We rarely think of ourselves as needing to learn how to talk; after all, we already can. And of course, to some degree, this is true, as it is true that the person who has hardly used a gun can fire it, though accuracy might prove lacking. Likewise, where knowledge and skill are absent, so too will lack intellectual accuracy and dexterity.
This piece can be found in “Thoughts” — please pick up a copy today!
Words can be more powerful than we can articulate, and yet words are also so common that they can feel as powerless as a background. Unfortunately, words naturally “appear” to us as used successfully: since we know what we mean when we speak, it is hard for us to notice when words aren’t used efficiently. This seems part of the “curse of knowledge,” as Steven Pinker calls it in The Sense of Style: words “appear” well-used, easily resulting in an overestimation of how well we use them. Yet we need “prior knowledge” to function, so risking “the curse of knowledge” is unavoidable. To use a lawnmower, I must know how to steer it; to lift an object, I must know how to move my arm; to build a fence, I must know how to use tools and measurements; and so on. Furthermore, if the lawnmower breaks, to use it again, I either must know how to fix it or where to take it so that it can be fixed. Without this knowledge, it will remain broken. If I lack ideas, I will be stuck, and so it goes with language.
When it comes to lawnmowers, fences, and the like, the need for “prior knowledge” is more obvious and self-explanatory, while when it comes to the metaphysical and what “appears” working, the need doesn’t always seem so present. Yes, we know we need to learn how to speak when it comes to first learning how to talk, but we forget this need as we get older (say when it comes to using language in more advanced and nuanced situations). Complex machines obviously need manuals, but what is less tangible often doesn’t seem like it does, and yet ironically the intangible can need a guidebook most of all (and perhaps it could be said that the whole history of philosophy has been an attempt to provide such a book).
When it comes to speaking, we are all like a person needing (to invent) the Rosetta Stone. To create such a Stone, the ancient craftsman had to know multiple languages: similarly, to communicate well, we today must understand multiple personality types; how each type interprets and understands situations, words, and expressions differently; how each type changes in the presence of other types; and so on. We must grasp how both the introvert and extrovert understand “planning” (for example), similar to the translator who needs to know the word for “cat” in both Russian and Chinese. Unfortunately, since we know what we mean by “planning,” we naturally don’t think there are variations (yes, we might acknowledge “there are differences,” but we probably won’t really feel these differences “in our bones”). Like Russians who never encounter the Chinese (or who don’t know they do), though they might be aware of “there being different cultures out there” (abstractly), they likely fail to feel any imperative to learn Chinese. Until suddenly there is — there’s a crisis or someone Chinese knocks on the front door — but by then it’s already too late. Once things “change,” “appear,” “break,” etc., then our need for understanding different languages becomes “visible” to us (like a doorknob that stops working, to allude to Heidegger). By then though, it will already be too late to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding, hurt, and crisis.
The hope of this work is to provide a “Rosetta Stone” of sorts (however imperfect), a set of “directions of conversation” that will help people avoid misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, the hope of this work is to help people realize that, though language “appears” easy to use, it is not, and all of us are likely to encounter misunderstandings regularly if we’re not careful. Since language naturally “appears” to us as “being used correctly” though, if we wait until language appears “broken” before trying to learn “rules of conversation,” we might never change (how language “appears” to us locks us out of feeling that we need any more knowledge on how to use language).
We all need discernment, though comically and tragically we are all naturally “locked out” of the identification of the sort of situation we are in by the fact that we naturally understand what we mean when we speak. We are “unaware that we are unaware” of speaking’s difficulty, and this is why we need guidelines, regardless how convinced we are that we have mastered speaking. Perhaps we indeed have: guidelines will only make that clearer.
People are very different, and often lack the tools to talk about these differences. Without a “Rosetta Stone,” per se, a person who only speaks English and a person who only speaks Russian will struggle to “talk through” their misunderstandings and the ways they (unintentionally) hurt one another. And if they try to discuss that hurt, as is ultimately necessary, they may only suffer more.
II
1. Speak in frameworks versus “does and don’ts.”
A framework is a way of looking at and structuring the world, while “dos and don’ts” tend to only apply to particular situations. Frameworks can be used regarding many situations, while “dos and don’ts” apply to one by one. Furthermore, the later assumes the posser of the list “knows” what is right and seeks conformity, while speaking in frameworks gives people a chance to think for themselves and to choose what is right (hence making it more meaningful and “a way of life” the person chooses versus just follow out of obligation).
