When you think one step ahead of the other person

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Since childhood, I faced one problem of mutual understanding, stemming from the fact that you not only understand the meaning of what the interlocutor said, but also make the subsequent inference for him and answer it already. The interlocutor does not make this conclusion for some reason, and therefore it seems to him that I simply do not understand him and I am talking nonsense. Often this led to the fact that I looked like a complete idiot, I had to explain myself, but it was too late - the label was hung, the conclusions were drawn. Time passed, and the problem worsened when I started to take two or more steps forward, and now it seems to many that I am not answering their question, but something else. In the end, I realized that I was not able to communicate with people who were initially not in the mood for mutual understanding. Someone will say: "Well, you stop making the subsequent conclusion and answer directly." Yes, I can’t, I can’t. In this case, the interlocutor will proceed directly from what I said in response to his question and will start doing those stupid things that I already know for sure in advance and, as a result, will aggravate his situation. And then the consequences will fall on me. And so bad and so bad. But let's sort it out in order.

To begin with, I will explain the problem using innocuous examples, which, although they do not fully reflect the situation, but perfectly demonstrate the very essence of the problem: when one step forward the thoughts of the interlocutor make me an idiot. Then there will be more serious examples.

Lighthouse riddle

As a child, there was such a riddle:

A sailor is sailing

Ahead is a lighthouse!

The lighthouse will go out, then go out.

Does the sailor see the lighthouse?

The obvious answer that the interlocutor expects from me should be "no". The riddle is based on forcing a person to perceive a stereotypical turn of speech "it will go out, then it will go out" for a periodic change in the lighthouse glow, that is, as if the interlocutor said "it will light up, then go out". Indeed, in the Russian language, it is customary to apply phrases like "then …, then …" to apply to circumstances of the opposite nature ("then there is no rain, then like a rain, it will not seem a little", "the water is either cold, that it is impossible to wash, then hot, which again is impossible wash"). And so, a person is given this turn of speech with two identical circumstances, hoping to catch him on the fact that he will perceive them as opposite. It is like giving a person, for example, to quickly look (and immediately remove) a playing card with the suit "hearts", but so that it is not red, but black. He will say "peaks" 90% of the time. The same will happen if in the auditorium you say to people: "lift your index finger up", while at the same time you yourself demonstratively raise your thumb and say: "up, up, higher so that I can see." Almost 100% of people will repeat after you and raise their thumb (here's an example).

So, since the lighthouse goes out and goes out, then the sailor cannot see it, because it does not burn. But I answer “yes” to the question of the riddle, and the interlocutor triumphantly, as if expecting this answer, says: “Well, you sucker! After all, it will FADE, then EXTINGUISHED, don’t you understand that it simply doesn’t burn !?”

And indeed, almost all people in such situations immediately begin to smile and admit the mistake that according to the turn of speech they perceived the information in a distorted manner, as if “it is on and off”. But this is not my case. I think further and take the next step: the already extinguished beacon cannot go out, just like the extinguished one goes out. So it turns out that it burns, then goes out, then burns again, then goes out - and this is how periodic ones happen. That is, since it went out, it means it was burning. And once it went out, it means it also burned. Is it logical? Quite. Therefore, the phrase “it will go out, then it will go out” is only an abbreviated version of the more correct in this case, the phrase “it will light up and go out, then it will light up and go out again”. And the answer "yes" means in this case NOT that I got caught, but just that I made a deeper logical conclusion. But the interlocutor fell for the stereotype that almost 100% of people are mistaken on this riddle, and therefore they say "yes". But I was not mistaken, and my “yes” means something completely different, but it’s difficult for an interlocutor with stereotypical thinking to understand, because he EXPECTES mistakes, just like a person who sees a black suit that looks like “spades” will say that it is peaks, even if they are repainted "worms".

What remains? To stand and smile like a goof, because it is impossible to explain to the interlocutor that you are thinking one step ahead. Since any excuse and attempt to explain his answer WILL be perceived by him as an excuse. Even if he agrees with my argument, he will still think that I was actually mistaken (fell for the bait), but after the mistake I quickly figured out how to justify my mistake. For this reason, I simply do not explain anything and remain silent. Let him think what he wants.

By the way, while I was writing this text, I came to the conclusion that the correct answer to this riddle should be this: “we do not know whether the sailor sees the lighthouse or not, you need to ask him personally.” Because it's really annoying when someone draws conclusions about another person, observing the situation from the outside. Although I myself do so often (as you will see below).

