It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. There is no fun in doing nothing when you have nothing to do. Wasting time is merely an occupation then, and a most exhausting one. Idleness, like kisses, to be sweet must be stolen. - Jerome K. Jerome
Women tend to be the relationship specialists and men tend to be task specialists. Women are typically the experts in "rapport talk" which refers to the types of communication that build, maintain, and strengthen relationships. Rapport talk reflects skills of talking, nurturing, emotional expression, empathy, and support. Men are typically the experts in task accomplishment and addressing questions about facts. They are experts in "report talk," which refers to the types of communication that analyzes issues and solves problems. Report talk reflects skills of being competitive, lacking sentimentality, analyzing, and focusing aggressively on task accomplishment.
It is more common for women to show affection through talking, but it is more common for men to show affection by doing things—either doing things together or doing separate things within the same physical space. Sometimes not talking—not having to talk—is a sign of trust and intimacy for men.
So, the next time you feel surprised, disappointed, or angry with someone's response to something you have said, ask yourself if he or she may have "misheard" you. Is the other responding to your problems with a solution, when you wanted to receive sympathy? Is the other responding to your message of affection with a message of status? If so, you will be able to help the other to understand the source of your miscommunication, and avoid the hurt feelings and conflicts that sometimes follow.
I have problems with both the defenders of the reservation system and its opponents. Partly because whenever disputes exists the disputants disagree with the premisses, or the hypotheses, each group is advancing in order to account for some phenomena. So far so good when the problem concerns with only premisses (hypotheses). But unlike the previous generations, we should rather look forward to examining the phenomena. Our problems lie there. Otherwise, both parties talk past each other, making the opponents a bunch of stupids which they are not.
What he means: its not along expected lines. What he really means is atypical. A person looking at his words, would understand it differently.
Look past the words. This is critically important in a conversation.
This understanding - of what he means by typical - is a shared context: cultural context, a limited geographic context, between a group, or just between the two of them. Corresponding examples: all people in AP use typical that way; in nalgonda district; a small group of friends who grew up together; or just my friend who I really know and what he means by each word.
Without a shared context -- the information is inaccessible. The appearance of conversation is there, but they would be talking past each other.
As an aside: humor is extremely sensitive to the shared context. People cannot appreciate humor the same way unless they share a context. Many people learn a language, but can't access humor. Learning English doesn't help a lot in understanding Stephen Colbert.
Note: I will use words to mean words, phrases and sentences.
Words do not mean the same to everyone. Words are not precise, they ain't numbers (assume that numbers mean the same to everyone!).
Words have memory association. A meaning is assigned to a word based on how it is learnt and memorized.
Most people strongly associate negative connotations to words. Hence they get offended quickly. "Taught a lesson" conveys nothing negative to me, but I know a person who would be severely offended by it.
Profanities work the same way. People associate negative connotations. Profanities have no impact on me, they don't convey any specific information. People resort to profanities when they are are emotional. It is important to look beyond the words to see what caused the profanities.
To summarize: It takes a lot of time and energy to understand a person. Time, first, because amass a lot of *conversation*, and a lot of background info. Listening is important. Energy, because this is a continuous process. Understanding needs to be constantly revised until the other persons framework is completely accessible and information is received the right way - that is, you can completely look past the words and into the person.
We can see talking past each other in a lot of intellectual debates. The opponents do not spend enough time and energy to understand the other side. Without understanding, there is no room for co-operation. And the debate continuse!!
Pro reservation vs Anti reservation. Socialist vs free-market. Conservatives vs liberals (they have different channels of morality) - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