2. Don’t apologize for the truth or risk suggesting falsities are correct.
However, this suggests we need to “seek truth” and prove humble and thoughtful about it. Furthermore, we need to be able to articulate the truth in a way that others can understand, regardless their “framework.”
3. Avoid a habit of saying “sorry.”
Unintentionally, we might create an atmosphere in which we are assumed to always be wrong, which can make it hard for us to be taken seriously when we must assert or stand up for ourself. Furthermore, we might make the people around us feel as if they are always doing something that makes us feel like we need to apologize, which may make those people think that we think they are constantly upset. This may very well upset them (and hence make it seem we were right to think there was something wrong), and also contribute to people not wanting to be around us.
4. Avoid “I agree” or “I disagree” as much as possible.
Rather, achieve such stances through civil debate and discussion “indirectly.” If we claim, “I (dis)agree,” we will likely put those we are speaking with on the defensive or offensive; furthermore, we will have primed them to agree or disagree with what we are about to say before making a case, which is to say we will have set others up to think in terms of “sides” versus “truths,” in terms of “Who’s right?” versus “What’s right?” We will have also primed ourselves to be lazy in our thinking, having allowed ourselves to express our position without doing the work to justify that stance.
5. Avoid replying to questions directed toward someone else before that person has had a chance to speak.
We can contribute afterwards, but otherwise we’ll easily make others feel like we don’t think they can answer questions for themselves (which might make them seem ignorant, disinterested, or the like). Furthermore, this will help us from voicing details or information which others would prefer to keep private.
6. Realize that talking out-loud invites participation, opinions, and/or conflict.
We should be careful when we “talk out-loud” and be aware of what we say. What people hear, they can feel invited to comment on and misunderstand.
7. Always “assume the best.”
Otherwise, conversation will prove difficult, ruined by cynicism, doubt, constant clarification, and worse. For elaboration, please see “Assuming the Best” by O.G. Rose.
8. Avoid speaking out of irritation.
Otherwise, our chances of saying what we want to say are low, and furthermore we might train the people around us not to speak to us. If, however, we really must speak about something that bothers us, we should do so one-on-one, as soon as possible: we shouldn’t harbor bad thoughts or wait until much later, for we might create an atmosphere of paranoia where people are always wondering if there is something wrong (but no one is saying anything yet — a great “yet” hovers in the air). We should do our best to overcome our irritation and prove more patient, and to be wise about which battles we choose to fight (not that this is easy — many things worth doing aren’t).
9. Make our default “speaking one-on-one” to people versus in groups, especially when dealing with tough subjects.
The more people involved in a conversation, the higher the likelihood of misunderstanding, of complex dynamics emerging which weren’t intended, of people being involved who shouldn’t be, and so on. People have different ways of talking, of interpretating, of emotionally processing, etc., and the more people involved, the more “crisis-crossing” there will likely be between these different “frameworks.” Furthermore, we increase the likelihood of someone feeling “ganged-up on,” which increases the likelihood of personal hurt, of a person becoming defensive, of a person isolating his or her self, etc., all of which will impede communication and community.
10. Don’t assume intentionality.
How we interpret the meaning of a person’s actions is naturally done through our own “framework” and hermeneutics, which sets us up for trouble, seeing as people act through their “frameworks.” To interpret someone’s actions (especially without empathy) is likely to lead to misunderstanding. If our husband is in the kitchen instead of in the living room with us, we should not be quick to conclude that our spouse “doesn’t want to sit with us” (it should be noted how easy it is to feel certain about the critical and yet uncertain about the positive). It could be the case that our spouse is avoiding us, but he/she might also just be preparing dinner. If our son is unable to come home for Christmas, we should resist the urge to suggest that this says something about how much our son cares about the family. If a person says we should let neighbors take care of themselves, we shouldn’t assume the person is selfish.
People who read intentionality into the people around them will likely contribute to an atmosphere where everyone is constantly worried about what their actions “might say,” which no one can ever confirm for sure. This easily breeds paranoia, anxiety, and often causes people to want little to do with one another. Of course, interpreting intentionality (to some degree) is unavoidable, and how exactly is best to do this is expounded upon in “Assuming the Best” by O.G. Rose. Generally though, concluding things based on the intentions of others is a dangerous act and best avoided.
11. Make “yes” mean “yes” and “no” mean “no” so that our “maybe” means “maybe.”
If at one time our use of a word means one thing and another time something else, then when we use words, we will not necessarily help alleviate existential uncertainty. Where there is anxiety, communication suffers.
