[From Jim Beardsley (2003.12.19.1330 EST -0500)]
from Richard Marken <rmarken@RAND.ORG> on 19 Dec 2003:
[From Rick Marken (2003.12.19.1020)]
Bill Powers (2003.12.19.0754 MSDT)--
> It is true that the hurt would not be there except for the
> perceptions and reference levels involved. But it would not
> be there if the words had not been spoken, either.
Does anyone else perceive that ...
> Something is missing from the analysis so far?
Actually, that was the point of my earlier post regarding
hurtful words. The fact that words hurt because of the
perceptions and reference levels of the listener is not the
whole story. They also hurt because someone spoke them.
Is this understanding a consensus?
And if they were spoken with the aim of hurting, the speaker
is as, if not more, responsible for the hurt than is the
listener.
Rick detailed and others seem to (quietly) agree with I think 4 ways for a 'hurt listener' to respond to (or merely cope poorly with) the _hurtful intentions_ from a speaker, and another 2-3 ways to respond to non-hurtful intentions (accidental hurtful perceptions in the listener) of an otherwise innocent speaker. I think Martin clarified these perceptions of must have much to do with the listener's perceptions of their own ability for control, either to control toward self-perceptions (if not goals) involving no one else, or toward goals involving others, particularly others who've also perceived the spoken 'disturbances' either directly, or latently, or perhaps who will perceive them paraphrased by other means (via chitchat, gossip, back-stabbing, or whatever).
Is this a useful summary so far?
So is there anything missing? ..if only taken for granted?
If so, is it most likely to be from the hurt-listener's perspective/s, or from the speaker's perspective/s, or both?
Could it have to do with what the listener perceives (if not imagines) that s/he ('?believes' that s/he) can yet influence or control for goals involving no one else, or more likely, involving others who yet may or may not accurately perceive (or 'habitually' imagine) the same or similar meanings behind the speaker's words?
Is it too easy for any/most listener to accept a belief (whether via rogue imagination or quasi/scientific observation) that successful communication is implicitly difficult, if not nearly impossible, due to each individual's perceptual biases? ..it seems such a belief could strongly influence all their social perceptions (speaking from experience :).
I've stretched to better clarify these concepts for myself, hoping I wouldn't be compelled to phrase them as questions to everyone, but in fact they are queries of your impressions.
Fascinating topics, and contributions, all,
JimB
···
_______________________________________________________
The FREE service that prevents junk email http://www.mailshell.com