The Trouble with Conversation:

A non-fiction book by Fletcher Kovich

 

Paul’s understanding of Susan’s reply: “If you stay at home, you’ll still have all the fuss.”

As far as Paul was concerned, the following exchange had just taken place:

To open, he said: “I’m not going to my mother’s for Christmas day—it makes it difficult, me being a vegetarian; I’d have to cook my meal at the same time that she prepares the other food, and I don’t want all the fuss around the oven.” which he understood to mean: (I’m not going to my mother’s for Christmas day. I’m a vegetarian, which she doesn’t understand, so I can’t trust her to prepare my food, and she is not a very good cook anyway, so it’s best for me to prepare my own meal. But I would have to do this at the same time that she prepares hers, and when I make arrangements with her in the kitchen, she always goes back on what she has agreed, which messes up my plans. She does this in an aggressive and blunt manner. All this makes the day an unpleasant experience. Therefore it’s better to stay away all together.)

Susan asked: “But wouldn’t you have that anyway?” which Paul understood to mean: (But wouldn’t you still have your mother’s bad behaviour and the friction from her personality to cope with, even if you weren’t a vegetarian?)

He replied: “Not if I weren’t a vegetarian, because I would just put my feet up and she’d do all the cooking.” meaning: (Not if I weren’t a vegetarian, because I’d stay in the living room with the others, relaxing and enjoying myself, and wouldn’t go near the kitchen, and therefore wouldn’t have to suffer my mothers’ bad behaviour.)

She said: “No, ‘if you stay at home’, I mean.”

She seemed to be saying that he had misunderstood what she had meant by her initial question and that she had meant it to apply: ‘if he stayed at his own home’, and not: ‘if he stayed at his mother’s house’. Therefore it occurred to Paul that she had meant her initial question to mean: (But wouldn’t you still have your mother’s bad behaviour and the friction from her personality to cope with, even if you stay at your own home?)

But to Paul, this did not make sense, because his mother would not be at his home. Therefore, Susan’s comment just did not seem to make sense, did not seem to relate to her initial question. Paul just felt confused. He said: “What!” meaning: (Your comment does not seem to relate to your initial question, so it doesn’t make sense.)

She said: “If you stay at home, you’ll still have all the fuss.”

What did Paul understand by this?

In the first part of the comment (“If you stay at home...”), the words have a straightforward meaning and both Paul and Susan understood them in the same way.

When Paul heard the last part of Susan’s comment (“...you’ll still have all the fuss,”), in order to understand a meaning in this, he had to decide what she meant by the phrase ‘all the fuss’. To interpret this phrase, his mind went through a process similar to the following:

• When he first heard the words ‘all the fuss’, his mind wondered what they meant, because with this sort of vague phrase, the words can mean many different things. The words do not have a standard meaning—in the way that the words ‘if you stay at home’ do.
• When wondering about what these words meant, his mind recalled that he had used the phrase ‘fuss around the oven’ in his opening comment (he recalled himself saying this because these words seemed similar to Susan’s phrase ‘all the fuss’).
• His mind then assumed that the meaning of Susan’s phrase was related to the meaning of this phrase that he hadused previously. During a conversation, we all use this rule to interpret a person’s words. When we make a comment and they respond, we assume that the meaning of their comment is following on from the meaning of our own comment. We use this rule because we all know, without having to think about it, that this is the way that conversation works. To understand their words, we will therefore think back to what we meant by our previous comment, and try to see how their words might relate to that comment.
• He recalled all the thoughts that were in his mind when he had used the phrase ‘fuss around the oven’ (he recalled these, because, in Paul’s mind, it was these thoughts that he had understood as the meaning to his own words: ‘fuss around the oven’).
• These thoughts also seemed to make sense as the meaning of Susan’s phrase ‘all the fuss’, therefore Paul assumed that Susan’s phrase ‘all the fuss’ meant: his mother’s bad behaviour that he always experienced when he had to cook a meal in her kitchen at the same time that she was cooking1.

All the above happened in Paul’s mind in the space of about one second, and he would not have been aware of this process taking place. This type of process is continuously taking place in our mind when we are taking part in a conversation, but because we are so used to it, we are not usually aware of it. In Paul’s case, all he would have been consciously aware of would have been hearing Susan’s words: “...you’ll still have all the fuss,” then knowing that her phrase  ‘all the fuss’ meant: all his mother’s bad behaviour that he had experienced over the past few Christmases.

Two people using the same phrase but understanding an entirely different meaning in it, and both remaining unaware of this

When Susan first heard Paul use the phrase ‘the fuss around the oven’, she interpreted it to mean the process of cooking a meal, which she considered to be undesirable and tedious. When she heard him use the phrase, she recalled her experience of her friend using raw ingredients and several pots and pans in a lengthy and tedious process which created lots of unnecessary washing up to do afterwards. She interpreted his phrase in this way because she was not aware of any of Paul’s history behind his comment (which you have read in detail) and the only experience she had had that seemed to fit this phrase was her own experience of watching her friend cooking, which she had found undesirable (see page 27).

