Something relating to your article happened to me recently.

I am part of an organization that had to interview about 26 applicants competing to enter in a very prestigious program. There was this one particular applicant, who I have been waiting to interview because she caught my attention. In the context of her application she strongly stated that “America should be the world police… it should keep the world under control…. etc… etc…” Neeldess to say, I was absolutely floored to read such a statement from one of the strongest students in our Univer. Moreover, I was flabergasted when I found out that she wants to become a diplomat. And here I was, in the position to decide whether or not to pass her into the program.

My dillema was: do I just make a “NO PASS” decision because of those comments regarding America=World Police? Or do I just give her a second chance and hope that she meant something else in her writing.

However, I felt that if I let her pass, and she eventually becomes a diplomat with this kind of thinking, our world will be coughing blood.

The only thing that I had left to do was to ask LOOOOTs of questions during the interview about her view of the world, America, wars, what it means to be “world police,” what exactly she meant in her writtings, etc. I felt that she was grilled during interview and she probably will hate me for the rest of her life for making her interview a living hell, but I got my answers out of her.

She was safe. She did not mean it the way she wrote it. I felt okay with letting her pass, even if she one day becomes a diplomat.

I am just glad that I did not make a decision based only on her writtings.

In Soviet Russia, you don’t have a virus, the virus HAS YOU! :)

There are several things I have to mention. First of all, on that girl’s behalf, thank you for taking your time to examine things before making a decision.

To be honest, I am not surprised by the fact that you haven’t rejected her ‘by default’; I knew you ‘re “my kind of person"…

It feels great to know that there are other people on the planet who are good listeners, who can make decisions by analyzing facts.

p.s. one more thing in the context of interviews, you will be very interested in the next story I plan to post here. It is not just a sequel to “[not] being a listener", but it is also one’s “pocket guide to spoken jiu-jitsu”. It can be used at interviews as a defensive or an offensive weapon ;-)

p.p.s. In Soviet Russia the applicant interviews YOU!!

really? you think people can understand each other better if they talk? Suppose I’m on the bus, pensively looking out the window, and suddenly I exclaim: ‘hey, that’s not how it happened!’. People around me will stare, and some might even think I’m a nutcase, and they’d be justified (and probably also right). Little does it matter that I was having a silent conversation with my invisible friend (perhaps one of the many invisible creatures that inhabit my world), and we started contradicting each other, I became too excited, and said something aloud. Makes perfect sense to me, but do you think the person sitting next to me will suddenly, um, understand if s/he gets some context? I seriously doubt it.

as for ‘Never be afraid to ask questions’, well, if they did ask me, I’d tell them to get lost. Not that it would help them understand me..The point is, some questions are better left unasked, particularly to/by strangers. I sympathize with your pleas, but methinks you’re a tad too optimistic about what dialog can achieve.

Dear m, thanks for the feedback, I see you’re an active reader :-)

I understand your point, and I don’t see a problem with it, nor do I see how it is in conflict with what I wrote. The explanation is simple, I’m the kind of person who:

• can spend a long time thinking about a problem in silence (writing, looking at the screen or just starting at the trees) and then exclaim something - a word, a number or just a “WTF?!” or “WOW!” or “Oh no!"…
• I play audiobooks in public transport while I’m in a standby mode (eyes closed, almost sleeping); and at times I just burst out into laughter (this happens with Richard Feynman’s books, and “Plato and a platypus walk into a bar")
• Heck, sometimes I just begin to laugh even if there are no headphones or audiobooks around :-)

So, if _I_ were the person next to you, we could have an entire conference with us and our imaginary friends. That is, after we found out what was going on in each other’s minds.

Communication doesn’t guarantee that problems will be solved, but it is certain that without communication problems will not be solved (in math they call this “necessary, but not sufficient"; I’m sorry if this brings up the traumatic memories of school; this is how I fight against my demons :-).

How is one supposed to fix a problem if they’re not even aware of the existence of said problem?

I think I know what you mean when you say that some things are better not discussed.

Yes, some people just don’t get it, they don’t have what it takes to make communication an efficient tool. You initiate contact, and they somehow manage to see it as a weakness (can you believe it?) or as a desperate attempt to get a piece of their “coolness". Mwahahaha! If they see things that way - it sucks to be them.

But unless I try, I won’t be able to live with myself, as my inner voice will keep saying “dude, you should’ve done X, but you chose not to".