Scarecrow

This is more of a comic situation, but the root of it is the same. Passing the vegetable garden, I saw a scarecrow and asked the interlocutor walking next to me: "And what is this scarecrow?" He immediately made the remark: "Oh, you also do not know the difference between a scarecrow and a scarecrow?" (A significant part of the people he met, as I understand it, confuse these two words, and he acquired a stereotype that usually people confuse these words). Then I began to explain that I actually know the difference, but it is just that in culture it is customary to apply the word "stuffed" not only to the skin of an animal stuffed with straw, but also to an awkward-looking product (or even a person), for what reason, in this case, I had in view of a scarecrow in a derogatory sense, which led to a misunderstanding. Much later, I found out that there is even the phrase "garden scarecrow" fixed in Russian, which just means a scarecrow in the garden to scare away birds (although a piece of black rag in the shape of a bird of prey suspended on a high inconspicuous bar works much better).

However, I still did not understand whether the interlocutor took this information as an explanation or as an excuse after a mistake. For some reason it seems to me that he didn’t even hear my explanation, because the stereotype “Ah, you too…” had already worked in his head. In absolutely all cases when I communicated with different people and a stereotype worked for them, their thinking turned off and they let all the explanations go deafeningly. I have done the same more than once, and therefore I understand well how it works, especially when you later learn with surprise that they explained my mistake to me for half an hour, but I didn’t hear it, because something clicked in my head and I firmly got into position, dictated by the stereotype. Some of these situations "snapped back" only after years, when the impeccable (at that time) memory of the circumstances of communication made it possible to fully restore the conversation and look at it from the right side.

Everest

They ask me: "What is the highest mountain on the planet?" I immediately start thinking:

“Yeah, the interlocutor looks at me with a sly face, so there is a catch in the question, because every first grader already knows that Everest is the highest mountain, he would hardly have asked me if there was no catch. Probably, he said “on the planet” and not “on earth” precisely so that, when I say: “Everest,” triumphantly declare that I am a sucker. So, what do we have with the mountains under water? For example, if the Mariana Trench is much deeper than the height of Everest, then there are probably also mountains under the water that are higher than Everest. And what is our highest mountain under water? I do not know! Hmm, well, what kind of artificial separation is this "under water" and "on the ground", because any mountain under water is located primarily on Earth! After all, we are not saying that the building became one meter lower if it went down a meter under the water due to the flood? We do not speak. Then it turns out that Everest remains the highest mountain, because if we take into account the part of the earth under water, then we count from the Mariana Trench, considering it the foot of Everest. Therefore, we have almost 20 km difference between the bottom of the depression and the top of Everest."

Having played all this reasoning in my head in one and a half seconds, I answer: "Everest".

“Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha,” the interlocutor laughs triumphantly, “I DIDN'T SPEAK on Earth, because there are mountains under the water, didn’t you think of it ??? A-ha-ha-ha, well, you are a sucker!.

You will still study philosophy, whether you like it or not

The previous three examples were not too serious, but now more real life situations. I was once asked: "This is the point of studying the history and philosophy of science, because this is a humanitarian discipline, and I am a mathematician, why do I need it?" By the nature of the question, I immediately realized that the interlocutor simply did not want to study this subject, he was not interested in him, because when I was a student, I often heard from many of them precisely such a formulation of the question precisely in those cases when they did not like the subject and they were open said they hated this or that subject. Maybe it's a stereotype, or maybe not, but when I hear certain intonations and questions of this type: "Why is this necessary?", I immediately see that the interlocutor DOES NOT NEED an answer to the question "why?" so as not to study this subject, but simply to pass it "for free".

And so, to the question of the interlocutor about the philosophy of science, I answer: “Ask as much as you like, you entered the university, knowing in advance what is being studied here, moreover, in the course of philosophy of science they answer the question“why?”, And by the way, you teach this the subject will still be, whether you want it or not, because you obey the rules of the university”. The interlocutor and the guys in solidarity with him immediately attacked me: "What kind of a sucker are you, they asked you why, and you answer" will teach, "do you yourself understand what you are saying?"

“Of course I understand,” I thought to myself, “that I’ve already learned the notes by heart, and you still have to read them, and you’ll call me from morning to evening and ask questions about the course, knowing that I’m a complete nerd in terms of study” … But he was silent aloud. What is the point of explaining to these people that I see through and through all the silences that they put in their "why?"

By the way, they called and asked, and even demanded an electronic version of the abstract (I then typed many courses on a computer with my friend).

