Sometimes I am surprised that some phenomena
get hardly any attention in philosophy. Take for example “waiting”. We spend a
lot of time on it and I think that it is one of the basic aspects of life. I also
think that the meaning of waiting differs from culture to culture. It should be
interesting enough to draw the attention of many philosophers. It doesn’t.
However, here I don’t want to talk about waiting. Once I devoted already a blog
to it (my blog dated 2 June 2009). Here I want to write about another neglected
phenomenon in philosophy, one that I mentioned already in my blog last week:
Misunderstanding. One might expect that it would have received much attention
in philosophy, especially in analytical philosophy, but I found only one
article on the theme and this article had even been published in a medical
journal (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20871003).
Also Wittgenstein hardly mentions the phenomenon and he doesn’t analyze it.
Actually we can learn more about what misunderstanding is from psychologists;
for example from Frith.
Misunderstanding can be an individual
affair, but more interesting are misunderstandings in relations with others
(and actually many individual misunderstandings in fact are of that kind). Seen
this way, misunderstanding may be better described as miscommunication, for
misunderstanding mostly arises because I have an idea in my head and you have
an idea about the same in your head but your idea is different from mine; however,
we cannot bring them in line and – and that’s the point – we don’t realize that
they are not in line; at least we don’t realize it in the beginning. So we
think that we are talking about the same thing while actually we are talking
about different things.
Frith (I mentioned him already in my last
week’s blog) nicely describes how it works: I have a model of your idea in my
head and from this I predict what you will say next. But you, of course, have a
model of my idea in your head and you predict what I’ll do. Based on our ideas
of the other we talk, adapt our mutual ideas, etc. It’s called the
communication loop. It’s very different from “communication” with the physical
world. In that case, the communication is one-sided, for the physical world has
no ideas. It just is, so there is no communication loop (and here we find the
origin of individual misunderstanding, which is a kind of false interpretation
of the physical world). However, in human communication you give me feedback
and I give you feedback, and so our models in our heads describing the ideas in
the head of the other are adapted and developed. In this way, “in a succesfull
communication”, so Frith, “the point is reached where my model of your meaning
matches my own meaning”, and the same for you. When there no longer is
discrepancy between my model of your idea and your model of my idea, “mutual
agreement communication has been achieved.” And, Frith continues, which is very
important: “By building models of the mental world, our brains have solved the
problem of how to get inside the minds of others.” So far Frith, for what Frith
doesn’t say here is that this building of models in our heads of what others
think is also the foundation of possible misunderstanding. Although I have a
model in my head of what you think, it is a model of what I think that you
think (and the same for you, the other way round). When communication ends, for
instance when we think that my model and your model match, there is no
guarantee that our models really match. And alas, too often it happens that our
models do not match while we think they do. If this happens, we have a case of
misunderstanding. Happily, many misunderstandings don’t remain hidden for a long
time. Sooner or later we are going to act on the base of our false ideas and
then it will come out that they are false. Then it comes out that my idea of
what you thought is not what you really thought. If that is the case, our
misunderstanding can be solved as yet.
Source
Chris Frith, Making
up the mind. How the brain creates our mental world. Malden, MA, etc.: Blackwell
Publishing, 2007; p. 175
No comments:
Post a Comment