Words are the Packaging
So here we are with another piece composed of words, about words. It has been a while since I posted something, in part due to life being rather eventful and in part due to me overthinking some of my writing (I know, I wrote a whole article about avoiding doing exactly that). Thankfully, I have a wonderful circle of humans that help me get back on track when needed. So what is this focus on words really about? Anyone who knows me knows I spend a lot of time thinking about communication—and its pitfalls. Words are a rather important component of that, as they are functionally the packaging of the ideas we are trying to convey. Bad packaging can muddle the contents inside. As my methods of communication can be rather convoluted, let me package this idea as simply as I can to start.
We start with an idea floating around in your head that you want to share with someone, maybe an opinion you have or an experience you've gone through. You need to get this idea from your head over to someone else's, so you "package" it into words and speak it or write it down. The package is then received by the other person and then goes through a complex delivery system to be dropped off to the interpreter in their head. The interpreter then takes the words and other information to piece together the idea you were sending their way. They then figure out what idea they want to pass on, and the cycle continues.
If that framework is sufficient for you, then I hope it serves you well. For those with an attention span longer than 30 seconds, I would like to spend some time expanding on this analogy since there are plenty of ways of using it beyond the baseline example. I believe an understanding of this is part of what differentiates a productive conversation from an unnecessary and messy argument. I can't even begin to recount the number of arguments I've heard that could have been avoided if both parties just listened and explained things better. One of my motives for writing about this is my selfish desire to understand other people's perspectives better. There is a rich bounty of knowledge and experiences I feel I can't access because people either refuse to elaborate or just don't know how to (the packaging is poor, so the idea is unreachable). But before I ramble on this one too much, let me move the focus forward a smidge since this idea is a complicated one to package.
Complicated Packaging
Sometimes the ideas you're trying to deliver are complicated and require specialized packaging, at times multiple boxes. Not everything we are trying to say can be summed up into a few neat little words. Sometimes we need to provide context or multiple examples to really get at the point we're trying to communicate. While there is an argument to be made that if you can't express an idea cleanly you don't fully understand it, I find that simplifying is something that comes with practice and honestly isn't always applicable.
Our view on certain matters isn't something that lives in isolation; it's often rather messy and comes with these complications called emotions. Removing emotions from the equation for the sake of brevity not only makes the core idea incomplete but makes the overall package feel strangely hollow. I can understand a view on something, but without emotions, it has nothing anchoring it to the individual I'm interacting with.
An example of this I feel obligated to address is online posts. When you see posts online or decide to make one yourself, we need to remember that EVERYTHING has lost some form of context. Not only are we directly interfacing with soulless pixels on a plastic rectangle, but people's ability to pay attention is bordering on nonexistent. There is virtually no way to communicate global-scale problems to others in 5 images and emotionally charged captions. While I view spreading information as a vital part of online interaction, we are each responsible for remembering that what we are reading is rarely the whole picture. The same goes for the posts we make, but I don't need to dive deeper into that one.
Delivery Address
Another aspect to account for is where the idea is getting shipped to. If someone is ideologically "local" to you, there isn't much of a need to explain an idea with all its context, as they are familiar with the area. In a simple example, if I were to talk about a concept relating to coding with someone who can't get a printer to work, I probably need to package that idea with plenty of extra padding to increase the likelihood the core idea gets across, as they are "far" from the subject and the understanding I have. Similarly, if someone's political or cultural views are far away from my own, there's a need for more context to be provided for the idea itself to get across more clearly. Too often, I notice people talking about a subject subconsciously assuming the person they're talking to has an intimate understanding of all the underlying subtext behind what they're talking about.
A personal example I can provide is my background working in a leadership role. When I receive feedback for something I've done, I hear the words they say, and I place it in the context of the overall business. Having been around people who own businesses or run operations, I have a better idea of what motives they have behind the words they say. In contrast, when someone is fresh into the workforce, I notice the same words get taken in a completely different direction. People often make it more personal than it needs to be, and the feedback feels unnecessary to them. I've had the same people come to me to complain, but when provided with the same context I have from my experience, they often understand and are substantially less bothered by what was said. This is something I feel good leadership does by default but not everyone is receptive to that.
Sanctioned Regions
Sometimes, if someone's delivery system sees an idea coming from a specific region, they immediately throw it out. The contents never make it to the interpretation part of the brain. They are all treated as if they contain anthrax or illicit material. In this case, I often disengage and don't continue the subject at hand despite often wanting to dive deeper. There are cases where I successfully convince myself to ask them more about the reasons for their views, but it's a difficult process. People who respond to something this way are often dismissive and focus solely on making their point. Rarely can someone bring up a counterpoint that will be given consideration on their part.
This is rather frustrating to interface with since it doesn't feel like much of a conversation. Any thought you share feels like it's being thrown into the incinerator because of completely unrelated topics. In essence, you can share an idea you have on one topic, and because they disagree with that, anything you have to say from that point on is universally dismissed. I've found interactions like this serve as good grounds for practicing the next point.
Internal Weather
Controlling our internal conditions is part of this delivery process. We can influence what is treated as contraband, and this stems from being aware of the weather conditions in our heads. If our internal state is tumultuous, the package and its contents end up in a messy state, leaving the interpreter with more room for error. The response we have to what's being said needs to be monitored, and piecing together the ideas being shared needs to be actively considered. This is further affected by the "complications" I mentioned before. Everyone has some subject that causes an intense emotional reaction, at times, without our realizing it.
This is where interacting with the aforementioned people is a useful training ground for managing these reactions. These people have a knack for disturbing my inner peace, but it's for that reason that I can practice some level of awareness. There's a belief that strong reactions can, at times, stem from a lack of understanding. So my belief is that spending time learning the "lay of the land" for ideas you just can't stand can enable you to find common ground, however little it may be. People you never thought you could understand become less ambiguous and in turn could quell the intense reactions you have to certain subjects. In no way am I saying we need to have common ground with everyone, or that you need to agree with their ideas, but practicing this can enable you to better respond and challenge people's stance when there's a disagreement.
In Person Says More Than Words Can
A related note to all of this I feel the need to address is the amount of information that's lost in interfacing with others in an online setting. There is more information for the interpreter to use for piecing together an idea when you can see the person the message came from. A real-life comparison, oddly enough, is driving. It's really easy to have a strong reaction to someone driving poorly and label them an irredeemable piece of garbage. But consider an extreme circumstance: if that person was trying to rush to the hospital because someone in the back was on the brink of giving birth, the recklessness isn't excused, but the circumstance is much more understandable. On a similar note, when you're reading something online or a questionably worded text, all the interpreter has to make sense of the idea is what's in the box. We need to remind ourselves that what's happening in the life of the person at the moment of writing is unknown to us, and often can provide relevant context for what we are reading. It may not excuse the stance or behavior, but knowing where it comes from helps with making peace when a message arrives that disturbs our internal weather conditions.
The Point
All in all, I would say the primary goal of this is both for the sake of ranting about something that bothers me, but also to offer a framework for how to view communication that might prove useful. I think it goes without saying that I don't think about this during every conversation, but the attitude I have when listening, and the way I choose my words, is summed up by this analogy. To bring it back to a more literal explanation, I try to understand that the words being spoken to me are coming from a place that I don't have full understanding of. I have no way of ever truly knowing the context informing how someone views the world and how they behave, so my conclusions are generally quite inconclusive. On the opposite end, I have to remind myself that people don't come into a conversation with me knowing everything I know and viewing things the way I do; that's impossible. So extending some grace to others' words and intentions, and being more intentional about how we communicate things, can bridge gaps we may have assumed were impossible.
