so frustrating. Dealing with NTs is like trying to reason with 2-year olds sometimes, and here I am talking about highly educated people.

 

[dragoncat16]

This happens to me all the time, which is why I prefer to communicate via the written word. That way I can see what my message is before it is delivered. Too often something will pass through my head and I'll convey it only to receive a response of confusion or a blank stare, as I am terrible about leaving out portions of what I was hoping to communicate in the first place.

I often fall into the trap of thinking that if I put something in writing, they'll surely read everything. But, alas, they skip over anything that would take time and effort to absorb. It's almost worse than speaking to them, because at least if you are face to face and are trying to get a point across, as a last resort, you can just keep repeating the same thing over and over until they finally have to acknowledge it. If you send them an email or some other form of written communication, it is so awkward to repeat something that has been ignored, because you are then worried that you will offend them by implying they were too stupid to read what you wrote the first time, which is, of course, a quite accurate assessment of the situation.

Sometimes I get more satisfaction out of talking to my cats; after all, they very rarely start talking about something completely unrelated or come up with some feeble illogical argument against what I was talking about.

 

[Gracey]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.

Are you saying you disagree that a potential new four legged member of your family needs to meet the existing four legged member/s?

If so I'm afraid I disagree. I used to work at a shelter and we NEVER let any dog go to a new home without making sure they got along with any other dogs. Many of these dogs have been traumatized by previous experiences before getting to the shelter and they want to make sure the transition to a new environment is as stress free as possible. Dogs are no different to people when it comes to liking or not liking other members of their species. Some just don't like each other on sight and humans can never predict how their dog will react. This policy exists for a very good reason. Any shelter will try their best to avoid any possible further trauma for these sometimes very fragile dogs.
Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here. Wouldn't be the first time

You've sort of got the right end of the stick @Fitzo.

I can 'sort of' understand why they may have put that policy in place.


Put the resident dog back on his home turf with his bonded family and I think it's a different set of circumstances.

It can take 4 - 12 weeks for the shelter dog to show its true colours in a routined, home environment.

Once he can trust the routine and the boundaries, he'll display all his behaviours. Me and my dog won't see any of that after just a quick sniff at the shelter.
But ...

I can understand that if two dogs were going to go at it (start scrapping) it may be apparent during the initial greeting.

I'm not sure I agree with your mentioning that dogs are like people with regard to liking or disliking.
I'd always thought dogs responded to signals or body language from each other. That's how they communicate their intention.
Liking or disliking seems like a free choice humans have.
Reacting to threat or signaling stress is what dogs can do.
There's a chance I'm mistaken.
I'd be pleased if we could agree to disagree on this


And I absolutely could tell you how my dog would respond.
I've lived with him for ten years and I've been the one to impliment his training and socialisation (perhaps I might call it one of my interests or obsessions? Going beyond the basics?)

What I couldn't guarantee is how the shelter dog would respond or react.
(Not until I've observed and trained him anyway )

Perhaps my husband is right?
Perhaps my belief in my abilities and what I've learned to date in understanding specific dog behaviour and training is delivered as arrogance and not confidence.?

 

[Fitzo]

You've sort of got the right end of the stick @Fitzo.

I can 'sort of' understand why they may have put that policy in place.


Put the resident dog back on his home turf with his bonded family and I think it's a different set of circumstances.

It can take 4 - 12 weeks for the shelter dog to show its true colours in a routined, home environment.

Once he can trust the routine and the boundaries, he'll display all his behaviours. Me and my dog won't see any of that after just a quick sniff at the shelter.
But ...

I can understand that if two dogs were going to go at it (start scrapping) it may be apparent during the initial greeting.

I'm not sure I agree with your mentioning that dogs are like people with regard to liking or disliking.
I'd always thought dogs responded to signals or body language from each other. That's how they communicate their intention.
Liking or disliking seems like a free choice humans have.
Reacting to threat or signaling stress is what dogs can do.
There's a chance I'm mistaken.
I'd be pleased if we could agree to disagree on this


And I absolutely could tell you how my dog would respond.
I've lived with him for ten years and I've been the one to impliment his training and socialisation (perhaps I might call it one of my interests or obsessions? Going beyond the basics?)

What I couldn't guarantee is how the shelter dog would respond or react.
(Not until I've observed and trained him anyway )

Perhaps my husband is right?
Perhaps my belief in my abilities and what I've learned to date in understanding specific dog behaviour and training is delivered as arrogance and not confidence.?

I could go into all the reasons I disagree... but it's easier to agree to disagree.

 

[Gracey]

I could go into all the reasons I disagree... but it's easier to agree to disagree.