Axiom: When two good-natured, good-willed people manage to miscommunicate despite their best efforts, then it is not the

goodness of their natures or wills that is as fault, but something in their interaction. Hypothesis: All conversations are two-way affairs, and need the cooperation and help of both sides. David and Amitai have different conceptions of what it means to help, and this comes up the more unclear or unfamiliar the topic of conversation; moreover, their conceptions are to a large extent mutually exclusive, creating a vicious cycle of mutual frustration. DAVIDS CONCEPT: Ideally, obligations are chosen, rather than imposed. It is important to be in control of the important parts of ones life. A conversation is a dialogue, a ,-with each partner taking turns in ceding control of the conversation. A partner with an open mind listens to the thoughts and ideas of whomevers turn it is. If I do not understand, then I simply state, I dont understand, or I may be more specific (e.g., I dont understand the last sentence/ idea you just said.). He may possibly invite me to contribute (e.g., Well, what did you think I meant?), but that is his choice. Soon enough, it will be my turn, and I can respond then, but since progress will only take place if my response builds upon a genuine understanding of my partners message, responding too early, without fully hearing out my conversation partner, will only torpedo the conversations good-faith efforts at dialogue. o It is downright rude and narcissistic to interrupt, or put words into the other persons mouth, since that prevents actual dialogue from taking place. Nothing can come of such a conversation. The choice to enter a dialogue, a genuine exchange of ideas, involves a power sharing arrangement with your conversation partner. o Thus, if I do not understand fully, or I merely suspect that I do not understand, then I simply state that: Im not sure that I understand. This does not infringe upon the speakers turn for control of the conversation (his choices). This is helpful, and eventually, my minimalist responses will guide the current speaker to calibrating ( )and tailoring his explanation for me so that I eventually do understand. o In a nutshell, dialogue is like paired mountain climbing: the partners switch-off tasks, both contributing to the goal; one by climbing, the other by anchoring himself to the mountain and not moving until they switch positions. The critical concern, in this conception, is control, forthrightness, and not violating someones personal space: not denying the Other his right to choose. AMITAIS CONCEPT: Essentially, human nature is moral (morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait or in religious language it is ;)) , -( . people, therefore, are born into a world of moral obligations: most basically the

gratitude towards parents and society, and for the common assistance of peers and friends. Choices are the home one lives in, while obligations (morality) are the very earth upon which that home is built. A conversation is a dialogue, a ,-with each partner obliged to help his fellow express her thoughts in such a fashion that it will be understood, rather than be misunderstood, for misunderstanding is the worst insult and dereliction of duty; since in a moral sense, I am partially responsible for the well-being of my fellow, then to the extent that I am a mystery to her, I must open up, clarify, and meet her halfway. Conversely, to the extent that my words are unclear, ambiguous, or amphibolous, I am obligated to try and clarify them. Poetry and oratory, then, are moral pursuits which allow for more ideal communication; mere mortals, however, can simply rely upon repetition of the same idea in different words, the use of analogies or concrete examples in order to get their points across. In critical conversations, it is irresponsible to presume that understanding is automatic, and checks for understanding are imperative for avoiding misunderstanding (analogous to computer error prevention its all Information Theory).1 o It is downright rude to let a person talk without giving the very minimum of feedback; if one understands what his partner is expressing, body language (e.g., nodding) or non-verbal affirming noises (e.g., hmmm.) are appropriate. If one does not understand, and it appears that the conversation partner is unaware of this, then one should speak up, and say wait, I lost you just nowthis is not interrupting any more than nodding or hmmm is, for it is in the service of the speakers desire to be understood. o However, if I do not understand fully, or I merely suspect that I do not understand, then I offer a diagnosis of the listeners (my) misunderstanding, to help guide my conversation partner through the labyrinth of my current understanding. This way, I do not neglect my obligation to assist my conversation partner in conveying his thoughts an assistance that my partner surely expects, as I would expect in turn. o In a nutshell, dialogue is a tango: while only one person leads at any given time, never is either partner passive. The critical concern, in this conception, is conscientiousness, mutuality, and not violating someones personal image/reputation: not neglecting to see the Other as he wishes to be seen. IF TWO PEOPLE with opposite conversational conventions speak to each other, dialogue will be quite difficult and irritating. Amitai expects David to be clear and to clarify his ambiguous message, for to do otherwise puts Amitai in an awkward (potentially unethical) position. The less clear
1

For example, grammar serves as an error checker: in one of the sentences above, his fellowher thoughts, the use of differently-gendered pronouns prevented confusion or false parallelism; his fellowhis thoughts would be amphibolous (to whom does his #2 refer? Someone else, or is it reflexive?).

Amitai perceives Davids message, the more anxious he becomes, and seeks clarification more strongly. When none is forthcoming, Amitai offers examples of possible [mis]understandings, helpfully pointing out ways in which David can ensure his clarity. When Amitai speaks (in this conception, there are no formal turns), he anticipates signals from David as to his [Amitais] clarity, but receives no feedback; unsure as to the reception of his message, Amitai takes even more pains to be clear and unambiguous, perhaps repeating his message in different ways, from different angles, by offering parallel examples, or asking personal questions in the hopes of evoking a confirmation of understanding in his conversation partner, David. David expects Amitai to be respectful of the ground rules of turn-taking conversation, for to do otherwise violates the sovereignty of the speaker, and is even a minor form of verbal abuse: using someone as a sounding board to hear ones own voice, under the false pretenses of dialogue. The more Amitai interrupts, goes off on tangents, and repeats himself, the more anxious David becomes, as the dialogue he signed up for is hijacked by oblivious, unproductive talkspeaking at rather than speaking with. David seeks ever more visibly to point to the ground rules of turn-taking by giving Amitai the freedom to speak until he finishes, without interruption or biased input from David, in the hopes/assumption that he [David] will in turn receive the same. When this does not happen, David tries to assert control of the conversation by explicitly appealing to the ground rules, calling Amitai on tangents and digressions, endless clarifications, and worst of all, his interruptions. What happens in actuality, however, is that Davids (opposite of clarifying) reactions cause Amitai to try to be ever more helpful, which frustrates David all the more (youve taken us far away, again.). He reacts by trying to be ever more respectful, which frustrates Amitai all the more (Why cant you answer my questions? What are you saying??). On the one hand, David is speaking gibberish, while on the other hand, Amitai is not interested in speaking with David (or other people in general) at all, or so it seems to each other. David continues to insist that his message is obvious to rational people, and since Amitai is rational, he is the [witting or (ADHD?) unwitting] agent of obfuscation (for example, I read an article), yet will not engage in the process of exiting that rutin short, Amitai is being small-minded and self-involved. He only wants to talk so that he can hear himself. Amitai continues to insist that David should not confuse mechanical humility (I will be silent while you speak) with moral humility (I will consider the possibility that I am wrong, and that you are less wrong than I), and that in his misplaced self-confidence, David is not only being misunderstood by Amitai, but is grievously misunderstanding Amitaiin short, David is being small-minded and self-involved. He only wants to talk so that he can hear himself. A way out: If this is somewhat accurate, Im willing to try it your way, and lets see what happens. Amitai 20120111