We, The Malevolently Misinformed

What if we could change the world with words?

I believe something as simple as changing the strategy of our communication could improve the way the world relates to one another.

Communication is something most of us take for granted every single day. We speak a lot. Therefore, it would seem we would be pros at it, and that is a presumption that gets us in trouble. Because we know how to talk, we feel effective with our words, but that is not necessarily the case.  It requires far more thought than we may assume and also entails excellent listening skills. Listening is an art, and again, we hardly give it the importance that it deserves. Beyond that, to be sure communication is representative of one's real motive, we must follow up with the comparing of assertations to actions.

Have you ever said something to someone and later found out that they took it in a way you did not mean for them to? Did you think back on your words to find that there were viable reasons to make that wrong assumption? Perhaps you noticed that the way you said it left it open to different interpretations?
Have you ever had a discussion with someone and wondered whether they understand the meaning of the words they are using? Did you feel you could ask for clarification? If not, did you insert your assumption to their purpose?
Have you ever misconstrued someone's meaning and found later that the real thought behind their words was completely different than your understanding?

These are all common communication gaps. They happen all the time, and yet we rarely watch for the discrepancies, and unless we process every conversation thoroughly, we might never even know that they happened. This ineffective correspondence is like the old game 'Telephone' where you sit in a circle and whisper into each other's ear. By the time the last person hears the message, it is so far from the original meaning, it is laughable. Even if we come to understand this amongst the people we speak to daily, we may not realize that everyone is susceptible to wrong interpretations and while most may be innocently happening, it is also quite useful in spreading dissemination of information.

Research tells us that the more emotionally tied we are to a subject, the more we may struggle to listen to opposing views successfully. This is apparent when we watch others try to explain information that differs from their personal value system. Small inaccuracies in wording often begin to create monstrous conclusions that barely leave a fraction of the truth in their summation.

Do we pay enough attention to what we hear and weigh its legitimacy on whom we are getting the information? Do we effectively discern strict fact sharing from the spread of personal understanding? Do we research the things we are told before concreting their validity-- especially if it supports our already formed opinion?

I think the answer is a resounding, no.

What if began listening with the hope to fully understand one another before we mentally began our debate? What if speaking to explain our understandings, became the precedent over trying to outsmart one another? What if we thought of speech as the sharing of information rather than use it to spew our opposing beliefs?

I think this simple mind-shift is the key to solving all human differences. To converse to share and compare, rather than being right, we could view issues with more honesty and integrity. We would find it less threatening to research things and enjoy an influx of new information. With new understandings, we might digest our thoughts more thoroughly, test our beliefs, and choose our stances more intelligently. By removing the defensiveness that springs up when we hear conflicting views on matters, we might side-step much of the knee-jerk cognitive dissonances that currently prevent us from understanding one another and also blocks any hope of learning and growing.

Today we argue ineffectively by complicating issues with inaccurate comparisons and even purposely misconstrue one another's view-points to inflame and subjugate. The willful use of hurtful and misconstrued judgment is creating emotional reasoning and distrust, to the point, it is now a cultural habit that sullies legitimate causes and polarizes our ability to solve problems.

We begin villainizing counterintelligence before we implement any cognizant reasoning, and that is destroying our ability to logically process. Some of us cope by forcing our views onto others while others stay quiet to try and avoid confrontation, but these methods have us all walking away from one another with shared powerlessness; Some to defend ourselves against injustice and others with the fear they will lose their liberty. The inability to have a constructive conversation leaves us all with a deep-seated suspiciousness of one another.

We must ask hard questions and demand relevant answers to know the truth of our situation. This situation finds us in the position that we would rather be wrong and win an argument than admit a wrong, and elevate the standard. It's no wonder there is so much hostility between us, at this rate we can never hope to find common ground.

Defensiveness is now the go-to, and questioning is dangerous territory. Who hasn't been blasted with sarcasm or humiliated for a thought? For daring to share an idea or ask a question? This intolerance of differing beliefs and conceptions has us deaf and dumb because we are fearful of questioning or answering anything.

Speak and listen well. The choice of phrase and meaning behind our spoken words are important and necessitate much consideration with attention to detail. When we find ourselves in the same boat but at each other's throats, and in this place where everyone seems unable to come to a meeting of the minds, perhaps it is time to shed light on our failings to listen and communicate honestly with one another. With a little attention to detail, discernment of truth from opinion, and a comparing of words to actions, we just might come to see we are all guilty of some poor communication and with a bit of effort, we could understand each other a whole lot better and maybe even fix our common ship.

An Inner World of Unwritten Rules

When a pro-life person uses their own traits and emotions, to assert what an unborn baby or God wants, we have their unwritten rules of rightness exalting woman's actual decisions. They are using a defense mechanism, projection, to oppress a sentient human being's choice. The understanding of the term sentient and the separation of church and state or religious freedom are pivotal to this debate and so many trying to have the conversation are not well-versed in either the words or their meanings.

An unborn child cannot decide anything for itself or take care of itself, it requires the indentured efforts of another FREE human being's body to survive, and that requirement cannot pass to any other person. We have a situation that conflicts our freedom for all ideal, and despite our ability to reason, we cannot seem to find a place to agree to disagree. So much so, that some feel compelled to implement laws to enforce their will. The word oppression is to control someone else, to enforce your will onto another, not considering their feelings. If your knee-jerk argument is for the unborn child's rights, we must be clear that a person must have an opinion to be oppressed by an opposing one. The law of our land must first protect freedom as it is the basis of our nation and the only moral commitment we all agreed to share. That freedom is permitted to only to law-abiding and sound-of-mind and extends to choices of personal religions and beliefs. 

