The men were likely to consider a friendly gesture a sexual invitation and consider a sexual invitation a friendly gesture.
Of course, on second thought that also may show that women just don’t know men. :)
There’s an interesting question hidden here. Which person in those interactions had the “burden of knowing” the other? If it’s the man’s job to interpret the woman, we might say that he has failed at knowing her well enough to do so. If it’s the woman’s job to communicate her intent to the man, again, we would say she has failed at knowing him well enough to do so. The question of “which one doesn’t understand” is equivalent to that of “is it his job to interpret, or hers to be clear?”
I think—and have heard it complained by men—that the dominant attitude in our culture is that it is man’s job to understand woman. They are to throw up their hands, give up any hope of the women “just saying what they mean,” and do their best to interpret the “code” that women speak in. This attitude almost certainly has its roots in the Othering tendency that Eliezer is rightly complaining about.
It is also a genuine and oft-overlooked pathology which is detrimental to both sides. It places an unfair burden on men, giving them the whole responsibility for communication between sexes. By the same token, it fails to put social pressure on women to communicate mindfully of their audience, by excusing them or even glorifying their mysteriousness when they are cryptic.
While I see no reason to divide the responsibility for communication unequally, it seems to me that the speaker is almost always in an easier position than the listener to influence the degree of understanding. So if we’re addressing the problem of men not understanding women, a woman who wants to help might sensibly consider trying to tune her communicative output to the frequency of a man she’s speaking to. I’ve written a little before about how she might do this. Also linked from that post is someone else’s advice for men listening to women in a particular kind of situation. Neither, of course, is universally apt, but I think they’re both better than random and better than where our instincts often lead us.
Ideally, each person leans as far towards the communication style of the other as they can manage, and they get through. This is how you take Eliezer’s reminder that neither is “right” or “wrong” and put it into practice.
I’ve written a little before about how she might do this.
I think I had to read this twice to determine what you were actually recommending (for speakers). Am I correct in stating that your sentences
But if you’re trying to tell someone what you want, don’t say something which you know you wouldn’t say unless you wanted it. Just tell him what you want.
(or “state things rather than signalling them”) sum it up?
ETA: Actually, I should probably clarify—earlier you say “Say, don’t imply”; but it seems like (assuming I’m reading this correctly) you’re using a weird use of the word “imply”. Without the section I quoted above, I would take “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where X implies Y”. Going by the quoted section, though, you seem to use “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where the fact that you stated X implies Y”. I.e. it looks like the relevant distinction is not stating things vs. implying them, but rather using statements as communication rather than using the fact that you made those statements as communication. Do I have that right?
I’m not using “imply” quite that specifically; my intent is something like “say X, intending the listener to understand Y and Z.” That includes but isn’t limited to the example you gave. The difference between that and the way you said you’d normally take it is that I’m explicitly acknowledging that the listener may not have any reason to connect X to Y or Z, whereas the way you put it, Y seems like it should necessarily follow X.
Any suggestions for wording this idea more clearly?
While I see no reason to divide the responsibility for communication unequally, it seems to me that the speaker is almost always in an easier position than the listener to influence the degree of understanding.
Why do you say that?
:) (Smiley should be superfluous here, but probably isn’t.)
Because the speaker is the one selecting the verbal data, which is not the most copious portion of face-to-face communication, but is the most precise form of it.
You provided a great example by choosing to include a symbol that more clearly conveyed your intended inflection, even though it didn’t seem necessary to you, because you weren’t sure it wouldn’t be necessary to me. That’s an excellent use of the speaker’s position to communicate clearly.
Of course, on second thought that also may show that women just don’t know men. :)
There’s an interesting question hidden here. Which person in those interactions had the “burden of knowing” the other? If it’s the man’s job to interpret the woman, we might say that he has failed at knowing her well enough to do so. If it’s the woman’s job to communicate her intent to the man, again, we would say she has failed at knowing him well enough to do so. The question of “which one doesn’t understand” is equivalent to that of “is it his job to interpret, or hers to be clear?”
I think—and have heard it complained by men—that the dominant attitude in our culture is that it is man’s job to understand woman. They are to throw up their hands, give up any hope of the women “just saying what they mean,” and do their best to interpret the “code” that women speak in. This attitude almost certainly has its roots in the Othering tendency that Eliezer is rightly complaining about.
It is also a genuine and oft-overlooked pathology which is detrimental to both sides. It places an unfair burden on men, giving them the whole responsibility for communication between sexes. By the same token, it fails to put social pressure on women to communicate mindfully of their audience, by excusing them or even glorifying their mysteriousness when they are cryptic.
While I see no reason to divide the responsibility for communication unequally, it seems to me that the speaker is almost always in an easier position than the listener to influence the degree of understanding. So if we’re addressing the problem of men not understanding women, a woman who wants to help might sensibly consider trying to tune her communicative output to the frequency of a man she’s speaking to. I’ve written a little before about how she might do this. Also linked from that post is someone else’s advice for men listening to women in a particular kind of situation. Neither, of course, is universally apt, but I think they’re both better than random and better than where our instincts often lead us.
Ideally, each person leans as far towards the communication style of the other as they can manage, and they get through. This is how you take Eliezer’s reminder that neither is “right” or “wrong” and put it into practice.
I think I had to read this twice to determine what you were actually recommending (for speakers). Am I correct in stating that your sentences
(or “state things rather than signalling them”) sum it up?
ETA: Actually, I should probably clarify—earlier you say “Say, don’t imply”; but it seems like (assuming I’m reading this correctly) you’re using a weird use of the word “imply”. Without the section I quoted above, I would take “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where X implies Y”. Going by the quoted section, though, you seem to use “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where the fact that you stated X implies Y”. I.e. it looks like the relevant distinction is not stating things vs. implying them, but rather using statements as communication rather than using the fact that you made those statements as communication. Do I have that right?
Yes, that quote sums up the point.
I’m not using “imply” quite that specifically; my intent is something like “say X, intending the listener to understand Y and Z.” That includes but isn’t limited to the example you gave. The difference between that and the way you said you’d normally take it is that I’m explicitly acknowledging that the listener may not have any reason to connect X to Y or Z, whereas the way you put it, Y seems like it should necessarily follow X.
Any suggestions for wording this idea more clearly?
Why do you say that?
:) (Smiley should be superfluous here, but probably isn’t.)
Because the speaker is the one selecting the verbal data, which is not the most copious portion of face-to-face communication, but is the most precise form of it.
You provided a great example by choosing to include a symbol that more clearly conveyed your intended inflection, even though it didn’t seem necessary to you, because you weren’t sure it wouldn’t be necessary to me. That’s an excellent use of the speaker’s position to communicate clearly.