And now think about the potential benefits - once in a blue moon you stumble upon a person who does understand you; even if it happens rarely, it is still worth it. Here are some other factors:
- As you get off that bus, they’ll forget you and you’ll forget them;
- Even while you’re on that bus, you can just continue minding your own business. It may take an effort to disconnect yourself from the world and make yourself not care, but it is possible. Learning to have fun while being alone is an important skill.

Hmm.. I think I can say that most of my close friends are people who I met in unusual, awkward circumstances.

Oh, one more thing - you can use this as a filter too. If you cooperate, and you don’t get any positive feedback - that person isn’t worth your attention.

It may appear that I am too optimistic, but I’m just being a realist - the truth is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks . And that I learned to learn from my failures :-) [and not get upset]

I understand that one’s spirits can be dampened if they keep bumping into idiots all the time. Maybe I just got lucky? [and this has nothing to do with my being “strong"?]

p.s. “Don’t be afraid to ask questions” is a statement I mostly promote among students. Not asking questions is the first step towards not understanding the big picture. I figured out the same principle works outside academia too.

p.p.s. Back to the folks on the bus; there’s a great chance that they genuinely don’t care, see this - a documented, studied and confirmed cognitive bias.

dear Alex, yes, i’m depressed and can’t do any meaningful work, so i’m reading your archive instead (alternating with a novel, and typing course notes). hope you don’t mind.

coming back to my example: well, lucky me that you can sympathize with people who have invisible friends. but after all, it comes down to what you can and cannot relate to. dialog doesn’t magically enable people to relate to stuff, unfortunately. But you’re right, it’s necessary even if not sufficient (not traumatized; i say this very often).

asking questions: perfectly normal (even desirable, as you rightly tell your students) in a classroom, but, say, on a bus it can be intrusive or even rude. anyway, we don’t disagree too much here either. it can be (intrusive and rude), but it need not be.

my example is such that it got us talking about questions and dialog as a way of expressing interest in a stranger. your post, though, is about smoothing out conflicts, and so was my comment.

dialog doesn’t magically enable people to relate to stuff
It depends on the person you interact with. If they talk for the sake of filling the silence with some sounds - dialog won’t help. (and it will most likely do harm: you end up frustrated because there are all these pseudo-helpers around)
However, if the conversation reveals that they are genuinely interested in your thoughts, your personality, and that they can share a piece of themselves with you - things can be different.

my example is such that it got us talking about questions and dialog as a way of expressing interest in a stranger. your post, though, is about smoothing out conflicts, and so was my comment.
Yes, but there is still a value in such a deviation. We can accidentally discover an “undocumented feature of the universe” (or of the human psyche), just like scientists who design a weapon end up creating a new type of coating for frying pans (or the other way around :-)

Questions not immediately linked to the discussion:

• which novel?
• which course?
• typing, as in “reproducing content” or as in “creating stuff from scratch"?

um, alright, let’s take Hannibal Lecter then. Surely, talking to him, listening to him describe his urge to kill will enable you to better ‘understand’ him, but will it also enable you to relate? Furthermore, ability to relate is not the only thing it takes to solve conflicts. After all, people can compromise even on things they don’t fully understand. So, dialog is always desirable, but there’s only so much you can do with it. Of course, this doesn’t subtract from its value.

Sure, there’s value in such a deviation, i completely agree.

novel: Norwegian Wood by Murakami
course: modern philosophy texts. I’m typing some of my handwritten notes: it helps me focus on reading and comprehending, and besides, i hate having to stock piles of paper, and stuff in general.

That’s an interesting case, I’ve been thinking about it recently; although my focus was on a different character - Dexter Morgan (from “Dexter").

Short version: he is a forensics expert who uses his knowledge to kill bad guys in such a way that no trace is left.

The example is interesting because I think it supports my point - understanding one’s rationale makes the relationship (regardless of the type or the depth of the relationship) better. This works even in extreme cases such as Dexter’s or Hannibal’s.

I can often engage in a debate, the points of view can be very different - but that doesn’t upset me (I just see it as yet another step towards a better me). What can upset me in a debate is being misunderstood. Being contradicted is fine (it helps one refine their ideas, it can be fun, it can be a challenge), but being misunderstood is very frustrating (to say the least).

