What does it mean when people "miss the point?"
December 9, 2010 10:36 AM   Subscribe

What does it mean when I'm talking to people and they "miss the point?"

I get (perhaps overly) irritated when I'm speaking with someone and they miss the point I'm making. For example, I was talking to Mrs. Blahtsk the other day. I said:

"I read that 1:5 divorces are related to facebook. I guess people are hooking up with past loves, etc."
"Wow! That's a really high ratio. See! That's why I never 'friend' my ex-boyfriends on facebook."
"You know hon, even if you did 'friend' your ex-boyfriend Bob, I wouldn't mind -- because I trust you."
"Ugh! Bob was such a jerk. He's married now."
"Forget Bob, dammit, my point is that, if you 'friended' an ex-boyfriend I wouldn't care."

This happened again yesterday; I was talking to someone and I said something like:
"I've tried everything! I tried X, Y, Z, nothing seems to work!"
"Oh yes, X would never work. I've tried X before a hundred times."
"FORGET X, my point is that I can't @#$! get it to work."

I think it would irritate me less if I understood more about this phenomenon. What causes people to miss the point? Is it me? Am I boring? Is there a name or a study in psychology about this? A 'game' in transactional analysis? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
posted by blahtsk to Human Relations (36 answers total) 17 users marked this as a favorite
 
It sounds like you expect people to be crazily attuned to you and say the right thing next. Some people don't engage in conversation that hard.
posted by chrillsicka at 10:40 AM on December 9, 2010 [21 favorites]


Why is it so important to you that people only take away the one thing that you apparently want to impart from a conversation, in the way that you want them to, without any extra conversation involved?

Communication is a two-way street. If other people aren't getting it, then there's a couple of different possibilities. When a lot of people seem not to be getting it in conversations with you, then the chance that it's always other people dwindles toward a limit of zero.

It could also be that there isn't always a "point" to "get" in a conversation. Sometimes people just talk for the heck of it.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on December 9, 2010


You're gonna hate this but- I don't get your point. In both examples, it seems the people you were talking to understood what you were talking about, and gave their thoughts on the subject. It just wasn't the exact response you expected. If you're looking for a specific reaction from someone in a conversation, you should let them know. Your friends and family can't read your mind- if you need to hear your wife say, I would never leave you for some ex on Facebook, you should ask her to say so. But if you're ALWAYS looking for a specific reaction from someone in a conversation, that's not conversation at all- that's you giving a lecture. Take some time to think on what you're expecting from people when they let you down in this manner.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:42 AM on December 9, 2010 [38 favorites]


Those are not examples of people missing the point. THose are examples of you starting a conversation around a subject and the other person continuing the conversation, by talking about that subject. Granted, the second example is a bit patronising ("This didn't work" "Oh well OBVIOUSLY that wouldn't work"), but in neither example do you ask a question - you make a statement and the other person responds:
"1:5 divorces are related to looking up exes on Facebook" --> other person talks about their experiences with exes on Facebook.
"I can't make this work" --> other person comments on one of the methods you mentioned.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 10:43 AM on December 9, 2010 [5 favorites]


They're not missing the point. You're missing conversational cues.

In the first example, she acknowledges what you initially say- that's a very high ratio! Then she goes on to compliment you by essentially saying, "I would never even be tempted to friend an old boyfriend, because I am very happy with you." Then you reply, "I love you very much too, and I trust you." As you have both now said I love you, she moves on to another topic, which is, "Man, now that I'm thinking about ex boyfriends, Bob sucked!"

In the second example, you say X, Y, Z don't work! She agrees with you- she's tried X, and it never works. She responded directly to what you said. If the point is that you can't get ANYTHING to work-- you need to say, "I can't get anything to work, vent with me!"
posted by headspace at 10:44 AM on December 9, 2010 [51 favorites]


I don't think they're missing the point at all. I think they're just trying to be more reciprocal in their conversation styles - i.e, you share something about you, they share something about them, instead of just strictly responding to you, about you.
posted by raztaj at 10:44 AM on December 9, 2010 [7 favorites]


I don't know that they're missing the point, I think they're just trying to have a conversation with you and their approach to the conversation is different than you might like. The second hypothetical conversation sounds a lot like a common interaction between Mrs. 74 and myself. After she announces that something isn't working well, I express sympathy by stating "Hey, I know, I've tried that too and it doesn't work" when she wants to hear "I'm so sorry, that sounds awful" and doesn't want to hear about my own experiences.
posted by seventyfour at 10:45 AM on December 9, 2010


People are poor communicators and listeners in general. A person complaining about how their shitty car keeps breaking down might really just be angry that they can't hold a job that pays them well enough to replace it. If you come along and offer to fix the car, you're not addressing their real point. In truth, it was never communicated in the first place. This might be the "I tried everything" example above. They don't want a fix. They may just want sympathy.

