Belief is also a two place function; however, if someone says that they believe that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, it is perfect reasonable to challenge them since their belief isn’t rational. Similarly, the feeling of being offended can also be irrational and should similarly be challenged in such circumstances.
Have you noticed yet that you were in error about the meaning of my earlier comment, and that it was irrational for you to respond in the way that you did (claiming that it was about “psychological issues”)?
Or … maybe I didn’t manage to get across what I intended to say, given that you interpreted it that way. I wouldn’t want to assume that you were deliberately misconstruing it in order to make a status play or something.
(But if I use your approach, I get the result that blames you here. If I use my approach, it’s my job to communicate my point in a way that succeeds with my audience, e.g. by not misleading you into thinking that I’m mocking anyone for having psychological problems. Which result do you prefer?)
Yes, people can misconstrue what someone meant by a communication. But if you notice that your ways of saying things are systematically misconstrued by a certain sort of people, that’s equivalent to saying that you are not communicating effectively to that part of your audience.
Hmm … it’s possible that I misunderstood you, too. I took “psychological issues” as a possibly-mocking euphemism for “mental illness” — as in “You know, he has psychological issues.”
Self-image is surely a fact about personality — is that what you meant?
Belief is also a two place function; however, if someone says that they believe that there is an invisible dragon in their garage, it is perfect reasonable to challenge them since their belief isn’t rational. Similarly, the feeling of being offended can also be irrational and should similarly be challenged in such circumstances.
Have you noticed yet that you were in error about the meaning of my earlier comment, and that it was irrational for you to respond in the way that you did (claiming that it was about “psychological issues”)?
Or … maybe I didn’t manage to get across what I intended to say, given that you interpreted it that way. I wouldn’t want to assume that you were deliberately misconstruing it in order to make a status play or something.
(But if I use your approach, I get the result that blames you here. If I use my approach, it’s my job to communicate my point in a way that succeeds with my audience, e.g. by not misleading you into thinking that I’m mocking anyone for having psychological problems. Which result do you prefer?)
Yes, people can misconstrue what someone meant by a communication. But if you notice that your ways of saying things are systematically misconstrued by a certain sort of people, that’s equivalent to saying that you are not communicating effectively to that part of your audience.
Would you mind explaining how something like:
isn’t talking about psychological issues.
Hmm … it’s possible that I misunderstood you, too. I took “psychological issues” as a possibly-mocking euphemism for “mental illness” — as in “You know, he has psychological issues.”
Self-image is surely a fact about personality — is that what you meant?