An absolutely similar situation would be if I answered the question of the interlocutor "why the negative feedback is not instantaneous, for example, did something bad - I immediately received a" feedback "in the form of an unpleasant circumstance for myself" I would answer the same way: not to the question itself, but, immediately taking a step forward, to the silence that remained unpublished. A person longs for revenge for some kind of offense, and this revenge, being restrained by certain barriers, turns into a false craving for justice, when you want any evil in the world to be punished in such a way that he personally sees the result of punishment and could make sure that each offender got his own for sure. There is no point in answering the question of instant feedback, a person is still looking for something other than that, he is looking for an opportunity to PERSONALLY make sure that the “bad” got what he deserves, and immediately and quickly. In case of exposure of these omissions, all this will be furnished with beautiful snot about "my sense of justice does not allow leaving the villains unpunished" and in that spirit.

Very often I got into situations when I figured out the silences with which the question was asked, and answered immediately to the silences, as a result of which the interlocutor was angry that I had revealed his true intentions, but since he clearly did not disclose them, he can always play back, accusing me of not answering his question, but acting like an idiot. But I already know it, just answering such questions directly is precisely the height of idiocy. Here's a humorous example for additional clarification.

First option

- Did you come by car?

- You're going home by bus.

- I'm not talking about that! I just asked if you arrived by car or not.

- Why did you ask?

- Not what for, but just interesting.

No, Sunny, you are not just interested, you wanted me to take you home free of charge. Let's run on the bus.

Second option

- Did you come by car?

- Yes.

- Which way are you going?

- To the center.

- Oh, me too, will you take me?

- Not.

- Why?

- Because I'm uncomfortable.

- Yeah, I suppose you meet with some woman there?

- Not.

- Why then?

- It takes a long time to explain, I have certain tasks: here and there on the way to buy something, somewhere I will have to make decisions that are incompatible with the fact that there will be a passenger in the car.

“I’d say that you’re going to carry your women.”

- … etc.

Further, this conversation can go on forever, if it is not abruptly cut off, because here the girl's initial desire to take a free ride then changes to a desire to talk about anything else, just to talk - and she will drag on the conversation until you cut it off. Subconsciously, she probes the ground for manipulation and check which of them will work and which will not work in a potential life together. Such conversations are very useful because, thanks to them, you can immediately send such a girl through the forest, because, in principle, she described in silence your entire hellish life together. However, the first option of communication, when we immediately make it clear to the girl that she is reading like an open book, leads to the reaction we need much faster, because hysteria begins. And this is an excellent indicator that allows you to immediately save yourself and her from family ruin.

This example is not taken from my life, but is a collective one based on observations of the relationships of different people. Nevertheless, it reflects well the situations that happened to me. He also shows that many things are easier and safer to solve if you say all the silences at once, and immediately reveal the interlocutor's cards (sometimes even by force), bringing him to hysterics, than then this rubber will drag on for years of exhausting relationships. This is one of the reasons why I cannot communicate like all people, and if I can take one or several steps forward, anticipating the logic of the interlocutor, I have to do it right away, because if you do not do it right away, you start playing his game by his rules, which will end much worse for both of us. He just doesn't know about it yet, but I know it well.

Who is God?

In a discussion with atheists, I somehow ran into a natural question: "Well, then give the definition of God, so that we understand that we are talking about the same thing."

Such a request is a classic materialistic nonsense in the spirit of scientific superficial thinking. The fact is that many people who consider themselves adherents of science, and even more so atheists, have very little knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, for which reason it seems to them that the paradigm of "scientific thinking" that has developed to date is correct and the only correct one. In fact, in the current paradigm, limited by the materialistic understanding of the world, it is believed that it is necessary (and possible) to give definitions, and then proceed from them in further research, whereas in reality, not only is it not always possible to give a definition, but it can be harmful for research, since it cuts off much of what the human mind is not able to understand.

The question of God just falls into this category. Imagine two babies who can communicate in a scientific language (well, use that imagination). And so, they began to argue: is there a Mom or not? One says that there is, the other does not. And here is the one who is "Amamist", declares: "Well, then give me the definition of Mom, so that we both talk about the same thing." “Mamist” wrinkles her forehead, scratches her cheeks with her handles, and, after a while, answers: “This is a creature that has two boobs that you can eat from, it comes every time I do this:“A-ah-ah-ah "".

Do you understand now the whole absurdity of the question about God? A theist can answer about God in about the same way as a baby about a mother, but at the same time he will cut off almost all of His real nature, and a conversation with an atheist about God will degenerate into a conversation about boobs and "A-aaa", because the very limitations of the human mind will not allow describe God as who He really is. As a result, we come to the conclusion that God for everyone is manifested in the form of some force that is not indifferent to the fate of this person, which cannot be described in general words, because His manifestations can differ greatly from person to person, and therefore no definition created on the basis of a very limited human perception of the world and conditioned by the sensations of the five primitive senses, will not be at least somewhat complete.