In your "Bob" example above, the issue seems to be incompatible frames of reference. One person is talking about a singular person, Bob. The other is talking about a strong relationship in general.

It's a wonder we humans manage to communicate at all. ;-)
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:45 AM on December 9, 2010 [3 favorites]


Seconding pink superhero. Your expectations for how a conversation should unfold are too rigid. You can certainly emphasize the point you were originally trying to make, but if your view of a conversation is that it should solely be about you getting your point across, you're not having a conversation, you're giving a lecture. And nobody wants to be lectured all the time.
posted by cosmicbandito at 10:46 AM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


In the two examples you mentioned, it's you. It looks to me that both of those people got your point and then made another point of their own.

In your conversation with your wife, she took the point you were making (that you would be OK w/her friending her ex) for granted and simply moved on to her point, which was that he was a jerk. Just because she didn't stop and say 'Aw, hon, that's so nice of you to reiterate your trust in me' doesn't mean she didn't understand that that was what you were saying.

In your second example, the person was just commiserating with you. If you'd wanted him/her to give you a solution to your problem, you should just have said so - 'I've tried X, Y and Z and they didn't work - do you have any suggestions?'

It sounds to me like you have trouble parsing that the people you are talking to are hearing/understanding you without explicit feedback saying 'yes, I hear you.' You may want to ask yourself what the goal of your interaction was - was it to receive justification for your point of you, or did you want to have a conversation (where conversation = exchange of ideas)?

I hope this doesn't come across as harsh - it can be very frustrating when you feel like you're not heard. But it sounds to me like you're being heard and you're not recognizing it without explicit verbal cues. Just my 2 cents.
posted by widdershins at 10:46 AM on December 9, 2010 [13 favorites]


In the first example, if I were in Mrs. Blahtsk's position, it's not that I didn't get your point. I got it. Her point is that she's uninterested in dealing with Bob in any format, so to her it's moot that you're okay with her interacting with Bob on Facebook.

What you're looking for is acknowledgment and validation of your statement that you would not feel jealous or threatened if she did choose to interact with him.

Ironically, the second instance is one where someone is validating your statement the way you wanted Mrs. Blahtsk to validate you in the first.
posted by Uniformitarianism Now! at 10:49 AM on December 9, 2010 [7 favorites]


How did you want these people to respond?
posted by mazola at 10:51 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


That doesn't sound so much like 'missing the point' as 'acknowledging the point and making another, related, point'. Would it irritate you less if you saw it that way?
posted by Catseye at 10:52 AM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


On preview, might just look like I'm piling on, but I assure you I started typing this a while ago:

Going off your examples, I don't really see the other participants "missing the point." It seems like they are making conversation. Especially if you phrased yourself exactly like the above examples, to me, they just sound like the usual conversation opener/fodder rather than you trying to make a point. And maybe that's where the problem lies? Most day-to-day conversation isn't about trying to make a point like you're defending your thesis, it's just about talking about things in general.

Also people aren't in your head thinking like you do, so you can't really expect them to be following your train of thought to the destination it's chugging along. It's kind of your responsibility to play conductor if there's a set point or agenda to what you're saying. They're just the passenger.

For example, in the conversation with your wife, how could she infer that your point was that you think it's OK for her to friend an ex-boyfriend based on your opening statement? You opened up with just a general comment on some news of the day that has nothing to do with talking about trust issues or boundaries in your relationship. Seems like she took it as you just making conversation about people's behavior in general and answered it as such. If you'd followed-up at any point in the conversation with "Eh, well just letting you know I'm cool with you friending exes." Then there, point made.

And in the conversation with the person you know, was there really a point? It's a totally legit interpretation for them to think you were just making usual gripe conversation. Like I don't even see how they missed the point. You said XYZ doesn't work, they answered positive that yes, they found X doesn't work for them as well. It's just corroboration on your general statement. Maybe they haven't tried Y or Z? Maybe they kind of don't have an opinion or experience on the situation for your gripe in general, but still wanted to make it clear they empathize with what you're going through based on something they're familiar with.
posted by kkokkodalk at 10:56 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I am experiencing the same thing. I explain their "not-getting-the-point" this way: they just don't care about my particular point as much as I do. They usually do understand and care about something else, more. It irritates me, but I can't blame them to not think like me.

