On Confusion
Barry Kort
From time to time someone speaks to me in such a way that I am confused by what they say. In most cases, the other person has given me a sequence of suggestions which, if I followed them to their logical conclusion, would leave us both better off. However, I have to admit to myself that I do not completely understand why their advice is sound. In that case, I must memorize the sequence of suggestions, and either try them to see if they work or figure out the underlying logic for myself. It now appears to me that there is something I am not doing which would greatly ease my confusion. In this paper, I would like to make others aware of what I have discovered, in the off chance that they too would find it enlightening.
If I cannot understand why the other person’s advice is sound, I am left with two tasks to do simultaneously. First I must memorize the sequence of suggestions as well as the order in which they were given. I must admit that this is a skill which other people seem to have, but which I am relatively poor at. In other words, I am a poor listener. But I know that other times I can listen to a lengthy discourse and follow along with perfect comprehension, with no need to memorize anything because I understand completely what the other person’s message means, and I find myself in agreement with it. I believe I now understand the very important, yet very subtle difference between the two cases. When someone gives me a logical argument which I can follow very well, then there is no need to memorize because I am skilled enough at logic to rederive everything they say. I merely need to remember one or two key points that start the chain of reasoning. But if I cannot follow their reasoning, then one of two things must be happening. First, their logic could be faulty. This I now believe is highly unlikely, although I will come back to this point later. What I now believe to be the case is that their logic is flawless, but it contains some hidden assumptions. My confusion stems from my realization that they seem confident in what they say, yet my own confidence in their advice is very low. How can this be? I have discovered a new possibility that explains my confusion perfectly. In the next section I will explain this point very carefully, for I feel strongly that it is a very important key to meaningful communication.
Could it be that I cannot follow the other person’s advice, because I am unaware of some (to me) subtle cause and effect relationships which the other person knows about very well? In other words, the other person could, if I asked them, explain exactly why each step is required in the indicated order. In making that explanation, I then find out the answer to my unasked question, which is to say I become aware of (come to know) the logic of their idea. Once I become aware of their reasoning, their suggestions make perfectly good sense and I need not memorize anything. It appears to me that the relationship is symmetrical: if the other person were aware of the particular points in his chain of reasoning which corresponded to the gaps in mine, he no doubt would dwell on the point long enough for me to grasp it. But how can he know the gaps in my understanding? The answer is he cannot know except by the occurrence of one three possible outcomes.
If I follow his advice stumblingly at first, better as time goes on, he then begins to understand that I am learning the details which I did not appreciate before. That is, he left out a few details, which if I do not discover them on my own, could render the advice unworkable. The moral of the story is simply to be sure that you understand the suggestion in enough detail so that the sequence of steps is perfectly clear and logical.
If I feel the suggestion makes sense, but do not understand why, I could ask myself the question, "What does he know that I don’t know, that if I knew it, I would certainly go along?" In thinking through the problem, it is possible that I will discover on my own the gaps in my understanding of the way things really work. That is, I must intuit the details that were left out. I might then go back and explain to the advisor that the omission of some details caused me confusion, and that he should be aware of their importance for the future.
The quickest way to resolve my confusion is to admit it openly and say, "I appreciate that your advice is sound, but it would help me greatly if I understood the importance of every step, as well as the order in which they are taken (if that matters)." The moral here is that friendly advice can be very useful if one takes the time to find out from the advisor why the advice can be expected to work reliably. The answer to that question constitutes important new knowledge that the advisee can retain all his life. When a caring person tells a cared-for person what to do, both parties should be able to understand why the request is in their mutual self-interest. If it is unclear to one, the other has an obligation to explain. If a good explanation does not come to mind, there are only two possibilities: either the good explanation exists but we are unware of it or there is no good explanation for what we asked the other to do.
There can be no disagreements between two people as to their feelings about themselves and the other. I own my feelings and you own yours. If I tell you my feeling on a subject, I am merely advising you of my state of mind. If you wish me to change my mind, all you need to do is present me with the counter-evidence. If the dispute is about the way things are in the real world, it only requires that the two parties identify their differences in their understanding of a chain of events leading from cause to effect. This dispute can then be resolved by identifying the pairs of missing links and putting them in place. I am convinced that in every situation, one need only examine in detail the other’s line of reasoning to discover the link that they know about and you don’t. And when that link is found, the finder also learns the importance of being aware of the other person’s state of mind.