Untangling mixed up thinking

Aoccdrnig to a rescheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in what order the ltteers in a word are, the only iprmoetnt thing is that the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can still raed it wouthit porbelm. This is bcuseae the human mind deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Freaknig amzanig huh?

Life is ragged. For entirely understandable reasons, we continually make leaps of judgement. We form opinions on only skimpy knowledge. We do this because decisions often need to be made quickly, and because we know we will rarely have perfect knowledge. We read quickly, we take on board the gist of meaning rapidly, as with the piece in the introduction to this section "My knid of reheserch". And of course, we delete, distort, and generalise information to fit our own preconceived perceptions. We typically use an imprecise form of language in speech – "lazy language". Once alive to it, once we have learned to be able to stand back, disassociate ourselves from the emotional content of language, we can challenge it and lead individuals and groups to think more clearly, accurately and frequently more positively.

Here are some examples – labelled only as a helper for you to think of relevant cases of your own.

Blaming "them": "I can’t believe they have done that", "they don’t listen, and they don’t care about us".No reference to who "they" are, coupled with a lumping together, by implication, of all of "them", and almost always used as part of a negative put–down without any evidence.

Vague exhortation: "We must do better", "You need to improve your behaviour".

"better" than what? measured how? what degree of improvement? how, specifically? – without such detail it is not possible to respond or precisely understand.

Imprecise waffle: "We have an ongoing communication problem". Meaning what exactly?

Opinions presented as fact: "This is the right way to do the job" "right" by whose judgement? – is this valid?

The trouble with all this, is the ease with which such generalisations, vaguenesses, opinions can become accepted, without any detailed challenge. Gradually the lazy approach replaces the tougher but more valuable one of hard and precise thought. But there are other expressions of mixed–up thinking that become more dangerous.

Stoppers and Limiters: "I can’t do that".

"can’t"? or don’t want to?

Unthinking absolutes: "You never listen to me" Confirms both absolute generalisations with opinion as fact.

Self drivers: "I should do …", "I must do…", "I have to…." Normally cover up a lack of interest, or a lack of personal conviction. Why "should" or why "must" you do something?

Distortion: "this company de–motivates me", "you make me angry"

Shifts the opportunity for making one’s own choice to someone else and lays the blame for our inaction at their door.

Mind–reading / presuming: "You’re upset", "I know what you’re trying to say"

Is she upset? Do you know?

All these approaches are dangerous because they allow us to stop thinking or listening objectively, they allow us and our speaker to think negatively and wallow in our self–induced state of refusing to take responsibility for our conversation or our actions. If the researchers are correct in estimating that we barely take on board more than 5% of the information available to us, then we should be concerned at any selective perception misting our reception of what we do hear.

By listening actively for "mixed–up" language, we also give ourselves the means of disassociating ourselves from their frustrating impact. Instead we have the means for creative and non–aggressive challenge.

Comment on this page