Jump to content

Photo

Should Intent or Interpretation Matter More - A Moral Kerfuffle

moral philosophy

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Poll: Does Intent or Reception matter more?

Take your pick!

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#16 Joelmacool

Joelmacool

    Addicted to Overwatch

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Joel
  • Location:Country of Europe

Posted 02 August 2019 - 12:35 PM

No, he said, and I quote, "It wouldn't be a bad thing if more people moved on to other programs." That is encouraging people to leave.

That doesnt feel like something that should offend people. I didn't get offended.
Also, you say this topic doesn't need discussion, yet you are the only one thus far who has voted for the listener's interpretation being the most important. I feel like this topic may need more discussion - although preferably without the derailing this topic has been suffering so far.
  • Shane and Jenny like this

#17 Aevin

Aevin

  • Members
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 02 August 2019 - 01:26 PM

I feel it's a complex question. Personally, I'm hesitant to come down too strongly on either side or the other, so I nulled.

 

On the one hand, I think that regardless of intent, sometimes what someone says comes across the wrong way, either because they were careless with their words, didn't think through the full implications, or were emotional at the time. It could be that they had no intent to offend, but depending on the severity of the situation, usually the simplest thing is to apologize. Saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the listener to understand your intent just doesn't seem right. As a speaker, you have a certain responsibility to make sure that your words aren't misconstrued. So your intent needs to be conveyed with yoru words, otherwise you open yourself up to all sorts of problems. You can intend all you like, but if you come across as a jerk, there's going to be consequences regardless of whether you meant it that way.

 

On the other hand, people should be able to understand when someone slips up with their words. And if someone makes an effort to clarify their intentions, they ought to be receptive to that. The fact is, we're all human, and miscommunications happen. Nobody's going to be eloquent and perfectly appropriate at all times. You have to be able reach across the gap and try to understand other people's positions and intentions. Otherwise you're only going to prolong meaningless conflict. I will say that in my personal opinion, any time someone says, "This shouldn't be an argument," or "This isn't even worth debating," that's the point where they've lost the debate. It represents an unwillingness to even consider other people's opinions and positions, where they're no longer open to evidence or persuasion and have no intention of listening. It's an attempt to completely nullify other people's beliefs, and really isn't conducive to a productive discussion.


  • Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder, Adem, Shane and 6 others like this

#18 Deedee

Deedee

    Bug Frog Dragon Girl

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Deedee
  • Pronouns:She / Her, They / Them
  • Location:Canada

Posted 02 August 2019 - 02:32 PM

Imagine thinking that saying "it's okay to do non-zc things" is trolling.

TBT didn't intend to offend anyone, but everyone else intended to get offended. Nobody should have to apologize when everyone else purposefully overreacts in order to manipulate an apology out of someone. This is called "cancel culture", and it's fucking disgusting. Someone said something harmless, and here people are trying to bash said person 2 days later. Grow the hell up. Is this really a valid use of your time? You're literally calling someone a troll and asking for a thread to be locked because they dared suggest that it's okay to work on non-zc stuff. If that's not overexaggeration//faking of offense, then I don't know what is.

You have also not considered this, but maybe perhaps the question is a genuine, thought-provoking question? Maybe TBT came away from that incident thinking "you know, that's a really good question; does intent matter?". But instead, you went for "TBT want people to approve of his """trolling"""", which is honestly really fucking rude and makes you a bit of a hypocrite considering this whole conversation about intent and being rude.

Sorry to be blunt, but I know this will likely be ignored/disregarded because you probably have prior opinions of me thanks to my comment regarding Tamamo, but I really hope this isn't the case, because if you're predictable enough to do that, then you're predictable enough for me to guess where this conversation will go, meaning you'd be wasting your breath seeing it to the end when I already know what the end is and know it's not worth either of our times.


  • Shane and coolgamer012345 like this

#19 Aevin

Aevin

  • Members
  • Pronouns:He / Him
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 02 August 2019 - 02:49 PM

I would appreciate if we could keep it to discussion of the topic, rather than repeatedly bringing personal things regarding members into it.


  • Adem, Orithan, Joelmacool and 3 others like this

#20 Moosh

Moosh

    Tiny Little Questmaker

  • ZC Developers

Posted 02 August 2019 - 08:40 PM

Completely ideally speaking, I'd say intent matters more. But realistically, trying to defend yourself in a modern discussion against a complete stranger is probably a losing battle. Better to just not come off as a dick.



#21 NoeL

NoeL

    Legend

  • Members
  • Real Name:Jerram

Posted 03 August 2019 - 06:43 AM

I tossed it around but ultimately came down on the side of "reception" over "intent". I'm sure we all wish intent mattered more because that's what matters more to us as speakers, (and the poll results reflect this) but that's an inherently self-centred view on communication. Once you take a step back you realise that when it comes to communication "reception" is all that there is. Until we develop mind-readers intent is irrelevant - all we have is the listeners skill in interpreting the speakers intent through their words and the speaker's skill in translating their intent as clearly as possible into words.

