Assumed Truths
Communication, in its essence, is a far more intricate affair than the mere exchange of words. It is often fraught with subtle misinterpretations, where the response one receives is shaped not so much by the literal question posed but by the subjective lens through which it is viewed. In this delicate dance of conversation, we seldom reply with strict adherence to the words spoken; rather, we answer what we believe the other means, or, more frequently still, what we expect them to mean. The result is that the conversation, though conducted with the best of intentions, often fails to achieve the clarity it purports to offer.
Consider, if you will, the simplest of inquiries: “What time is it?” Should this question be asked in a bustling marketplace, the answer might be brief and factual: “It is three o’clock.” However, if one were to pose the same question in the parlour of a grand estate, the response might take a more conversational tone: “Why, it is precisely three o’clock, but surely you don’t intend to venture out at this hour?” Here, the response goes beyond the literal hour, incorporating a silent assumption about the intent behind the question. The nature of the question and the context in which it is asked shape not only the reply but the tone and the manner in which it is given.
This propensity for assuming intent, however, introduces challenges of no small consequence. The greatest of these challenges is the distortion of truth, wherein assumptions cloud one’s understanding of the actual words spoken. In moments of sensitivity, for instance, when a person is asked, “How do you fare today?” the reply may be “I am well,” though, beneath this response, the speaker may feel quite otherwise. The listener, relying not on what is said but on what they assume to be the deeper truth, may overlook the real condition of the speaker, thus fostering misunderstanding. In such cases, the question itself is no longer answered with sincerity, but rather with a response tailored to what the listener anticipates, rather than what the speaker intends.
The habit of interpreting communication through a veil of assumptions can create barriers to true understanding. We are often so entangled in our own perceptions and beliefs that we fail to engage with the other person’s actual meaning. This tendency, while perhaps convenient, can lead to significant misunderstandings, leaving us adrift in a sea of unspoken intentions, each party clinging to their own version of the conversation. When one abandons typical conversational assumptions and begins to view a conversation from a purely objective analysis of the words used it can often become confusing for the other conversation participant. However, it seems to me that as a society it would be better if the culture were to default to literal interpretations in conversations. This would prevent those who are unfamiliar with a certain way of speaking from being confused by others or confusing to others.
In conclusion, I believe that it is of paramount importance that both speaker and listener approach conversation with intentionality. When we speak, we must be mindful not only of the words we use but also of the deeper intent they carry. To say that one is "well" when one is in fact not well is deceitful. At times it may be appropriate to hide personal reality from a stranger, but at many times some level of honesty would be better fitting. Likewise, when we listen, we must resist the temptation to infuse our own assumptions into the words of others. Instead, we should strive to truly hear what is being said, free of the distortions that come from unchecked assumptions. In so doing, we may ensure that our communication is not only truthful but also clear, fostering understanding and connection in a world that is, all too often, veiled in misinterpretation.
Have you ever noticed this--that people never answer what you say? They answer what you mean--or what they think you mean. Suppose one lady says to another in a country house, `Is anybody staying with you?' the lady doesn't answer `Yes; the butler, the three footmen, the parlourmaid, and so on,' though the parlourmaid may be in the room, or the butler behind her chair. She says `There is nobody staying with us,' meaning nobody of the sort you mean. But suppose a doctor inquiring into an epidemic asks, `Who is staying in the house?' then the lady will remember the butler, the parlourmaid, and the rest. All language is used like that; you never get a question answered literally, even when you get it answered truly (Chesterton, The Invisible Man)
