By Linda Sapadin
"What's the matter with you?"
"You just don't get it!"
"What on earth were you thinking?"
"What part of
'just do it' don't you understand?"
These are just a few of the comments exasperated people bellow at their loved ones when frustrated with what they did - or didn't do. Typically, the one on the receiving end of these sarcastic remarks tries to defend himself/herself or counter attacks. If the argument totally deteriorates, then communication is reduced to head-shaking, eyes rolling, stone-walling or name-calling.
Perhaps the worst part of such a demeaning exchange is that nobody understands anybody any better than they did at the beginning. They just feel more frustrated.
There's got to be a better way. People need to look for honest reasons why someone didn't do what he was "supposed" to do instead of automatically assuming fault. When something isn't done "your"(**your in italics) way, that is the expected (**expected in italics) way, one often assumes the other person is "lazy," "stupid," "doesn't care" or has "screwed up again."
The botched-up Florida election may be a good example to illustrate what I mean. When lots of people did not vote "properly," many New Yorkers assumed that those southern folks were probably too old, too stupid, too blind or too confused to figure out how to do the task right. Sure, the infamous "butterfly ballot" was also seen as part of the trouble, but still a lot of the blame went to the individual voter.
Now that some time has passed, election officials have been trying to understand what went wrong - without anger or placing blame. What they have concluded is that many people had different interpretations of the instructions and acted accordingly. With a mind-set that the ballots were going to be read (or at least re-read) by people, not machines, their "mistakes" make a lot of sense.
A person, in contrast to a machine, wouldn't care if you blackened (**blackened in italics) your oval or circled (***circled in italics) your oval. A person would understand that you weren't voting twice if you blackened the oval and (**and in italics) wrote the same candidate's name in the "write-in" spot. A person would surely grasp what you meant if you wrote "wrong" next to your erased oval, and "right" next to the one you clearly marked.
Some voters followed the instructions on the ballot too literally, some not literally enough. Some made a mistake they tried to correct, but correcting it made it worse. Some voters' actions made perfect sense to them, but since it didn't make sense to the machine, their vote was voided.
Dissimilar human vs. machine interpretations are problematic, but they are really no different than dissimilar people vs. people interpretations. Here are examples of divergent assumptions between people that can create major, frustrating squabbles.
Parent: "I asked you to make your bed. What part of that didn't you understand?"
Pre-teen's interpretation: "It's so stupid. I'm just going to mess it up again tonight."
Wife: "What on earth were you thinking, inviting all those people over for Super Bowl Sunday?
Husband's interpretation: "What's the matter with you? I just want to watch the game with the guys."
We are often frustrated with others when their interpretations and expectations are different from our own. Sarcasm and smart-aleck rejoinders may be tempting, but they are not the way to go. Instead, seek to communicate what you mean and seek to understand what the other person means. Your job is not to make the other person into the
"perfect" person, but to appreciate the value and the viewpoint of the
"actual" person you are communicating with.
Linda Sapadin, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice who specializes in individual and family therapy. Copyright 2001