I am a thinking person, and as such, I admit that I often allow posts on Facebook to bother me far too much and I can not stop thinking about a post I saw yesterday about abortion. Questions haunt me about this person and the many others she must represent out there. 

This post is by a young girl who believes she would have raised the baby of her rapist. She goes on to say that she feels justified to make others do the same, claiming that if they think they could not raise the child, they should simply put it up for adoption. 

I keep asking myself questions. Did she choose this for herself, or was she coerced to believe it was her duty? Perhaps a noble sacrifice? Does she understand that her perspective and circumstances are not universal? Psychology would say that her decision, whether her own or coerced, obviously brings her some satisfaction. She is proud to assert her intention and opinion though she did not experience the consequences of that choice. Is her conviction even valid as little more than a fantasized-reality? After all, experiences often turn out to be a far cry from the idea we carry in our mind. I wonder if it is a religious thing-- and if so does she understand that a person outside of her belief system would not have that self-abdicating ego boost to help bolster their happiness with that same determination? And isn't there an undermining to the virtue when she seeks to force that imagined altruism onto others?

The science of making decisions could explain much about her assertation. We, as humans, all stack facts to support the choices we make. We do it to justify ourselves, which helps us feel effective in our lives. Knowing that about myself, however, has helped me to see it and sometimes laugh at my reaching. I think if we all had that understanding, we might come to see ourselves more clearly. 

It's not that I want her to change her decision or feel ignorant. Rather, I want her to free herself. To be confident, she chose from her heart and not ideas that society may have staunchly implanted. To see clearly the things she might use to convince herself to do something, not in her best interest and not matching her values in assuring her that liberty, she automatically begins to allow others more freedom too.

I am interested to understand her judgment of women, unable to live up to her standard, as she calls them murderers. It seems she is holding others to a set of rules and standards and we often feel merited to enforce our ideals onto others when we feel subjugated-- a sort of "if I can do it then so can you." This is especially true when humans think they are upholding a greater good or higher moral standard, though it is also true when we feel powerless. Rather than try to elevate the standard of deliverance, we often try to constrain others.

These are simple errors in thinking that we all make. They are natural and normal but not always healthy. Where do they come from? Why are we prone to missing the trees in the forest? 


From the moment we breathe our first breath, we begin the lessons of rightness. We are told what to believe, how to think, and we learn quickly the punishments for varying from these creeds. Those guidelines become the laws of our existence. They carve the path that we walk and are the navigators of our conscience. These orders even dictate our self-worth within our family. Evaluations of will and ability to follow the rules win us the labeling of good kids and bad kids. We, people, found a simple way to decide who is acceptable and who is not, and though it is sometimes hurtful and unfair, it is accepted.

While the laws of our land may be universal, those familial and religious personal axioms are as diverse as our population. In our quest to live up to the expectations, some decide they are failures and others excel so much that they become deeply-seated in them. These people often seek to enforce. Their beliefs are like the rulings of a court, and they find pleasure in enforcing them on everyone around them. How often do we fix labels determining people good or bad, all based on some obscure law our parent taught us was nice or acceptable? These are cultural thoughts, passed from generation to generation but written nowhere. They exist only in our heads. Imagine trying to play a game where different rules dictate everyone's actions, and no one knows why anyone is doing anything. The problem is compounded when our perception of one another is based on how well we follow those unknown rules. 

In this confusion, even when we want to fix the problems of our worl,d we can end up causing more issues. We try to apply our understandings, to decipher other's behaviors, and we completely misconstrue others intentions. Further, we rarely think to consider each individual's experiences. It's not a perfect science, but if we can catch ourselves getting caught up in our programmed thinking, we can consider it. Soon we find ourselves listening for the ideas that vary from the ones already seeded in our minds and comparing them to our own. This opens us up to hearing with our hearts and helps us to understand one another better. It also presents opportunities to learn and grow. We may find a treasure in another point of view or still end up dismissing their opinion, but we logically processed it and base our judgments on realness rather than jumping to conclusions. 


It is difficult to stand down from your platform of rightness. Trust me, I know. When you begin to notice it, you will look around and see that we are all entrenched in our own understandings. It is much easier to allow our illusions of superiority to reign supreme and overthrow our compassion and even scarier, our logic. Atrocities happen when we lose our humanity, and historically, we see that is most prevalent when we believe we are doing whats 'right.' A great deal of self-reflection, respect for others, and selflessness are required to allow our fellow woman to live by her conviction.  

I write this in hopes of softening judgments and opening conversations. Why not offer a door to understanding ourselves so that we may see a way to peace with others? Wouldn't it be a world-changer to soften peoples prejudices and bridge people and belief systems so that we might live together- and not just tolerate, but protect each other's rights and differences? 

I would love to speak to this girl so I might understand her better. I believe there is much to revere in her. It appears that she is of good conscience and wants to be a kind human. There is a blind spot in her assumption and I can truly believe that she knows not what she does to others with her beliefs. The concept that people who do not believe as she does-- also do not act as she does, nor hold in esteem all the same virtues that she does, probably never crossed her mind. Yet, these are the things that make carrying a rapists child achievable for her. While her family and friends might find her actions enviable and saintly, the people around another girl could belittle her for that same decision and think her ignorant. It is all in the way we see the world.

We must, for the sake of individuality, humanity, and freedom, use our unbiased logic to understand our fellow woman and out of our own humility come the wisdom to grant her the right to have an abortion.