 

With this information we can do a little thought experiment:

 

Imagine we have two speakers trying to express the exact same intent. One is very skilled at conveying that intent clearly, the other is not. As a result, the poor speaker is misunderstood substantially more than the good speaker. Alternatively (or additionally) the same intent and words can be understood/misunderstood by good/bad listeners. The intent is identical in all these situations but they all lead to different outcomes, meaning intent can't be the key variable. How a message is received/understood dictates the reaction, so it obviously matters more.

 

So, how can we apply this to sensitive discussions that are prone to misunderstandings? Well, we need to refine our speaking skills. Be clear, be concise, and try to eliminate any ambiguity in your message. People will hear what they want to hear, so you need to keep your language "flavourless" long enough to deliver your full message. Avoid the use of "trigger words" that illicit strong emotions and come loaded with preconceptions; instead use more neutral synonyms that aren't immediately associated with that baggage (for example, instead of saying "wage gap" (oooh, so spicy!) say "earning discrepancy" or something). As an extension of this, try to use language that carries fewer connotations in general (e.g. instead of saying "Wall street" which immediately conjures images of of greedy coke-sniffing fat cats destroying the economy, say "the financial district of lower Manhattan" which... doesn't). Use as much neutral language as you can get away with so you don't let the listener's preconceptions corrupt your message.


  • Nathaniel, Jenny, Joelmacool and 2 others like this

#22 Sheik

Sheik

    Deified

  • Members

Posted 03 August 2019 - 09:01 AM

I don't really see the problem here. Communication works very good most of the time. That's why we use it so much, I assume. In the majority of cases, listeners understand the speaker's intent and in the majority of cases the speaker isn't an illiterate doofus who can't get themselves across and who understands quite well how to convey their intent in the words they choose. So some of the examples brought up above in some of the posts that precede mine strike me as rather artificial.

Other than that, I believe the question is probably undecidable. If you take any one side out of the equation you end up without communication. A communication that is loaded either entirely on the speaker's intent or on the listener's reception ceases to be a communication.


  • Dark Ice Dragon likes this

#23 Nathaniel

Nathaniel

    Deified

  • Members

Posted 03 August 2019 - 09:32 AM

NoeL has changed my mind, which I haven't expressed prior to this post.  Very great insight!  But to be fair, I hadn't put much thought into this initially.

 

Most of us probably want to be correctly understood in most situations.  Therefore, most of us want our intentions to be understood too, with the intention being that people simply understand what we are trying to say, be it a fact or an opinion.  That requires one to reflect on that reception before the words come out, thus we try, if we can, to choose the words that we think will make our thoughts correctly understood.  As a professor, I have had a lot of experience at trying to do that, teaching the same material many times over.  I had often asked myself:  How can I present this better?  So one who does that naturally would put reception first, in order for it to correctly interpret the intent of sharing our knowledge.

 

On a different note, that is not to say that one needs to be politically correct, when it comes to talking about more political or sensitive matters.  I find political correctness to be prioritizing reception first, but with an intent that differs from simply being understood correctly.  It's no longer necessarily about wanting to be understood on your actual opinions correctly, but rather to say something in a way that gives you as many cheers as possible, and as few jeers as possible, at least among a certain group of people that you are trying to please.  You don't have to be honest or properly understood on your intent in order to achieve that goal.  If it's for the sake of looking virtuous among your peers or a certain social group, the intent is more geared toward being liked, rather than what you might actually believe about a subject matter.

 

But either way, this still prioritizes reception over intent, because reception must be reflected on first, and thus adjusting how you carry out your intent.  They often work together, but one is dependent on the other when thinking about it thoroughly, assuming that one does and one cares.



#24 Dark Ice Dragon

Dark Ice Dragon

    Wizard

  • Members

Posted 04 August 2019 - 03:38 PM

I nulled, they are both important

Well actually.. maybe is not  nice post here but i want let you know a funny episode  happended in Italy few years ago.

A politician was to star a speech, he wanted start whit "sarĂ² breve e COINCISO" ( we may translate  "I'll be short and coincided" ) but unfortunately the emotion, tiredness and stress made him wrong and he said "sarĂ² breve e CIRCONCISO" ( I'll be short and circumcised ).

Of course nobody remember a single word of the speech, but everyone remember the error, so in this case the reception win i guess.



#25 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 05 August 2019 - 01:44 AM

In terms of how 'good' a person is, it's intent. How can a person be considered bad if they're trying their hardest to do good?

On the other hand, consequences are important in practice. If you say something dumb, and people call you out for it, you need to take responsibility for it and apologise, assuming what you said goes against your views. If not, then keep your integrity :P. But if you refuse to accept that you're wrong, then you're pretty much saying you don't care for the way what you said can be interpreted.

 

So - Morally, intent; Practically, Reception.


  • Nathaniel and Architect Abdiel like this

#26 Arthas

Arthas

    Adept

  • Members

Posted 06 August 2019 - 06:58 AM

'Should' and 'Matter' imply some sort of authority coming to some sort of universal conclusion.