12. Never disqualify a person from conversation.
We should never suggest a person is incapable of contributing because the person is “too philosophical,” “too Liberal,” “brainwashed,” “too emotional,” “simply a good debater,” “inconsiderate,” or so on. To disqualify a person (perhaps done through debasement or by bringing in an outside standard of authority which the person doesn’t qualify according to) is to, firstly, assume our “framework” is a valid standard by which to determine who is “qualified” and who isn’t, when such value judgments are relative. Second, an evil person who says “2 + 2 = 4” still says something that is true (as described in “Basic Math” by O.G. Rose): nothing a person says or does can render that person entirely incapable of uttering good, true, and/or useless things, suggesting all “disqualification” overreaches.
In a Pluralistic age, it’s especially tempting to disqualify individuals from conversation, for when faced with vast complexity, information, varying personalities, etc., we’re all looking for ways to “sort through it all.” But we must avoid the temptation to disqualify everyone (but us) from a conversation to achieve simplicity and to avoid confusion, for this is a temptation of “totalitarianism.”
13. Subtleness is good.
If we need someone to stop eating all the ice-cream in the refrigerator (for example), rather than ask the person to stop in front of the whole family, we should either follow the person into the kitchen and nicely say, one on one, “I forgot to mention it, but I’ll need some of that ice-cream for this evening,” or write something general on a sticky-note and leave it on the ice-cream that reads, “Needed for this evening.” Being subtle is crucial and valuable. It is generally best to try to avoid making someone feel “pinned down” (though it might prove impossible to completely avoid this), for not only does it avoid making a person feel like he or she “messed up,” but it also has a better chance at helping someone internalize the information, all while avoiding conflict.
14. Don’t make people feel like idiots, incapable, like they do everything wrong, etc.
This will make people resent us, not want to be around us, and may result in the person not taking anything we say seriously (at least without getting defensive). Furthermore, when it comes time when we really do have something important to say, they might not listen. Also, demeaning others just doesn’t build them up, which doesn’t bode well for personal bonds.
15. Avoid making others feel guilty, and never use guilt to get what we want, what we think is best, etc.
Guilt can be used when reason is lacking, but what reason and civil discourse cannot achieve, guilt shouldn’t achieve. Guilt is tempting to use when people feel themselves failing to make the case that they want to make, but this temptation should be resisted. When we use guilt, we can make those around us “feel bad,” and this might make them not want to be around us and feel as if they cannot talk to us. Both of these hinder growth.
16. Seek nuance.
There are no “generalities,” and only “humanity” insomuch as it is made up of individuals or refers to an “emergence” between and thanks to individuals. To speak in generalities is to risk reducing intricate matters into ideas far too simple for everyday life. We naturally have an aversion to complexity, but complexity is unavoidable. Simplicity is a wonderful thing, but rarely is simplicity achieved without honoring complexity worth its salt.
Worse yet, generalities can be power phrases. If I say, “Everyone likes football,” I might suggest that people who don’t like football have something wrong with them. If I say, “No one gets paid for art,” I might suggest that we are foolish to pursue an artistic career. To appeal to a generality is to appeal to a “higher metaphysical truth” (that probably doesn’t exist), perhaps to change the behavior of others. As with guilt, any behavior that can’t be changed with rationality shouldn’t be changed with generalities, for it is detrimental to all.
17. Be careful to justify speaking or an action by claiming, “We must call a spade a spade.”
Though “a spade is (indeed) a spade,” how we interpret “a spade” isn’t necessarily equal to the spade. Furthermore, such claims assume the accuracy of the one who feels compelled to speak (mainly, ourselves). And if we want to “call a spade a spade,” we can simply do so through rationality: there is no need to make such claims explicitly (“articulate, don’t’ tell”). In my opinion, rationally convincing someone has a much higher chance of internally changing that person than “calling the person out,” per se, but unfortunately “calling someone out” can feel more satisfying, like “a release.”
18. Avoid appealing to credentials.
For though someone with credentials might have a higher likelihood of being right, this is not necessarily the case, and the person’s “rightness” should become apparent through discussion and rationality. Furthermore, a professor who says, “2 + 2 = 5,” is wrong, despite his position. Hence, an appeal to credentials doesn’t necessarily add to a conversation, and thus we should let credentials “show through the argument” versus proceed it.
