An Epiphany on Arguing

 So this is something that is not a new realization, but... kind of is? Let's lay the groundwork. 

I hate being misunderstood. It's one of the most frustrating things to me. I will use too many words to try to avoid it, too few words to avoid obfuscating it, but in the end, misunderstanding is always my destiny. 

Earlier today, I was having a discussion with my wife. She kept asking me questions then cutting me off when I tried to answer which didn't help my frustration any. I blew up and started yelling in order to be heard, which didn't help her frustration any. But then we got into a dynamic that frequently happens where she would say something, and I would cut her off. 

At this point in our marriage, I rarely concern myself with how often we cut each other off during arguments or even just spirited discussion. I've accepted that it's a part of how we communicate, and though it's certainly not healthy, we've survived it for over a decade. Today I got mad because I literally couldn't even answer the questions she was asking because she'd cut me off and then ask another damned question. But that's not really the point of my epiphany; just the context, as it were. 

The part I want to focus on is where I was cutting her off, the part that is such a common part of our arguments and discussions. It led, as it inevitably does, to her shutting down and me going away frustrated. I went to work and had a busy, hectic day, and barely thought about home until I was on my way home.

On my way home, I replayed the argument, and I realized something about my triggers, and the behaviors that result: That thing right back up there at the top. Being misunderstood. 

Because you see, that's why I kept cutting her off. She'd keep setting up these ideas to attack or interrogate that were not what I'd said. A lot of it felt like strawman arguments; setting up ideas that I'd never expressed so she could knock them down. It really felt like that... but while my wife can be petty and even cruel when she's really angry, this wasn't that. (Well, there was a part near the end that was; but that's also not the point of this post) It was instead just a fundamental and all-too-common misunderstanding of what I was trying to convey. 

I know that effective communication lies mostly with the sender in any instance; Not entirely, as the receiver has their own part to play, but most of it does. The Sender crafts the content, and must be aware of the context. The receiver must also be aware of the context. Which is to say that being misunderstood is often a failure in communication on my part. What it's never a failure of is earnestness and effort, at least not with someone I care about. I can and will absolutely write off someone I believe is unwilling to engage honestly. Anyway, I digress again, defending myself against an attack that will likely never come because this is, as elucidated at length in my Introduction post, a blog that I do not intend to share with anyone.

ANYWAY. 

So the interruptions come almost instinctively because in that moment, I am not interested in what comes next; not because I don't care about the person saying them, because I do; but because the thing that comes next is based on the thing that came before, which is a false or incorrect statement. I'm good with you making points, arguments, even rebuttals and criticisms if the point you're basing them on is anything that I said. 

It's like... if you think I made the claim that strawberries are salty, and so you're asking me if other berries are salty, or making the argument that the sodium content in strawberries is negligible and therefore they can't be salty; I don't care what your question is or what point you're trying to make because you're basing it on the false conception that I think strawberries are salty. I know they're not, and I never claimed they are, so we need to clear that up first. Continuing the discussion about salt content in strawberries or other berries will not be productive, and I do not want to be dragged down that road, especially if you're going to use it as a gotcha; this doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen, and I hate it almost as much as I hate being misunderstood in the first place.

With some folks, this is intentional and malicious. I've mostly learned to recognize that and disengage, because I don't value people who would do that purposefully. With people I care about, I can remember, outside of the moment, that they're not assholes who do shit like that. In some cases, it may not even be a misunderstanding on their part, but a miscommunication; Maybe they don't think I think strawberries are salty, but they expressed it in such a way that it seems that they do. I still will not be able to move on in an argument or discussion while that's hanging out there, though.

So what to do about it? The tactic of interrupting to clarify has clearly not worked for me in most cases. When it has, it's usually been with someone who IS a good communicator, and who IS invested in coming to a mutual understanding; for them, understanding me is part of their goal, as much or moreso than convincing me of anything. Which means in standard conversation where the other party is less interested in understanding, which is fairly common in my experience, it will end up causing friction. 

Waiting for them to finish, then addressing their faulty assumptions seems... inefficient. Wasteful, even. But it does seem to work out for me in text-based communication. Of course there, I often have the ability to knee-jerk respond, then edit, re-read, re-clarify. The closest thing to interruption I can do in that circumstance is to not read everything before responding, which I am generally loathe to do because I will often overlook crucial things. But then I also have the luxury of making sure I got everything, I can re-read and re-write until I have addressed everything, which you can't do in normal conversation unless you've got a stenographer and an infinitely patient conversational partner. 

I suppose I could propose that all arguments hereafter take place as text conversations, but I have a feeling that will go over poorly. So what to do? I guess the best I've got is to take this realization to heart, and keep it in mind when talking. I can, and probably should, try to be that communicator that has made as much of an effort to understand me as to communicate their piece. If it worked for a person talking to me, it could probably work for me, too.

So listen to understand, repeat to clarify, respond to clarify any misunderstandings, then assert based on the clarified basis. When written out at the end of a lengthy diatribe, it seems simple. Why does it seem to be so hard to put into practice?