![[Picture]](img/Pg52_1.jpg)
The problem of being understood has a great deal to do with the literacy level of one’s audience.
Where mass communication is attempted, inevitably a certain percentage of the recipients will misunderstand a varying percentage of the message. But one need not apathetically accept this as “the way things are.” One can campaign in general for a higher literacy level in coming years and generations. And there are many intermediate solutions contained in the messages themselves. It is quite possible to communicate even complex thoughts to relatively illiterate audiences.
On an individual mind to mind basis, it is relatively easy to communicate even when the other person is quite illiterate. There are old – and false – ideas that one is likely to “insult the intelligence” or offend someone by “talking down to him.” The real error is to originate in such a way that one is not understood. One need not express pity or disdain for another’s “lack of education.” And it has nothing to do with his intelligence; it has everything to do with the ability of the originator to communicate to that particular person.
![[Picture]](img/Pg52_2.jpg)
Technology has been developed in Word Clearing to handle these points. It is not always possible to put this technology into effect in immediate situations but some effort should be made to do so. And the technology should be understood.
It was once believed that a primary cause of war between different nations was their language differences. In the interests of preventing “wars” or arguments with audiences and individuals, one should seek to minimize the potential misunderstandings.
In a technical and scientific age, there is a considerable growth of terminology. New phenomena and ideas are discovered which hitherto have had no labels, and so new words are introduced. This is true of every pursuit and advance in the society. But there are ways to handle even this.
Voltaire, the French philosopher, once said something to the effect that those who would argue with him should define their terms. He was on the border of a discovery. Arguments are most often prompted by misunderstood words.
If one found two people arguing, one might assume they were hung up in principles or desires or opinions, and of course this might be found to be the current case. But if one took each of these two combatants, one after the other, one would find in their association or in their past, key words each used to the other that the other did not understand. While this might not always settle their differences of opinion, it would certainly take the flame out of their argument.
It is certain that their misunderstandings with each other had some footing in earlier misunderstood words.
Their error was in not spotting that they were using words the other did not understand or had wrong definitions for and then not defining those words.
This assertion might seem incredible until one has actually done the experiment. A husband and wife in continual combat on the subject of money. He continually uses the word “thrift” when discussing their domestic economy. We find in examining the words they use that she has “thrift” misdefined as “starving” whereas it derives from “thrive” and means “careful management of one’s money and resources.” Clarifying the misunderstood word at least brings about an alignment of intent. The husband never spotted that he had a word there to which his wife reacted violently.
The schoolboy aches to leave school, revolts, causes trouble and finally drops out. A careful review finds he actually went into despair over the brain-cracking terms of arithmetic many grades before. Coached and handled, he suddenly wonders whatever got into him and responds favorably. The originator of the arithmetic text omitted adequate simple definitions of the words, and even used far fancier words than was necessary.
![[Pull Quote]](img/Pg52PQ.jpg)
|Related Sites |