 

In that context it don't matter. Either answer is equally correct i.e meaningless. The question is secondary to the result. Those with greater force/resources at their disposal (physical or social) will decide 'the 'perceived intent' of any given actor and narrate the 'correct interpretation' of that intent. It's how ordered society and laws are created then subsequently enforced. By a small minority of elites.

 

Universal or safe space conclusions regarding moralism are always faulty because they fail to account for context. Every action occurs relative to every other. Nothing happens in isolation. Practically speaking, your moralism is only superior to any other if you can enforce it above others.


Edited by Arthas, 06 August 2019 - 07:06 AM.


#27 LikeLike on fire

LikeLike on fire

    vaugly coherent

  • Members
  • Location:NJ

Posted 18 August 2019 - 05:08 PM

I tossed it around but ultimately came down on the side of "reception" over "intent". I'm sure we all wish intent mattered more because that's what matters more to us as speakers, (and the poll results reflect this) but that's an inherently self-centred view on communication. Once you take a step back you realise that when it comes to communication "reception" is all that there is. Until we develop mind-readers intent is irrelevant - all we have is the listeners skill in interpreting the speakers intent through their words and the speaker's skill in translating their intent as clearly as possible into words.

 

With this information we can do a little thought experiment:

 

Imagine we have two speakers trying to express the exact same intent. One is very skilled at conveying that intent clearly, the other is not. As a result, the poor speaker is misunderstood substantially more than the good speaker. Alternatively (or additionally) the same intent and words can be understood/misunderstood by good/bad listeners. The intent is identical in all these situations but they all lead to different outcomes, meaning intent can't be the key variable. How a message is received/understood dictates the reaction, so it obviously matters more.

 

So, how can we apply this to sensitive discussions that are prone to misunderstandings? Well, we need to refine our speaking skills. Be clear, be concise, and try to eliminate any ambiguity in your message. People will hear what they want to hear, so you need to keep your language "flavourless" long enough to deliver your full message. Avoid the use of "trigger words" that illicit strong emotions and come loaded with preconceptions; instead use more neutral synonyms that aren't immediately associated with that baggage (for example, instead of saying "wage gap" (oooh, so spicy!) say "earning discrepancy" or something). As an extension of this, try to use language that carries fewer connotations in general (e.g. instead of saying "Wall street" which immediately conjures images of of greedy coke-sniffing fat cats destroying the economy, say "the financial district of lower Manhattan" which... doesn't). Use as much neutral language as you can get away with so you don't let the listener's preconceptions corrupt your message.

 

i feel like this is me all the time. to a point, that if I have a doctor ask me if I have delusions, I cannot answer. are they delusions? of course not. I do my thing, people screech like little harpies, go on a rampage and then snuggle up to someone worse than me who says the same thing, all the while bashing you when you say you do not belive people with limited communication or thinking abilities should be involved in some areas.  when you get known for that, people are aginst you. when they don't know it is you, they will agree with you

 

anway is this whole topic kind of about Thermian Arguments?


  • Shane, coolgamer012345 and Matthew like this

#28 Geoffrey

Geoffrey

    Chosen One

  • Members

Posted 25 August 2019 - 04:53 PM

Changing social attitudes towards this question are reflected in all areas of life. If old poetry (Shakespeare, for example) seems oblique and opaque, it's because the poet's primary job was to dazzle his audience with beauty of form; it was the job of his audience, conversely, to discover the meaning beneath the artistry. Now, however, this sort of writing is considered pretentious and tiresome, unless written by some long dead British man, and the roles have been reversed: the writer must convey his meaning as clearly and concisely as possible. What is the job of the audience, then? To be parted from its cash, or credit, I suppose.

 

Like some of those above me, I nulled; for the answer lies somewhere in the middle: those of us who are fully human beings, who have spent their time with other human beings, who have seen the strength and weakness of real human beings, will know that no human being can speak clearly and without confusion all the time. If you're offended, better to ask for clarification on the offensive point; more often than not, your interlocutor will have made a mistake, which he will be eager to correct, and will be as embarrassed as you are offended.

 

So my answer is this: both are equally important, and, to paraphrase Sheik, it is the interplay between intent and interpretation from which conversation arises. If the heart dies and circulation stops, so will the lungs; if the lungs die and respiration stops, so will the heart. So which organ is more important? It is an ridiculous question, of course, but interesting to discuss nevertheless.



#29 klop422

klop422

    Guess I'm full of monsters and treasure

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 27 August 2019 - 05:41 PM

Changing social attitudes towards this question are reflected in all areas of life. If old poetry (Shakespeare, for example) seems oblique and opaque, it's because the poet's primary job was to dazzle his audience with beauty of form; it was the job of his audience, conversely, to discover the meaning beneath the artistry. Now, however, this sort of writing is considered pretentious and tiresome, unless written by some long dead British man, and the roles have been reversed: the writer must convey his meaning as clearly and concisely as possible. What is the job of the audience, then? To be parted from its cash, or credit, I suppose.

Of course, the best art is easily understood, but rewards further scrutiny. But that's a separate discussion




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users