Do you understand?

How often in your discourse with others are you faced with the question, "do you understand?" Seems like a simple question. Usually you say you do, but you still have lingering questions. You may even fail to be as empathetic as you should be because you really don't fully understand.

How can this be?

Consider this

What may be going on is that you may understand WHAT the other person is feeling or experiencing, but you cannot really understand WHY they feel that way or HOW you can help them feel better or WHO is really causing them to feel threatened or fearful.




One problem with "understanding" are the complex set of questions the human brain seeks answers to. We usually only settle one of those in our discourse with others. Shouldn't we make an effort to explore or probe all of the dimensions of understanding when we engage others in communication?

Maybe "walking the brain" with another about important issues will truly help us listen and understand each other better?

Another issue with understanding is the frequent use of ambiguous or imprecise language. For instance, recently I listened to someone teaching young people about principles of good financial management. For illustration purposes, consider two of these principles:

1. save
2. avoid foolish debt

These sound reasonable, but how instructive are they? Does the audience really understand what the expert speaker is saying?

For instance, is saving merely a practice of putting money away? Maybe, maybe not. Putting money under your pillow during times of high inflation is not prudent. Sometimes saving can look like spending. What? Yes, spending can be either consumption or investing. If I buy something that will appreciate in value, then I am saving. Saving is much more complex than just the activity of setting money aside, SO simply instructing others "to save" can be easily misunderstood.

What makes debt "foolish"? Is this description of debt sufficient to guide anyone to prudent financial management? Is the idea of "foolish" too incomplete to provide good guidance? Suppose we advise others to avoid being too leveraged with debt? Is "foolish" debt really debt we have with risk in our ability to pay if and when adversity arises? If so, to help another understand the issue with debt, shouldn't we use the notion of leverage?

These are just examples, but they all illustrate why we talk and talk and talk and think everyone understands, BUT THEY DON'T.

Those that know me often roll their eyes when I push for more clarity. It may be a curse I live with but the absence of completeness and precision in our words too often leave us all frustrated or naive that others understand when they REALLY don't?

Just something to ponder ......