So, in a regular contradiction, dialog is a must-have element, which helps avoid misunderstandings. This works in “edge cases” such as the one you provided; the “Stockholm syndrome” is something I will refer to, to support this statement. It is another edge case of this problem - the victim can relate to the attacker (so far we only discussed relating to the attacker as a reader/viewer/passer-by). That’s an unexpected and counter-intuitive twist.

These things happen, they exist, and I think they are explained by the fact that people are really attracted to things they understand.

This reminds me of some quotes:
- “Cind omul nu intelege, zice ca nu-i place” (if you NOT that, you obtain “omul zice ca ii place, cind intelege” :-)
- “Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand.”

Both of them place a great emphasis on understanding. People are attracted to what they can understand, so if you want to become popular or make something popular - make it simple to understand (note to self: use this in marketing products:-)

At this point I can say that making something easy to understand can really influence somebody’s decisions. For instance, I can name at least two of my students who had zero interest in network programming, but after interacting with me they got good at it and I have reasons to believe they will stick to this activity in the future (at least because I always use examples that illustrate how the same ideas work in different circumstances, even ones that have nothing to do with technology).

This is where I have to bring in another element - common sense. Although I can relate to bad guys, it doesn’t mean there are no other forces that can prevent me from criticizing their actions. One such force is reason. I like saying “Just because you have the right to speak, it doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right to tell you to shut up". In this case - “just because I can relate to you, it doesn’t mean I cannot condemn your deeds".

You may ask yourself “how can you say that, when you fully understand their rationale and understand how they feel?". I can say this is the same as examining my own flaws. I am not always there on time, I often tell myself “dude, don’t go to bed late", sometimes I engage in too many processes at a time, - I keep doing it… In other words - I understand that some parts of me need to be changed, and I am also aware that it takes effort (and it takes multiple mistakes before I finally get it right).

In the same fashion a smoker or a drug addict can tell themselves that they shouldn’t be doing it, then do it.

My point is that there has to be a line between relating to someone and fully supporting them. Understanding facilitates relating, but it does not imply full support.

You are right, people can compromise even when they don’t understand. But I think you should provide some examples, so I can make sure we’re in sync on this one.

I picture that some of the examples can be used against you. I could draw an analogy with peace treaties. The enemies decided to stop the war, but unless they genuinely agree, they simply postponed the problem.

I have to think about it, but so far I don’t think it is foolish to assert that “any compromise that does not involve understanding is a recipe for a disaster".. Or maybe “any compromise that does not involve understanding is a time-bomb", or “a compromise that does not involve understanding is a problem waiting to happen” (I prefer the latter, but I just couldn’t miss the chance of using “a recipe for a disaster” :-)

So, I believe you need to offer some examples, so we could test this hypothesis. Originally I wrote an example about my not smoking, yet understangind smokers… But I figured that was too much of a deviation.

ok, we need a little systematization here. and i’m not sure where to start. what’s our question? I’ll take the liberty to formulate it. What prompted me to write this comment, actually, was the topic of conflict. So: does dialog diminish the likelihood conflict? Yes, it does, because, as you argued, dialog can make explicit what may appear mysterious, strange, unreasonable or even unfair. Dialog can clarify things and eliminate what is only apparently a ground or conflict. But in some cases, the ground for conflict is there, dialog or no dialog. Sorry, Hannibal, we must put you in jail, even if some of us can understand you or even relate to you. There’s nothing you can say, Dr.Lecter, that will convince us that you shouldn’t be in jail. You eat people, and we have a big problem with that. But what did you mean there that understanding makes the relationship better? How exactly is it better? (Dex’s case is different, though. Shall we debate it here as well? that would require a separate set of distinctions. Morality vs legality, permissibility vs. the lesser evil. And we wouldn’t be talking about understanding except marginally..).

Now compromise: i actually think it can be successful without understanding. I think a compromise doesn’t depend so much on understanding as on the cost we incur by compromising. I once had a roommate who was afraid of clowns. I also had about a dozen posters with clowns (I liked them, watcha gonna do..). I couldn’t relate at all to my roommate’s phobia, but I could compromise. I mean, not putting up those posters wasn’t such a big deal. Had she just ordered me to take off my posters, things would have taken a very different course, and there would have been conflict. But I think this would miss the point, for there are things I cannot compromise on, even if asked or begged. Also,if her phobia would have required me to go too much our o my way, we’d have had to split ways). The point here is that we can have successful compromises without understanding as long as there is consent.

let’s attempt some sort of conclusion now. as you say, dialog is necessary to avoid misunderstandings, but if there really are irreconcilable differences, dialog can do nothing to dissolve them. But without dialog we can’t know if the differences are irreconcilable or not, which is why we should always try to understand. how does this sound?

got your email, thanks, but I gotta run now. I’ll reply later.

ok, we need a little systematization here - yes, we need to keep things organized before they begin to fall apart.