19. We should avoid appealing to or questioning motives.
St. Augustine suggested that there is no such thing as bad motive: the murderer is driven by what he defines as “good,” as is everyone (no one is motivated by a “true negative”), for even those who want to kill themselves believe it is “good” to commit suicide. This being the case, claiming, “I’m only doing this because I love you,” or “I’m just doing what I think is right,” likely don’t add anything useful to the discussion (such claims may simply distract and make determining “the right thing to do” more difficult.) The motives of a person (relative to that person) will of course be good, and yet the person’s motives do nothing necessarily to make a claim more or less true. Someone motivated by greed can be just as right when saying, “2 + 2 = 4,” as is someone motivated by global compassion.
If we accuse someone of being “inconsiderate,” “thoughtless,” etc., we will probably hinder the possibility of conversation, for the discussion will likely tend to be about proving motives, which can never be fully verified. The questioning of motives also hurts feelings and alienates.
In the same way, we shouldn’t question the reasons why someone acts (claiming, “You’re greedy,” “You’re cruel,” etc.), because even if such statements are true, people act because they reason that their actions are in their self-interest or the best interests of others somehow, and until that changes, people will likely not cease. Changing a person entails changing a person’s incentive structure, and though labels may temporarily accomplish this, something like rationality is needed for something more permanent.
20. Do not say, “That’s impractical,” “That’s unrealistic,” “That’s extreme,” etc.
Such phrases can feel like ways to silence people who disagree while claiming that our “way of seeing things” is the right way to see. Like generalities, such terms can be “power phrases.” Furthermore, “practicality,” “realism,” “extremeness,” etc. are relative: if we believe in God, it is impractical, unrealistic, and extreme not to believe in God; if we’re an Atheist, the opposite. Therefore, such valuations are relative and cannot be readily applied to others without causing misunderstanding and pain.
21. Do not claim a person is deceived, brainwashed, etc.
A deceived person who says, “2 + 2 = 4,” still says something that is true; furthermore, if a person is deceived, we should try to make the person realize such through rationality versus labeling (which is more likely to just make that person defensive). Furthermore, why are we so certain that we’re not deceived? Perhaps we’re disqualifying others to hide the truth from ourselves?
22. Consider “truth” our prime standard, for “truth organizes values.”
Though truth is hard to determine, we should do our best to seek it. What constitutes “kind” is relative to “what is the case,” as it goes with “honesty,” “sweetness,” “consideration,” and so on (which is to say that without truth we will struggle to organize “values” and to determine which apply and how). Where truth is not emphasized, there will be confusion and “different grounds” off which people operate: some will operate from a value of honesty, others a value of morality, others a value of religious conviction, and so on. This will cause confusion, pain, and trouble: people will struggle to talk who do not share the same “ground,” and yet if everyone must share “my ground,” that can prove totalitarian and forceful. But what is true is true, regardless who says it, and in this way truth can feel “external” and “impersonal,” thus helping us rise above subjective and personal views without feeling like we are being “smothered” or “powered over.” No, truth isn’t easy to determine, but at least everyone in a conversion being “toward” it can go a long way to unification.
Please note that if this point sounds like it favors men, that is not the case, because though perhaps we can associate “rationality” with “masculinity,” truth organizes rationality, and the “feminine” can be associated with the “nonrational/truth” (also, I would argue that “autonomous rationality” tends to be a force of suffering and destruction). A simple dichotomy will not suffice: a dialectic is needed.
23. Avoid using “fatalistic” or “apocalyptic” reasoning.
If someone tells people that they must do this “or else,” the people will feel pressured to do something, and furthermore not feel free to choose what the person thinks is best. This will create a tension that will greatly increase the likelihood of conflict and anger, but unfortunately “apocalyptic reasoning” is tempting to use, precisely because it often proves so effective. For more on why, see “Death Is the Event Horizon of Reason” by O.G. Rose.
24. As much as possible, avoid statements, arguments, reasoning, and so on that cannot be falsified.
What cannot be falsified is that which people will struggle to feel certain about (whether true or not), and this will lead to existential anxiety that could strain relationships (for more on why, see the work of Karl Popper, as well as “If We Think for Ourselves Without Falsification, We’ll Probably Go Crazy” by O.G. Rose).