When Paul then heard Susan repeat the phrase, he naturally assumed that she was using it in the same way that he was. He had heard her use the phrase, and because he had used it himself a moment before, all the thoughts that were in his mind when he had used the phrase, came back to him. So, as far as he was concerned, these thoughts of his were what Susan also meant by the phrase. He had had no reason to think otherwise. And on her part, Susan was unaware of Paul’s interpretation. At this stage of the conversation, neither of them was aware that they were both understanding something entirely different by this phrase ‘fuss around the oven’.

This is a common situation. Two people might be passing comments to and fro between them, using the same phrase in the comments, but both understanding an entirely different meaning in the phrase, and both might be unaware of this; both might be thinking that the other person was using the phrase to mean the same thing that they were.

This type of misinterpretation is sometimes unavoidable because of the difference in experience between the two people (as with Paul and Susan). And this situation often remains invisible to both the people. This not only makes communication on certain topics almost impossible (when each of the people do not share the same experience), but it can also cause both people to see negative qualities in the other person’s personality which the person does not really have. We will see this happening between Paul and Susan over the next few chapters.

Paul’s interpretation

Here, then, is what Paul understood by Susan’s comment: (If you stay at your own home, you will still have all your mother’s bad behaviour that you experience when you have to cook a meal in her kitchen at the same time that she is cooking.)

Paul’s response to Susan’s comment

This is what Paul understood by her words. How did he respond to this? To him, Susan’s statement was obviously nonsense. When he was at his own home, his mother would not be there, so obviously he would not have to suffer her bad behaviour. Susan’s comment was obviously wrong. And he found it irritating that she had made this nonsense comment, because the comment was so obviously wrong and he could not understand how she could not see that it was wrong. He felt a strong need to point out her apparently stupid mistake to her. Therefore, he quickly said: “Of course I won’t, that’s the whole point!” meaning something along the lines of: (No, your comment is obviously wrong. If I stayed at my own home for Christmas day and cooked my own meal, then I would not have to suffer my mother’s bad behaviour that usually arises whenever I have tried to cook a meal in her kitchen at the same time that she was cooking. This is what I have been saying all along!)

Why did Paul not realize that Susan had misinterpreted his opening comment?

While you are reading through this book, you can take all the time you need to look at this situation from both Paul’s and Susan’s point of view. When you have done this, it will seem obvious to you that Susan had initially misinterpreted what Paul meant by ‘fuss around the oven’, and that when she then used the phrase ‘all the fuss’, she was now referring to something entirely different to what Paul had meant in his opening comment. But in the heat of the moment, both Paul and Susan only had a second or two to interpret each comment, and they both simply accepted the first meaning that came into their mind (as you did when you first read the conversation on page 8).

Also, whenever Paul was talking to people, he was always concerned mainly with expressing his own thoughts, rather than trying to understand what the other person might be saying. Because of this, it had never occurred to him that there was anything complicated about interpreting other people’s comments. For instance, when he heard a person’s comment during a conversation and a meaning came to his mind, he had never thought about the meaning, noticed that it did not seem to make sense and therefore realized that the other person probably did not mean what Paul thought they had meant, and as a result he had dismissed this meaning from his mind and then questioned them to try to work out what they might have been saying. Instead, he just accepted the first meaning that came to his mind, and it had never occurred to him that there was anything complicated about communication. As far as he was concerned, his own words clearly expressed his thoughts (and anyone who heard his words would understand his thoughts, unless they were a complete moron), and if he could not understand someone else’s words then this was obviously because they were not really saying anything, probably because they had a feeble mind and they did not have any clear thoughts in their mind anyway. These were Paul’s views on these matters. In conversation, this may be why he always responded quickly, without taking any time to think about what the other person might have been saying.

Paul’s tone of voice

As was said on page 44, Paul’s normal tone of voice had a slight harshness to it, but when he was in an excited state, the harshness in his tone came out vividly. When he made his present response to Susan, he was irritated because she was making (what seemed to him to be) this obviously wrong statement, and his irritation sent him into an excited state. This brought out the harshness in his tone. To anyone that he was talking to, this harshness could easily have been interpreted as aggression. But Paul was unaware of his tone. His only motive was to express his viewpoint, and if he had been asked, he would have said that he had made his response in a normal, neutral tone. But as we shall see in the following chapter, Susan did indeed interpret his manner to be aggression.

Conclusions from this chapter

The problem in using words with vague, adaptable meanings

Susan’s comment (“If you stay at home, you’ll still have all the fuss.”) seemed like a simple comment, which therefore ought to have had a straightforward meaning. But she used one of these vague words (‘fuss’) which could have meant many different things. Therefore Paul was left to guess what she might have meant by it, and it so happens that he understood her comment in a completely different way from the way that she had meant it in2.