So: does dialog diminish the likelihood conflict? Yes, it does, because, as you argued, dialog can make explicit what may appear mysterious, strange, unreasonable or even unfair. Dialog can clarify things and eliminate what is only apparently a ground or conflict.
Exactly.

But in some cases, the ground for conflict is there, dialog or no dialog. Sorry, Hannibal, we must put you in jail, even if some of us can understand you or even relate to you. There’s nothing you can say,
Yes, sometimes two systems can be incompatible by design, in this case, society’s definiton of “acceptable” is in disagreement with Hannibal’s. The reasons I still consider this is not where it ends:

• If you simply shut someone up using brute force, they will be silent, but there will be others who might (and should, in a society that wants to be free) question your actions;
• You won’t be able to sleep tight, doubts will eat you from the inside ("was that fair?", “did I do the right thing?", “what if the same happens to me?");
• Future generations can learn from the mistakes of the past; they can devise laws that take ‘exotic scenarios’ into account, they can be prepared better when things go wrong, or they can try to re-engineer society such that similar events do not happen.

In other words, dialog is not going to fix this particular problem, but it makes possible to improve the future. Basically, this is for audit and self-improvement purposes.

Re #1 - acting without understanding the othe party’s reasoning is not a good strategy. Of course, this needs to be done in emergency cases (ex: a country invades you and there is no time for preliminary analysis, the best strategy here is “shoot now, ask questions later"), but when the circumstances allow it - think first. You may even discover that your original plan was flawed, or that your basic assumptions were entirely wrong, etc.

Re #2 - this only matters to people who have empathy and are not entirely selfish. I, for one, am very troubled when I have reasons to believe that my actions have a negative influence on someone else. I need to investigate in order to get peace of mind.

Re #3 - understanding what made Hannibal the person he is can help us “make” less Hannibals in the future. Not enough education? Not enough love? Lack of attention from parents? Then build better schools, help people become more individualistic, make contraceptives more accessible (such that people who are not prepared to become parents won’t give birth to children whom they will not be able to take care of).

This is a big deal. Today, a large part of mankind is still promoting the church like it is the best thing since sliced bread; and the church says that making abortions or using condoms is evil.

Of course, we could shut them up using force (see #1), but that wouldn’t make us any better than the Spanish inquisition, would it?:-)

Instead we should educate people, such that they can reason and figure it out themselves. This, in turn, will result in a smaller number of unhappy families, who have unhappy children, etc.

This is like Pascal’s wager, only there really is a winning strategy :-) - betting on communication brings many benefits and has no drawbacks; betting on silence has drawbacks and offers no benefits. It is a long term investment, and the ROI will most likely be collected by our children, not by us.

Dex’s case is different, though. Shall we debate it here as well? that would require a separate set of distinctions. Morality vs legality, permissibility vs. the lesser evil. And we wouldn’t be talking about understanding except marginally..
Yes, but I suggest we do that after we close the Hannibal case (if that ever happens :-)

Now compromise: i actually think it can be successful without understanding. I think a compromise doesn’t depend so much on understanding as on the cost we incur by compromising. I once had a roommate who was afraid of clowns.
Wow! (I really said that aloud as I read it)

I don’t think this was an example of a non-understanding-based compromise. After all, you did put yourself in her shoes, you examined her statements, you remembered your own scarry dreams in which you drive a car but you cannot control it, nor can you stop it. And you concluded that you can accept her terms.

As you say, if she ordered you to take them off, then there could be several scenarios:

• you take them off (thinking that you’ll dance on her grave :-)
• you keep them and ignore her request (you can find more posters of even friendlier clowns)
• you ask her why she wants that, she responds, things go smooth eventually

So, the disagreement here is that you call that “without understanding", but I think that’s a school-book example of an understanding-based compromise.

You may not think it is a big deal, as it comes to you naturally. The problem is that many people find it extremely difficult to see things from someone else’s perspective; so you should not underestimate the coolness of this feature you have.

But I think this would miss the point, for there are things I cannot compromise on, even if asked or begged.
But if you’re dealing with a reasonable person who pays attention to what you say, they may change their position once they understand that their wish goes against your nature.

