Larry D. Lauer

What I have learned from my research and professional experience over the years is that all communication initially fails. As awful as that sounds, it is fundamentally true. And what follows is always some form of misunderstanding.

But why does all communication fail? It is because of a human condition we call “selective perception.” We give our own meaning to words. For example, the word “compromise”  means a win-win conclusion to some, and a giving up to others. We always prefer ideas that reinforce what we already believe. And when we hear something we dislike, we reject it. Unfortunately, a state of  misunderstanding is the consequence. And it can only be corrected through open-minded interaction.

But beyond this “naturally resulting” misunderstanding, there are at least two forms of “strategic” misunderstanding, or ‘intentional” misunderstanding.

One form is to deny something  that you really understand as an excuse to simply continue doing what you want. “I am so sorry,” you say. “But I just could not understand what that person was saying!” It is a short-cut to avoid dealing with a situation openly.

The second form of strategic misunderstanding is all too common in today’s politics and foreign policy. For Example, something like this might be said: “No one can understand that law. It’s just stupid. We must eliminate it!” This is a mean-spirited method of openly attacking an opponent.

What is going on in Congress today is too often this form of “strategic misunderstanding.” No one is making an effort to understand the other side. Intentional misunderstanding is a strategic choice.  And it is a strategy based on the growing belief that admitting you understand the other person’s point of view will bring an inevitable political defeat.

But there is an even larger communication inevitability here: Strategic misunderstanding always becomes destructive. It totally eliminates the possibility of reasonably negotiated solutions, and eventually solidifies extreme polarization.

Such a tactic is the absolute opposite of traditional American “statesmanship.” It first produces personal and group hostility, then it advances to open conflict, and ultimately it can lead to a complete unraveling of civilized society.