“When faced with a
difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without
noticing the substitution.”
Daniel Kahneman
If one combines the above quote from Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman
with the observation that most people do not listen to understand, they
listen to reply, I think we would be able to account for most of the vitriolic,
confrontational, and many times divisive interchanges in our everyday lives,
this applies to all social interchanges, not just on social media.
First, we all subconsciously listen to reply, it is a
natural response, it takes someone who is actively listening or are consciously
aware of our listen to reply foible to deliberately listen for understanding. Listening
to reply is a difficult habit to eradicate, it is also adding layers of
misunderstanding and confusion when we habitually listen in this manner. More insidiously,
it complicates simple questions because the listener is not paying attention to
the speaker, understanding the speaker’s main arguments or questions, superimposing
their own agenda on the conversation. What Kahneman points out in his quote is
that we also spin and twist the original thought or inquiry to fit a simpler frame
of reference, coming from a different world view; which first changes the
original question, but also does the original questioner a disservice by
bending their intent to the point of view of the responder. The ensuing
responses are often not intentionally adversarial but becomes so because the
conversation becomes a game of arguing in circles because each side has staked
out a piece of real estate to defend, falsely believing that they are speaking
on the same topic, never realizing that the conversation has been irreparably
changed into two subtly different, but still altogether different questions.
I have observed this many times in my role as an
administrator for a discussion group as well as being members of several other
groups. Some of the biggest blowups come from initially innocent questions,
which somehow gets hijacked, intentionally or unintentionally, by people who
responds to the question with their own agenda.
Those who are malicious or who respond with an agenda
usually respond with: “I agree with you, BUT…” Or they go straight for the BUT statement without
even acknowledging the original discussion or question by addressing their own
agenda directly. Minorities and people of color understand this very well,
because that is the usual rhythm of many conversations: first they try to
placate the speaker with the “I agree with you” part and then they jump to the
BUT, there is always a BUT. Many times they won’t even acknowledge your
original point and they go into their defense of their point of view, as if
your point is not worthy of discussion and then they proceed to “mansplain” to
you how you are mistaken, how your viewpoint is in error, according to their viewpoint
coming from their privileged perch without ever taking into consideration your
viewpoint coming from your not so privileged perch.
Unfortunately, it is one thing to understand the phenomenon and it is another to recognize it in the heat
of the moment. Your system 1 response (From Kahneman’s Thinking: Fast and Slow)
is to respond emotionally because you believe that the response is aligned with
your question or your argument. The rational part of your cognition overlooks
the slight and subtle twists that skews the question away from what you had
asked and perhaps you were also looking for an easier question to answer. The discussion
then spirals completely away from the initial point. I have seen many
discussions going that route.
Another head fake that goes on is the: “what about this
other thing ...” response. Which may not seem as deliberate, but it is yet another
tactic used to obfuscate the direct question by introducing situations and facts
that muddies the original train of thought. Sometimes the situation or facts
are legitimately germane to the original question, but many times they are extraneous.
It is the conversational equivalent of dividing and conquering by forcing the
original questioner to defend themselves without having had their original question
answered. Regardless of whether the additional
factor that is introduced, the conversation inevitably veers off away from the
original question never to be brought up again in that conversation. This act
saves the person who introduces the “what about this other thing ...” factor from
having to answer the difficult question.
I am not saying that every instance of what I am describing
are always deliberate, these tricks are ingrained in our psyche and we
naturally respond in this way in a very procedural manner, as if that should be
the natural flow of conversation rather than acknowledging it for what it is: a
head fake, a digression, a spin move.
For example:
Q: I am looking for a place that serves a good burger.
A: XYZ serves a great vegetarian
burger.
Q: What are the progressions for teaching perimeter defense?
A: You don’t want to run
perimeter, middle-middle is much better.
Q: How does one obtain these parameters experimentally?
A: You can calculate those parameters
by using numerical simulation.
On the other side of the conversation, sometimes the
original questioners do not ask the difficult questions, they ask the easier
question while fully believing that they are asking the question they want
answered rather than recognizing that they are asking the easier question.
For example:
Question asked: Good Mexican restaurants and go!
Better question: I am looking
for restaurants that serve good Tex-Mex/Authentic Mexican/Foods native to
specific Mexican states.
Question asked: My team can’t pass, any advice?
Better question: My passers have
a hard time passing jump floaters. Should I position them closer to the net to
start?
Question asked: My experimental results does not agree with
my simulation results, why?
Better question: I simulated what I assumed to be a linear problem,
I believe my experimental results are valid, could there be nonlinear elements
in the problem that would skew my results because I did not take them into
account?
Habit 5 from Steven
Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is: First Seek to Understand,
Then be Understood. If we all kept this in mind when we engage in face-to-face conversation
or in battle on social media there would be far less wasted time and effort on
discussions that turns on misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