So, dialog is not just a way to find what others want, it is also a way to tell others what you do not want.

let’s attempt some sort of conclusion now. as you say, dialog is necessary to avoid misunderstandings, but if there really are irreconcilable differences, dialog can do nothing to dissolve them. But without dialog we can’t know if the differences are irreconcilable or not, which is why we should always try to understand. how does this sound?
This sounds great, I only wish to add the “dialog is a long term investment” bit. Yes, nothing to dissolve them today, but perhaps something to prevent them from occurring tomorrow.

‘…I still consider this is not where it ends.’

I agree with you, of course that’s not where it ends. Dialog can have many positive consequences, solving conflicts being just one of them.

R1: we often act without understanding the other person without noticing. often it doesn’t even occur to us that we might be misunderstanding, or that there’s something more going on. but we’re doomed to ’sin’ this way the moment we begin interacting with others. we attribute reasons/desires/beliefs to them, most of the time inadvertently. sometimes we’re guilty for that, but most of the time we’re not, because it’s just what we do, even though we might incur some guilt for it, depending on the case. I’m saying we’re ‘doomed’, because there’s no time to discuss everything, or because the details of the other’s world beat our imagination. and i don’t mean, of course, that this ‘doom’ renders dialog pointless.

R2: yes, only I think even the ones we call utterly selfish have a good reason to be mindful. the obligatoriness of an action (pardon the perversion of English) doesn’t depend on your degree of empathy. I think the selfish make an exception for themselves.

R3: yes.

ok, the clown case is liable to that sort of response. Let’s make some distinctions:

1. Understanding + low cost: the clown story.

2. Not understanding + low cost: tolerating your housemate who smokes pot in the kitchen.

3. Not understanding + high cost: being in a relationship with someone who sleeps around.

4. Understanding + high cost: abstaining from premarital sex because your grandma thinks you should, for religious and what she calls moral reasons.

Now, we could go further and distinguish between understanding and approving, then between moral and non moral (dis) approval…

What I was saying earlier is that you can compromise without understanding if the cost is low. and that can be a steady compromise. you can do that even without approving. But clearly, that’s not the only scenario. there are other things you cannot compromise on, under no circumstances, even if you can somewhat understand the other person.

I’m back, and email notifications should be working again :-)

R1 - I agree, which is why it boils down to figuring out which cases are the ones worth a thorough analysis and which ones are not. I also think that once you learn to apply these methods, they become a part of your nature and you can analyze without really thinking about it. Some people are good at it, some are not; those who are - are those who practice this often.
This applies to any kind of skills. You may be able to multiply numbers quickly, or even solve equations by looking at them with a stern face :-) but if you rewind the tape N years back, you see that everyone started with basic addition and subtraction, and everyone had to look at the multiplication table to get something done. No one is born a hacker.

R2: yes, only I think even the ones we call utterly selfish have a good reason to be mindful. the obligatoriness of an action (pardon the perversion of English) doesn’t depend on your degree of empathy. I think the selfish make an exception for themselves.
I have difficulties interpreting this paragraph, specifically - how the last sentence is linked to the first two sentences. Can you rephrase it?

I like the way you’ve attached a cost to each scenario, to differentiate them. Using this approach things become crystal clear; I will encourage myself to do this in my thought processes. It is an elegant solution that helps us avoid falling into the analysis-paralysis trap. (A trap in which I think I often find myself)

R2: we were talking about how other people’s reasons can be appropriated by us when we make concessions and try to accommodate them. Then you said: ‘this only matters to people who have empathy and are not entirely selfish.’ And in my latest comment I tried to broach the notion of mattering. There are two things going on in compromise: awareness and choice to appropriate the other person’s reasons. I think even the ones whom we call selfish are aware, most of the time, that the others need to be taken into account, only they choose not to. I said they make an exception for themselves because they do understand that they’re claiming for themselves more than they are entitled to, and more than they concede to others. So, because they understand the cost they incur on others through they action, and because they also understand that they are not entitled to act that way, they are accountable despite their lack of empathy. That’s what I meant by obligation not depending on empathy. Well, you might say that I’m begging the question here, saying that the selfish ARE empathic after all. Actually, yes, this is what I’m saying: they are able to figure out the harm they’re causing, but they either ignore the harm (when it’s obvious what would happen) or the ‘trying to figure out’ part.