Blog #154--Hearing What We Want to Hear

I worked as a sports journalist just prior to the onset of quality voice-recognition computer software that can transcribe our own speech and recorded interviews. A big part of each day was devoted to the tedious process of listening to small segments of interviews and then typing what I heard into my computer for later articles. If I was recording press conferences, I tried typing directly onto my computer as they happened and then adding whatever I missed later. Over time, I discovered a phenomenon I had never noticed about myself before.

I pride myself on being accurate and precise, but no matter which technique I used, I found myself changing the spoken word into my own language. I was typing sentences the way I would say them if I was the interviewees rather than the way they said them. In most cases the meanings were similar, but subtle differences were capable of misleading readers into false assumptions. No matter how often I tried to be exact, I continued to mistype occasionally.

Looking back on it, I now realize how easy it is for all of us to interpret things the way we want them to be instead of the way they are. It is no wonder we have trouble finding commonality of understanding with our fellow humans. We are all literally hearing what we want to hear and disregarding the rest. Paul Simon’s song “The Boxer” includes this realization among its lyrics for good reason.

I have long observed how participants on sports website forums can take one small sentence within a much longer comment out of context in order to rationalize and strengthen their personal point of view. I am no expert on brain chemistry or neurological physiology, but this is probably the result of the same processes as my changing words of interviews. There seems to be a direct correlation between one’s preferential bias and his or her interpretation of the written or spoken word. The more extreme the emotional reaction against the subject matter, the more distorted the message becomes.

We seem to reinterpret the world through our personal lens. In sports, those who seek revenge against a favorite team’s coach if winning isn't maximized refuse to hear anything that might contradict their points of view. If they want a coach fired for losing, they select only that which they can twist into proof for their position. If someone offers a more conciliatory tone, he or she is ridiculed and bullied into submission. Two-dimensional thinkers are especially prone to this since they see no shades of gray between themselves and their enemies.

I recently listened to a sports talk show devoted to my favorite college teams. Three credible reporters with knowledge of the situation all acknowledged problems with the school’s basketball program. But they also said the timing was probably not right to fire the coach unless something extreme occurred in the near future.

But a person wrote into a website forum that the first two people speaking on the subject both said the coach needed to be fired. He interpreted balanced, nonjudgmental comments regarding possibilities to mean what he wanted them to mean. Most of the responders on that thread assumed he was accurate without having listened to the show or the subsequent podcast simply because it was a good excuse for adding their persistent venom on the subject.

When one person finally mentioned hearing the show and interpreting it differently, providing a perspective I had also gained from it, he was ridiculed immediately. He was called names indicating excessive favoritism for the coach. He simply asked them to listen to the podcast, but few if any ever did. After all, it might limit their ability to force a coaching change.

As for my tendency to change statements into my preferred method of speech, this may be the result of my tendency to be more leader than follower. I have noticed that natural followers tend to make the best typists, transcribers, court reporters, secretaries and interpreters because they are great at copying others’ words. That is a special gift they exercise to make a living. I found the only way I could insure accuracy was to double check my work. We all make mistakes, but I found I simply couldn’t always trust myself simply because my leader tendencies tended to overrule my follower side on occasion.

I have no usable suggestions for those who anger easily and refuse to consider alternate points of view. A certain percentage of humans, usually a minority, want more than they can have. It’s the nature of things. The best suggestion I have for those who have at least some ability to tolerate hearing alternative approaches to life is to consider the art of acceptance and forgiveness.

That way, even if our preferences don’t occur as we wish, we can find at least a modicum of peace of mind to keep us from extremes of behavior. Maybe then, our flexibility will help us remain more balanced physically, emotionally and spiritually. We can then find more similarities than differences with our fellow humans, and our shared conclusions can begin to coalesce into a common denominator that leads to truth.

With balance, perhaps we can begin to hear what is being said accurately and get a feel for the deeper meaning and motivation behind it.

http://dreamtime3.wix.com/jacktuttlebook

Comments and questions can be directed to dreamtime@insight-books.com.