25. Don’t privilege our own perspective (aka: “Don’t give yourself the ‘get out discussion free card’ ”).
It is tempting to claim that we can see a situation clearly while another can’t because the person “is blinded by love,” “religious,” “liberal,” “too close to the situation,” etc., but such a privileging of our perspective makes communication difficult (the exchange can become a monologue). People don’t like to be “spoken over” or “spoken at,” and even if the speaker is saying true and valuable things, the listener may miss them, feeling belittled and ignored. Furthermore, to privilege our view is to make the conversation “theological,” per se, which is to say we make ourself a kind of “Pope” who has access to a truth no one else can understand. This contributed to the Protestant Revolution, and may do something similar in our own personal lives.
26. Avoid statements that imply or feed “hole hope.”
As discussed in (Re)constructing “A Is A” by O.G. Rose, hope grounded in actuality is “whole,” while hope grounded in fantasy is grounded in something not there, a “hole.” Humans are prone to idealize and overlook reality, and language that contributes to this natural tendency can encourage a person to not live “for real.” This can lead to anxiety, unhappiness, and more. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t use our imagination, but it is to say we shouldn’t use our imagination “over” reality. (For more, please see “(W)hole Hope” by O.G. Rose.)
27. As much as possible, avoid statistics, studies, and the like.
If I say, “10% of people x,” there is probably no way for a person to prove or disprove my claim in the middle of the discussion, and my reference threatens to grind the conversation to a halt (rather, I might email the person with the data and sources afterward). Furthermore, the person might feel as if we are privileging our perspective (as “more scientific,” “better researched,” etc.), and this could lead people to wanting to avoid us. Furthermore, we might use “evidence” that isn’t as grounded in facts as we might think: we could risk a conversation for what in the end isn’t actually a good reason. (For more on this topic, see “Incentives to Problem Solve” by O.G. Rose.)
That said, if a person does bring statistics, studies, etc. into a conversation, we should feel free to ask for sources and to offer counter statistics, studies, etc. However, we should try to stop using such material as soon as possible, waiting instead to send the information over later when it will not hinder discussion.
28. Put our position second and our reasoning first, not our position first and our reasoning second.
We should avoid reasoning to defend a position, but rather reason from a position (making it easier for us to change it). When we talk, avoid debating, but rather seek “reason together”: be a pilgrim with others searching for truth, versus act like the person “holding all the answers” (whom the lost masses need). We should journey with others versus christen ourselves their destination.
29. We shouldn’t make others feel like we are their enemy.
30. We shouldn’t be afraid or encourage fear.
31. We should remember that everyone is battling something.
III
There is no “hard formula” for how we should talk to people, but there are general guidelines that might help us avoid conflict and misunderstanding. Everyone is different and experiences the world differently: one person is more aware of emotions; another, ideas; another facial expressions; and so on. Between a hundred people, “what it means to sacrifice” could mean countless things, and between two people, the way one person “sacrifices for the other” could be interpreted as self-centered and inconsiderate. This leads to confusion and struggle all of us can wrestle with when living amongst humanity. Without any guidelines, the likelihood of conflict and confusion is much higher.
If people don’t feel as if they can talk to one another, there cannot be relationships. Unfortunately, in line with the thought from “The Phenomenology of (True) Ignorance” by O.G. Rose, when people fail to communicate effectively, they often are “truly ignorant” about their failure, and rather think they communicate successfully. If misunderstanding does occur, seeing as speakers necessarily experience what they say as “working,” people will naturally find fault in others, causing trouble. “What we know we don’t know” is what we aren’t completely ignorant of, but what we don’t know we don’t know is that before which we seem completely helpless. When it comes to language and speaking to others, this latter state is what we usually find ourselves experiencing. How do we escape this natural “self-deception?” We can’t help but experience it, but guidelines can help us escape it.
When we speak, we often speak motivated by “good intention,” but as a movie producer fails who has the “good intent” of making a great film but fails to execute the project properly, so we fail to “speak well” if we fail to execute our “good intent” successfully. Speaking is like art, and as there are no hard rules for how to make a great work, there are still general rules that can make all the difference. So it goes with talking, a matter of “high order complexity” (to allude to “Experiencing Thinking” by O.G. Rose).
The less difficult we make the lives of other people, the happier we and they might be. Unfortunately, no matter how hard we try, we often make lives difficult, not meaning to do so. Words seem easy to use, but we should never forget that when we speak, we engage in a non-physical expression of the brain, arguably the most complex entity in the universe. And when we talk with others, multiple brains are present: the involved complexity multiplies. Let us hence speak with “fear and trembling,” reverently, so that we may speak well.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram and Facebook.