Language and conflict.

Hitomi (@kidvisions) 9 years, 2 months ago

If all communication is miscommunication then isn’t language the main source of conflict?
If so, then why is language the main source of conflict?
Can you propose a solution for this?

March 11, 2013 at 2:11 am
Anonymous (68) (@) 9 years, 2 months ago ago

@kidvisions, “Language is the source of misunderstandings.” The Little Prince

When you learn a new word you start to connect it with everything else you learned, your whole expirience. Thats why it means so many different thing, thats why you cant completly understand someone. And there is no solution to this, except being alone. Otherwise we would be like robots.

[Hidden]
L (10) (@larromba) 9 years, 2 months ago ago

@kidvisions, In my opinion, not all communication is miscommunication. In one sense, we all have an internal language, and we all learn ways of translating between our internal world and our external world (e.g. with language), so you could argue that there is a large chance of miscommunication because we can’t prove that our internal worlds synchronise after communicating. Someone might see and respond to a shade of red differently from how you do, even though you both have learnt the colour is red.

Due to this we might argue this causes a difference in opinion and a potential conflict exacerbated by our consciousness, sense of self and resultant ego. If someone tells you something is different from what you can clearly see or believe, you evoke a strong emotional response; it attacks your very essence. This is especially true with religion and any way of explaining the unknown, in which you harmonise with over a long time depending on many factors, such as: your sense of self, country and culture.

Despite this, I’d argue there is a strong similarity to how we all feel, think and see the world, even if we speak different languages. Social media and other communication methods have now bought the world closer together; strengthening this argument by showing an ever similar train of though things people openly share. Before a site like this, how many people could you openly speak to about these ideas? How many people are in fact (almost surprisingly) showing a similar train of thought? MySpace was arguably the start of social networking as it got people talking more freely and openly; now you feel comfortable sharing ideas on a website like this. This is true for many different peoples across the world. If the internet stays free and open, this will only continue to develop. Facebook even state “Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected.” [1]

It is entirely possible that current communication methods result in mostly miscommunication, but even then we probably do in fact understand concepts, ideas and feelings in at least the same ball park; maths is considered a universal language, which goes to show a degree of synchronicity in communication between peoples. To help ensure effective communication in the future, I expect people the world will use technology to be almost fully connected in consciousness, 24/7. If you could think to your friend using software could exactly translate your thought into their internal language, we would have a much more precise and fast way of communicating; almost as a single consciousness.

With this advancement, and the ability to put differences aside with a higher emotional maturity, civilisation may start to resolve it’s differences, acting as one single organism, rather than separate ones. It sounds extreme, but giving people more space by colonising other places, such as Mars, or the moon, may even help. Advancements in quantum physics and philosophy will help to further unravel the questions that drive the main conflict between peoples; religion. Music will stay a key component to how these thoughts and feelings can be expressed to the masses whilst new communication driven technologies are developed. Music is getting better and more accurate with ever increasing computing power and thus more effect at evoking positive emotion in people; this surely will become a useful tool in resolving conflict. I can tell you that there must be an overwhelming feeling of positivity in people from a lot of music that I hear today. This enables me to believe the world is slowly heading in the right direction and will one day resolve conflict; it gives me faith in humanity.

What do you think about the ideas proposed in this answer?

[1] https://en-gb.facebook.com/facebook?v=info

[Hidden]
Anonymous (2,654) (@) 9 years, 2 months ago ago

No. Emotions are the main source of miscommunication.

[Hidden]
Jason (4) (@bakerrunner) 9 years, 2 months ago ago

@beyond, I’d have to agree. My wife and I both speak perfect English and we can’t always communicate with each other effectively!

[Hidden]
L (10) (@larromba) 8 years, 11 months ago ago

@beyond, @bakerrunner, I think you’re both right. However, I don’t think it’ll be like that forever, as in the future we might all be able to understand emotions completely in the context of each other.

[Hidden]
Obfuscate (126) (@HowardHolmes) 8 years, 11 months ago ago

@Hitomi
Language is not nearly all there is to communication….not even close. Intention is much more important than language. The problem essentially is that communication is much more effective than we wish it was. We use language to deflect, obfuscate, deceive, but true communication keeps getting in the way and telling the truth when we really would like to be able to lie.

If we aligned our language with our truth then communication would be in harmony.

[Hidden]
Nick (27) (@legionofthedamned) 8 years, 11 months ago ago

@kidvisions, We need a new language, one that we can use to convey direct statements. The english language has too many words to describe too many things. It is nice to learn them all and say them when you feel like sounding intelligent, but we dont need them because big words only exacerbate the situation.
Something is either good or bad
but it could be relatively good or somewhat bad, does that mean it is good? or reasonably bad? does mean we have a better understanding if we use more words? or does it just muck it all up and confuse everyone listening, The best speeches us simple language, so should we. We could have formal and informal speech, formal being much easier to understand, while informal could be what we speak like now

[Hidden]
Viewing 6 reply threads
load more