Compare to two people looking at a painting: they might see totally different things. While with a painting they might discuss on a intellectual level what their different views are, in casual conversation they usually don't. Why? Because that's the social norm/expectancy with conversation. Or in other words: it just is like that.
posted by oxit at 10:57 AM on December 9, 2010


People have different conversational styles and don't realize it. You might enjoy reading the works of Deborah Tannen like That's Not What I Meant!

In your case you likely see conversation as mainly a logical information-exchange and problem-solving activity, while the people you are talking to see it as a sharing-feelings. emotional-support and relationship-building activity.

When people say things like "I've tried everything! I tried X, Y, Z, nothing seems to work!", depending on the person they could be looking for a response in any of these forms and more...

"Try P, that often works."

"I know, it sucks that there's no way to do that."

"Poor baby, come let me give you a hug."

You probably have a tendency to give practical and analytical answers to others then they were looking for emotional support and validation, and they probably also find your behavior kinda tone-deaf and missing-the-point when you do that.
posted by philipy at 10:58 AM on December 9, 2010 [5 favorites]


Mod note: few comments removed - oblique jokes not that helpful and annoy the mods, please be clear and helpful, thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:02 AM on December 9, 2010


That doesn't sound so much like 'missing the point' as 'acknowledging the point and making another, related, point'

This, and sometimes, quick or smart (or both) people have the habit of skipping the acknowledging bit; they jump right away to their own story (no idea whether this is good or bad). People tend to act as if they are the center of the world. That applies to your conversation partners as well.
posted by Namlit at 11:02 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Agree with all the others, especially widdershins and kkokkodaik. And worth posting for truth and awesomeness: a Dinosaur Comics about the Gricean cooperative principle. You have to infer shared meaning and assumptions into your interlocutor's statements, or else everything they say sounds like a non sequitur missing the point. More on Grice here.
posted by dhn at 11:12 AM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


It seems like you're treating daily conversations like they're supposed to be logic problems or something.

In the first example, what were you looking for? Was your wife supposed to obediently wait for you to further direct the conversation? Yes, she's going to talk about how it connects to her and her life because that's how a dialogue works.

In the second example, did you want the person to give you another option or actual advice to solving the problem? Then you should also include statements like, "Hey, I tried X, Y, Z, do you got any other options to fixing this?" Or were you just expressing frustration? If so, that person was trying to empathize with you, perhaps crappily, but still, "Yeah, I tried that a bunch of times and it never worked for me either".

I can empathize with your frustration when the situation is one of a debate, or logical process to put through, where staying on track is required, but otherwise, that's not how conversations work.

If you're hoping to do something useful with that, you can read up on communication and social intelligence, and see if you can find coaches or therapists who work on listening skills, because that's going to teach you a lot about what's going on with these things.

If you want to guide conversations, or at least get more acknowledgement in life, you're going to need to know better how a person is coming to you, and what they're meaning when they're saying things. And to accept some people aren't ever going to fulfill what you need in certain situations, so not to go to them at all, but instead the people you know will give you want you want in that regard.
posted by yeloson at 11:15 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


People respond to complex, subtle subtexts and framing, and not what you literally said.

Person1: "It's cold outside."
Person2: "Oh, your sweater is folded up in the top shelf of the closet."
Person1: "What? What does that have to do with anything? Did I ask where the sweater is?"
Person2: /facepalm

Sometimes they won't have a response for you, so they substitute something topical in lieu of something informative. It's their way of acknowledging that they heard you.

For example, I fixed your example 2:
Person1: "I've tried everything! I tried X, Y, Z, nothing seems to work!"
Person2: /facepalm

Not really better, is it?

I got this book for my now-ex-wife years ago. It helped me understand a lot. It didn't stop her from being actively determined to psychologically destroy me.
posted by Xoebe at 11:19 AM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Another vote for they're not missing the point, they're just using it as a springboard to talk about another point.

In the first one, it sounds like your wife got what you were saying, but in that moment the memory of what a jerk Bob was was so strong she just had to verbalize it.

In the second, I could see myself saying what that person did. I don't always know what to say, and if someone gives me an opportunity to talk about something, rather than just stand there like an idiot, I'm very grateful to them. I might end up going on about that thing for a bit long, just because I'm so glad I can actually participate. Or maybe it's not that - maybe they just like to hear themself talk, or they weren't really listening to you in the first place.

But I don't think you can get people to stay on a certain aspect of a topic unless you really guide the conversation. ("I've tried X, Y, and Z and they don't work. What do you suggest I try now?" or "You know that even though a lot of people have affairs because of Facebook, I know you wouldn't do that because I trust you. You trust me too, right?" Or whatever.) Maybe you can't do it even if you do guide the conversation.
posted by DestinationUnknown at 11:21 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


There was just a post on the blue about a blog entry that used programming concepts to analyze conversation structures. I pictured that a lot when reading through your question. It might be a helpful way for you to visualize conversation paths.
posted by lilac girl at 11:34 AM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think it would irritate me less if I understood more about this phenomenon. What causes people to miss the point? Is it me?

