Correcting Misunderstandings

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

Misunderstanding is common in ordinary conversations, but it becomes much more common and dangerous in intractable conflict. When people already distrust one another, they often hear the harshest possible meaning in ambiguous words. A delay becomes proof of bad faith. A poorly chosen phrase becomes evidence of contempt. As our essay on misunderstandings explains, conflict changes the way messages are received. Statements that would seem harmless between friends can sound hostile when they come from an opponent. Correcting misunderstandings is therefore not just a matter of being polite. It is a way to keep communication errors from hardening into new grievances.

One reason misunderstandings are so persistent is that people in conflict carry simplified images of the other side. They may believe that their opponents are more extreme, more unreasonable, or more malicious than most of them actually are. BI's summary of a chapter in Deutsch and Coleman's Handbook of Conflict Resolution on judgmental biases notes that conflict encourages stereotypes, black-and-white thinking, and the tendency to exaggerate how far apart the parties really are. More in Common’s Perception Gap research illustrates this in the U.S. red-blue divide: Democrats and Republicans often imagine that almost twice as many of their political opponents hold extreme views than actually do. The same pattern can appear in many other divisions, especially when people mistake the loudest voices for the whole group.

Correcting misunderstandings begins by slowing the conversation down. Instead of immediately answering based on what one thinks the other person meant, parties can check whether they understood correctly. Responses such as "let me make sure I understand what you are saying -- are you saying that.... can reveal that an apparent insult was clumsy wording, or that a position was narrower than it first sounded. This is typically done through active listening and paraphrasing. When one person can restate the other’s point in a way that the other recognizes as accurate, the conversation often becomes less defensive. A mediator, facilitator, or trusted third party can help by translating accusations into concerns and by separating what was said from what was inferred.

Misunderstandings are also corrected by widening the evidence people use to judge the other side. A single inflammatory comment should not be treated as proof of what an entire group believes. Polling, joint fact-finding, dialogue, and direct contact with more ordinary members of the other community can all help people see the range of views that actually exists. More in Common’s later writing on what we get wrong about each other emphasizes that these misperceptions occur across many issues and identities, not only partisan politics. Showing people that their opponents are less extreme than expected does not eliminate real disagreement. It does, however, make what the conflict is about more apparent, and therefore easier to address constructively.

Correcting misunderstandings must be done carefully, however, as people do not like to be told that they are biased, ignorant, or manipulated; such accusations usually deepen defensiveness, rather than reducing it. It is better, therefore, to invite people to test their assumptions, compare interpretations, and look together at more reliable information.

Some conflicts do involve real clashes of interests, values, and power, and no amount of improved communication will make those conflicts disappear. But many conflicts are made worse by mistaken assumptions layered on top of real differences. Removing those distortions can reveal unexpected areas of agreement, reduce needless fear, and open space for more constructive problem solving.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.