And now, understanding all this, I answer simply: "You can ask God yourself who He is, He will answer you much more accurately than I do." The answer of an atheist is natural: "You are a fool, I asked you for the definition of God, and you tell me to ask Him myself." I am translating the phrase of an atheist into Russian for my reader: “I wanted to transfer the conversation about God to an atheistic plane, in which there is no place for Him in principle, and then I would smash you with my atheistic arguments on the atheistic field, where only they work. To do this, I needed you to describe your object according to my rules, which, in principle, cannot be done, and then, as they say, a matter of technology. If we were talking on your religious field, I would not have a chance to defeat you in the discussion, and therefore I consider your field an example of unscientific obscurantism, so it is convenient for me to maintain my emotional comfort accompanying me when I am in my atheistic plate, Well, in order not to remain a complete idiot, I inflict a preemptive blow on you with what I call a fool, so that your generally quite fair remark can be presented as stupid and hushed up."

Important feature

Do not forget that absolutely all such situations are reversible in the sense that they can be applied to you equally. For example, you may think that you are one step ahead of the other person in thinking about the situation under discussion, when in reality you are one step behind, but you cannot yet realize your problem.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the game "even-odd". Two people are playing: you and him. He thinks "even" or "odd", and you have to guess. Let's say he thought "an odd" - and you guessed it. He again thought something, but you start to think: "yeah, the first time was" even ", so it is logical that the second time will also most likely be" even ", since he might think that I would think that the second time another word will be thought of, and deliberately ask the same thing, so that I am mistaken. But then, if he thinks like I do now, he will deliberately guess the word "odd" so that I, having made this logical conclusion, would be mistaken. But if he realizes that I also foresaw this, then he will have to make an "odd".

And so on, this jumping reasoning "he thought I thought he thought I thought …" can go on as long as you like. And the reality is that in some cases you will definitely be a few steps behind the interlocutor, however, you will be confident that you understand the problem much deeper than him, whereas your level of reflection (this is the number of steps "I thought he thought …", which you can simultaneously keep in mind when planning communication tactics) is not enough for such deep reasoning, which is available to your interlocutor. Keep this important feature in mind at all times.

Summary

There are many obstacles to understanding. One of them is connected with the difference in the depth of thinking and is discussed in this article: if you find yourself even one step further than the interlocutor, then he may not only not understand, but also consider you a fool who does not understand simple things. Moreover, any attempts to clarify the situation will stumble upon an already set block or an already hung label, that is, they will not be heard, and if they do, the interlocutor will interpret your words as an excuse, that is, your admission of your mistake.

In this case, there is no point in going down to the level of the interlocutor, this will only delay the process, which in any case will "shoot" later, and then, if you see more, can you artificially close your eyes to this? This will already be a deception. Moreover, it will be a game according to the rules of the interlocutor, and therefore, playing this game, you are already working exclusively for his interests, and since you know more than him, it turns out that you are deliberately misleading him, which will end badly for both of you.

You should always keep in mind the fact that not you, but he may be one step ahead of you, or even further. Always keep this detail in mind in any scenario. Even when straight, well, EVERYTHING seems obvious. For example, even when I categorically tell the interlocutor about his personal delusions, I always keep in my head the thought that this is just my purely personal opinion, based on a very small amount of information received and then distorted by my mental defects. Nevertheless, I do not get tired of receiving "thanks" for accurate answers in cases where the interlocutor is set for mutual understanding and WANTS to hear what I am saying. In this case, the problem described in the article does not manifest itself in any way, because even if something is not immediately clear, it becomes clear further in the course of communication, and until then it does not turn out to be an obstacle, since the interlocutor does not try to wrap what he did not understand in his favor for the sake of attempts to make me "lower" or just "pin up" me.

General advice to everyone who suffers from a similar problem: there is no need to worry about this, your task is to honestly and as sincerely as possible explain what is asked. Explain in the way that you personally think is correct, regardless of how the interlocutor views it. Never mind or worry that the result of the explanation is not what you would like it to be. If you did something not quite right, but tried sincerely, God will correct your flaw in such a way that everything will become very clear to the interlocutor. It's just that you won't always notice it right away. But such an amendment takes place without fail.

PS … On a similar topic, there is also an article on why a reasonable person often looks like an idiot to others.