On more than one occasion in this blogging experience (and, in fact, in other online discussions) I've been told "You sound mad." The simple fact is that I am not an angry person and I rarely get mad. (I have a lot of other inappropriate defense mechanisms. "Mad" isn't my primary one.) Last year in one discussion in the comments section of one of my blog entries (I'm too lazy to go through them all to find it, so I won't reference it), I responded to someone (I don't really remember who it was; I'm not being evasive) who said that my response sounded mad. I was surprised and said so because I wasn't. My son, who was staying with us at the time, read the exchange. "You know, Dad," he told me, "you did sound mad." "Really?" I asked. "Do you think I was mad?" "Oh, no," he assured me, "I know you. You weren't mad. But it did sound mad."
I've found this to be the case more often than I can count. A question or a comment comes across as rude or unkind or angry when it wasn't intended as such in any way, shape, or form. I'm not thinking or feeling that way, so it doesn't occur to me that anyone would understand what I say to be that way. I am, for the most part, a pretty simple guy who is typically on the edge of smiling most of the time. Most of what I write I write with some humor, at least in my own sense of it, because I see most of life with some humor. Regardless of my mood, I always try to write as I speak, and no one has ever told me, "Your conversation is too hard to understand." As it turns out, however, I am often perceived as harsh and hard to follow.
In a recent Internet exchange with someone I asked what I thought was a humorous question. The response was acid and scathing. I responded with humor (because I had intended humor), but I asked via email, "Ummm ... where did that come from?" He told me that my "humorous" comment had come across as an attack and he responded in kind. To be helpful he said, "The trick I’ve tried to start doing lately is ask whether anyone is likely to read my comment in a way or tone different from the one I mean."
Nice sounding, I'm sure, but I haven't a clue how to do that. Since I write as I think and think I write with the tone I'm thinking I'm writing, how would I go about reading it from someone else's perceived tone? I mean, I already try to pick up on trip words, commonly misleading phrases, double meanings -- that sort of thing -- but to not read it as I wrote it but as someone else might understand it seems beyond me. Good advice, I suppose, but I don't know how to do that. Unfortunately, the regularity with which I am told that I'm thoroughly misunderstood makes me question whether or not this is such a good idea at all. Should I be in this medium of communication if I'm not able to understand what I write from my readers' eyes? People who know me understand what I write much better because they strain what they read from me through what they know of me and it comes out okay, but few of my readers know me beyond this point of contact. If I am not able to read myself as others read me, how wise is it to be hanging my thoughts and ideas out there to be completely misunderstood by the masses? If I had an idea of how to do that, I could correct myself, but I don't. And though a couple of people have told me "You ought to write a book", I'm not so sure that would be a good idea at all if I can't see what they see when they read what I write. Besides, basic sentences like that last one are too hard to understand anyway. Oh, I don't know.
7 comments:
I, too, am often accused of being angry (hateful, too). I don't understand it. Part of it, I think, is due to who is saying it and the hope they have of "getting to me". The thing is, if I want to spar with someone, emotion is the last thing I would want or need. Elevated emotion lowers intelligence. It's far better to remain calm, especially in THIS medium where one can all the time in the world to respond, than to strike back with emotion.
But anyway, I can admit that certain attitudes and beliefs can provoke elevated emotions, but that doesn't mean that I am responding in that manner. False beliefs about Scripture, for example, do kinda piss me off when they are put forth as true, but more so when it is expected that the opinion must be regarded as legitimate and worthy of respect. But still, I am not responding in anger. The "pissed off" aspect is kind of a given thing, not necessarily requiring proof by emoting angrily. That is, it can be assumed that I don't think much of stupid opinions.
But if we are to assume anything about the state of mind of our opponent, I should think we should assume the best. When I read something that sounds harsh, I can always assume it sounds harsh only to me, I can assume the person didn't mean to sound harsh, or I can ask if the person's pissed off at me.
Have you ever had a response -- in written or in face-to-face conversation -- that makes you ask, "Whoa! Where did that come from?" I seem to get a lot of those moments. Sometimes they think I'm angry. Sometimes they think I'm being "passive-aggressive." Sometimes I think I just hit a button I wasn't aware of. My concern is that I don't seem to see it coming too often. I just wish I had the skill to see what I write from their perspective.
I tried weighing my words more carefully until it felt like I was being stifled by too much concern for the feelings of others. It became difficult to express myself. I came to feel that it was far better to "let 'er rip" and clarify later if necessary. I don't intend to insult (snark notwithstanding---I try to make THAT obvious), but it seems like some go out of their way to insist that my words could be taken in a way not intended. Now I believe that's their problem and if they possessed the grace they insist I lack, they would have assumed my intentions were good in the first place. This medium does not lend itself to the nuances of direct conversation, where inflections and tone can help deliver a message as intended. Even with the use of quotation marks, italics, caps and bold print, one can still be misunderstood, or accused of nastiness. One cannot please everyone, nor can one be appealing to everyone in print. These problems have arisen for me both face-to-face as well as in print, but in print it's more common and a bit harder to rectify if the other person is intent on being combative.
Stan - I don't read anger in your writing ever... Well, almost never. Passion, yes, but not anger.
But I'm a lot like you in the fact that my true meaning is often misunderstood.
While I am accountable for being clear and communicative, (One of my favorite sayings is, "The meaning of my communication is the response that I get") often times others' world view or preconceived idea about me or even themselves leads them to hear or read things different from how they really are.
I can tell both of my kids the same thing at the same time and one will get defensive and maybe start to cry while the other will see that I am helping her to find a better way of doing something. The first took my feedback as an insult, the second took it as information... Both ran the information I provided through their own world view filter and each came up with a different meaning...
Keep writing!
I'll keep writing. Just trying to improve ... all the time.
I pictured you as angry when you responded to my "idiotic" credo that I wrote some weeks back. Maybe you weren't really, though.
--Lee
No, not anger. Frustration. "No matter how many times I say it or how many ways I express it, he's just not getting it ... at all." Resignation. "Yeah, it always seems to go this way. Push this kind of a conversation long enough and your antagonist becomes ... antagonistic." Probably a few other emotional components mixed in as well. But anger would serve no purpose.
Post a Comment