XXXX: Invisible cautions | Babelia

Lghan people show a serious difficulty in recognizing moderate messages, and therefore they usually erase from their memory, once read or heard, the words that contributed nuances, caveats, doubts; As if those words had faded after enunciating.

It happens in our daily debates, in relations with friends, in family discussions or in makeshift comments. Someone seeks to carefully choose each term so as not to occupy all the space of the discussion, with the idea of prudently reflecting the facts, trying that the words with which something is narrated do not judge for themselves what is recounted. However, certain interlocutors separate all expressed nuances, and immediately prepare their answer; But not what has been said except what was not wanted to say.

This is also appreciated in many reactions to the articles or analysis, and before the opinions of specialists, even if they have been very careful.

Numerous answers that are seen in the networks and in the media dispense that in the message to which expressions such as “I think”, “generally”, “perhaps”, “perhaps”, “perhaps”, “most likely”, “more or less”, “sometimes”, “can be interpreted as” … can be interpreted. ”

That is, these recipients incorporate into their memory the conjecture transmitted but exclude the distance that the initial issuer had taken with respect to what he himself expressed, as if he had not offered any possibility of disagreement and had manifested with a tremendously assertive and valid language for any situation. That is, as if he had spoken in the Congress gallery.

A phrase like “I do not know if I will be wrong, because I am not a specialist, but what Garamendi argues seems very successful,” may be answered like this: “How do you assure that what Garamendi argues is very successful?”

This is favored by what we can call “the bias of disagreement”: since I need to differ from the idea communicated, although it has been exposed in moderation, I need to see it bluntly, manifested without reservations or caution. That way I can also show myself blunt and assertive, even. Therefore, I need to imagine a opponent without a doubt, a opponent like me. If I accepted your hesitation, I would have to suppress my hardness.

This phenomenon is clearly expressed in politics and polarized means. The reactions of one and others – but more of them, because we cannot present as symmetrical what is unequal; You will know how to interpret this – they induce us to think that some lack verbal understanding. Put in the debate a weighted idea and see what they do with it.

When someone is possessed by the desire to discuss, he discards any possibility of connection, he disregard the precautions of the interlocutors, confuses comparing to equate, the plausible with the truthful, looks for the anger above the nuances that would avoid it.

Our public and private life would be better if we appreciate the unusual words that leave the other for their arguments, which incorporate the doubt pending a reciprocal attitude; The words of those who know that they are often wrong, that they do not intend to be right but have debate and achieve agreements.

Sometimes the truth does not reside in what two defend, but in what they both agree.