David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
Some members are interpreting the OPs title question more than it states. I'll vaguely criticize members here with a thread post mortem as an example of how IMO poorly many people listen and interpret conversation of others.
That states
"When dealing with people, what do you do when you are misunderstood?
One person thought that meant the OP was referring to "difficult" people which was not necessarily the case. Another possibly referring to the one that brought up "difficult" related that could be if they know the person to be so.
The OP added the person they were referring to was a sibling and not difficult, just doesn't always understand. Next member mentioned rephrasing, so good. Another member related they act with nonverbals as though the other person should have understood, not good because maybe the person speaking was not clear. Another member noted some people aren't listening, yes that could be the case and then one needs to help them focus.
More members related their reactions to difficult people as though that was the actual conversation, so missed the OP clarification. @VaughanJB made a good reasonable response to a narrower business situation. Another mentioned clarification, good. @Nathan wisely mentioned for the first time he might not have expressed himself well so would reword. Another member wisely mentioned (conversation) is an approximation and experiments. Very true. Then two more members continued to respond as though it was about difficult people. This tends to reflect how forum members may be more likely to address emotional issues in threads even when such is not.
In general, IMO most members did not respond wisely. They narrowly interpreted the OP's question as though it was an emotional reaction and continued to do so after the OP clarified that because some other members continued to post in that vein.
In my high tech career I often talked to others and others often talked to me in ways that initially lacked clear understanding. That is frequently the situation even among highly intelligent educated, knowledgeable attentive people if the subject is simply too difficult to grasp quickly. Because engineers would often explain very complex hardware circuit, firmware, and and software code issues, such people actually expect others to ask questions, paraphrase what they think the speaker means, and help the speaker get to what they really want one to understand.
The same occurs in engineering group meetings where a few engineers discuss some issue. Just because a person starts a conversation, doesn't necessarily mean they are responsible to do everything with nothing more said. That requires a team effort, something I've generally found to be lacking with those unfamiliar with corporate work worlds. Minimally, conversation even with just two people is usually two-way. An example of when such is not may be between two unequals like a parent and child, a manager and a worker that is simply commanding something both know to be easily understood like "Bob, please fix this broken cable." Now if Bob wasn't listening as some gal walked by he might shyly blurt out, "Ahh Mike, sorry was distracted, fix ah what?"
And then there are situations where one is talking to someone with English as a second language whereupon one ought be slow and patient. All the above also works when a person with much less understanding or ability to communicate talks to someone much more competent. The person ought to expect the other to help them along explaining what they need to. I've taken several interpersonal communication classes through decades and within a classroom of others regardless of professional level, it always surprises me how poorly many others communicate. That noted, in general managers in larger organizations tend to have good communication skills or they won't stay in such rolls long.
That states
"When dealing with people, what do you do when you are misunderstood?
One person thought that meant the OP was referring to "difficult" people which was not necessarily the case. Another possibly referring to the one that brought up "difficult" related that could be if they know the person to be so.
The OP added the person they were referring to was a sibling and not difficult, just doesn't always understand. Next member mentioned rephrasing, so good. Another member related they act with nonverbals as though the other person should have understood, not good because maybe the person speaking was not clear. Another member noted some people aren't listening, yes that could be the case and then one needs to help them focus.
More members related their reactions to difficult people as though that was the actual conversation, so missed the OP clarification. @VaughanJB made a good reasonable response to a narrower business situation. Another mentioned clarification, good. @Nathan wisely mentioned for the first time he might not have expressed himself well so would reword. Another member wisely mentioned (conversation) is an approximation and experiments. Very true. Then two more members continued to respond as though it was about difficult people. This tends to reflect how forum members may be more likely to address emotional issues in threads even when such is not.
In general, IMO most members did not respond wisely. They narrowly interpreted the OP's question as though it was an emotional reaction and continued to do so after the OP clarified that because some other members continued to post in that vein.
In my high tech career I often talked to others and others often talked to me in ways that initially lacked clear understanding. That is frequently the situation even among highly intelligent educated, knowledgeable attentive people if the subject is simply too difficult to grasp quickly. Because engineers would often explain very complex hardware circuit, firmware, and and software code issues, such people actually expect others to ask questions, paraphrase what they think the speaker means, and help the speaker get to what they really want one to understand.
The same occurs in engineering group meetings where a few engineers discuss some issue. Just because a person starts a conversation, doesn't necessarily mean they are responsible to do everything with nothing more said. That requires a team effort, something I've generally found to be lacking with those unfamiliar with corporate work worlds. Minimally, conversation even with just two people is usually two-way. An example of when such is not may be between two unequals like a parent and child, a manager and a worker that is simply commanding something both know to be easily understood like "Bob, please fix this broken cable." Now if Bob wasn't listening as some gal walked by he might shyly blurt out, "Ahh Mike, sorry was distracted, fix ah what?"
And then there are situations where one is talking to someone with English as a second language whereupon one ought be slow and patient. All the above also works when a person with much less understanding or ability to communicate talks to someone much more competent. The person ought to expect the other to help them along explaining what they need to. I've taken several interpersonal communication classes through decades and within a classroom of others regardless of professional level, it always surprises me how poorly many others communicate. That noted, in general managers in larger organizations tend to have good communication skills or they won't stay in such rolls long.