In the passage that starts on page 12, it was said that there are two basic types of comments that we normally use in conversation, one is a comment that is making a statement about the physical world (such as: ‘My front door is red’), and the other is a comment that states an opinion (such as: ‘It makes it difficult, me being a vegetarian’). When we want to state an opinion, there are no set words for us to do this (as there are with statements about the physical world3) and we usually have to decide for ourselves what words to use. When we do this, one common solution to the problem is for us to use one of these vague, adaptable words in a key part of our comment (such as the words: ‘fuss’ or ‘difficult’ which could mean many different things4). The problem is that when the other person hears our comment, they then have to try to work out what we had meant by these words, and since the words could have meant many different things, they are left to guess what we might have been referring to, and if they have not had an experience that is similar to the one that we were trying to express, they would only be able to guess wrongly (as Susan did). And the other methods that we can use to express opinions, all cause similar problems. Therefore our ability to interpret comments that state opinions is dependent on how much personal experience we have had of the sort of thing that the other person is trying to express. But with comments about the physical world, we are much more likely to have experienced what the other person is talking about, since it is extremely easy to discover the experience of what a ‘door’ is, and what ‘redness’ is (for instance), and we all use the same words to describe the same experiences5, so the same problem does not tend to arise.

Because of these factors, it is fairly straightforward to communicate about the physical world, but when we state an opinion, our comment is much more likely to be misinterpreted.

But what type of comment is Susan’s?

This particular comment is a complicated example, because it could be one type of comment or the other, depending on whose point of view we consider. She said, “If you stay at home, you’ll still have all the fuss.” If we look at this from Susan’s point of view, she was talking about the ‘palaver’ of cooking, and all the mess and washing up that is created in the process. Therefore her comment was a statement about the physical world. But if we look at this from Paul’s point of view, he interpreted her comment to be talking about the personality friction that he usually experienced between himself and his mother when they attempted to both cook a meal at the same time. Therefore the comment was stating an opinion. So this comment is not a clear-cut example of one type or the other. Also, there is a further complication. The first part of the comment (“If you stay at home...”) is about the physical world, while the second part (“...you’ll still have all the fuss.”) is (from Paul’s point of view) stating an opinion. But if we consider the comment as a whole, it was stating an opinion because the idea that Paul was trying to communicate was an opinion. In the same way, Paul’s opening comment (as a whole) was stating an opinion, even though some parts of it were making a statement about the physical world. If we consider that comment as a whole, the sense that Paul was trying to communicate was an opinion (his experience of the personality friction between him and his mother), but in order to try to communicate that, he needed to use some phrases that where (if we consider them in isolation) making a simple statement about the physical world (for instance: “I’m not going to my mother’s for Christmas day...”, and: “...I’d have to cook my meal at the same time that she prepares the other food...”). This same situation applies with Susan’s current comment. Its first part was about the physical world, but (from Paul’s point of view) its second part was an opinion, yet the comment as a whole (from Paul’s point of view) was stating an opinion, since the single idea that he understood by the comment was an opinion. So, even though a comment is stating an opinion, it might be made up of phrases that are about the physical world.

The problem with the current comment is that Susan had used one of these vague words (‘fuss’). When we do this, it makes communication difficult because this vague word could mean many different things and the listener has to therefore guess what we might mean by it. So even though our comment is (from our point of view) a statement about the physical world, if we use one of these vague words or phrases, the comment is likely to be misinterpreted.

With care, it is possible to communicate about the physical world

When we state an opinion, our comment will usually be misinterpreted (though we may seldom be aware of it), but when we make a statement about the physical world, if we are careful over our choice of words, communication is fairly straightforward. For instance, if there is a point we want to make, and we feel that communication is important on this matter, we should avoid using words or phrases with vague, adaptable meanings (such as the phrase ‘fuss around the oven’ in the above example), and try to describe the experience directly. In the above example, Susan could have said: “If you stay at your own home and cook, you’ll still have all the palaver of using raw ingredients and several pots and pans in a lengthy process and creating lots of unnecessary washing up to do afterwards,” (which is what Susan understood by the ‘fuss around the oven’). If she had done this, then Paul would have understood her comment exactly as she had intended it and he would have realized that they were both talking about different things.

Of course, there are reasons why we do not usually spell things out in this way during a conversation—such as the pressure to respond quickly6, and the pressure to keep our comments reasonably short, since other people will be wanting to say something—so we will only have a limited amount of time available to make our comment in; we cannot give a ten minute lecture every time we want to make a simple comment. But with practice, it is possible to learn how to avoid these vague terms, and to hopefully give communication a chance—in the instances when we feel that it is important to try to communicate.

So, even though we might be making a comment about the physical world (which is usually straightforward to communicate about), if we use one of these vague words or phrases, communication is unlikely to happen. The following maxim summarizes this situation:

 

FOOTNOTES