Kind of, but it's not unique to you. You're simply surprised that people first think about what's interesting to them rather than what's interesting to you. Your "problem" isn't a problem at all-- it's simply that the person you're talking with is someone different than you with his or her own concerns and issues in the conversation that are more interesting to them.
posted by deanc at 11:47 AM on December 9, 2010 [4 favorites]


I sympathize, because I'm one of the few females I know with a very literal-minded "problem-solving" style of conversation. Still, I think you're missing cues.

In both examples you gave, I saw acknowledgement of what you said; the first acknowlegement was pretty clear and literal, while the second was tacit. I'm not sure what Mrs. Blahtsk could have done differently in the first conversation. Perhaps you needed her to continue on the same tack? "Yes, that is a high ratio! A ratio of one out of 5 is 20%. That is indeed a high percentage ...(etc)"? And when you said you wouldn't mind her friending Bob on Facebook, should she have replied, "I thank you for your trust"? Because I heard her agreeing with you and building on/free-associating on what you said. That's generally what a normal conversation consists of.

In the second conversation, the same thing is happening. The reply is a tacit acknowledgement in that it builds upon and sympathizes with what you said.

I intend no sarcasm, because I'm literal-minded too about conversation. But are you expecting a "ROGER" after everything you say? That's just not how conversation generally works. I don't know what to tell you except that it would probably benefit you to accept that this is how most people communicate. I'm not sure what you could do to change that.

Oh, and you asked for any insights. My insight is: Take an introductory improv class. Learning improv really helped free me from the conversational shackles you're suffering from. The game "yes and" in particular may be revelatory for you.
posted by ROTFL at 11:58 AM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


It sounds like you want your conversation partner to care only about the part of your statement that you care about. That's not how most conversations work.

When you want them to focus on a specific point, though, omit everything else. I can't find the quote exactly, but there's an idea that you should only ask one question per email because otherwise people are likely to respond to whichever question they feel like responding to and ignoring the others.
posted by callmejay at 12:00 PM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Nthing everyone who's mentioned that conversation doesn't generally work as a fencing match - thrusting! and parrying! and skillful, well-executed repostes! - but as a rambling, amorphous, free-form thing. If BoyfriendThumbscrew and I have each had a few drinks, we can talk about literally ten topics at the same time.

HOWEVER, that being said... what I also get from your post is not that people are "missing the point" as much as they're failing to acknowledge your statements. In the first example, one could INTERPRET your wife moving on to the jerkiness of Bob as either ignoring, glossing over or not giving any validation to your previous statement. This happens with the boyfriend and I on occasion. As I have a definite robotic/logical bent, I found the best way to deal with this was, 1. Chill the fuck out, and 2. Occasionally make a playful comment about it, e.g.:

Me: "Did you know that [interesting medical fact/cooking tip/anecdote from work]?"
Boyfriend: "Hey, Amazon is having a sale on [electronic widgets/paper towels/tacos]!"
Me: "Okay, let's back up... 'Wow, that's cool, Julthumbscrew... SAY, did you know that Amazon's having a sale on such-and-such?'..."
posted by julthumbscrew at 12:14 PM on December 9, 2010


When you want them to focus on a specific point, though, omit everything else.

Can't agree more. Another thing that seems to be an issue is the lack of subject emphasis in your examples.

"I've tried everything! I tried X, Y, Z, nothing seems to work!"

There's lots of possible things to address in this statement. How to get X to work, how to get Y to work, how to get z to work, trying A might work, trying B might work, maybe it shouldn't be done at all. It sounds like they were addressing one of what appeared to be your concerns (that X didn't work). You didn't communicate clearly what it was that you wanted from the other person—err, what DID you want from them?

Omitting needless words is good advice. Be specific about what you want to address, abstract out what you don't. This will give people lots of clues as to what you care about in the conversation.

Also, you don't have to get it all right on the first try. Most people don't. Listen to conversations, people throw things out there and then refine them based on how clearly they're received. Heck, that's probably what your conversation partners are doing: floating a possible continuation of the conversation out of the infinite thousands of possibilities.
posted by Brainy at 12:18 PM on December 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


I like pie.






No, seriously - I read something which was intended as advice for fiction writers, but was actually informative about real life:

To write realistic dialogue, rarely should a character directly answer another character's question.

Ex:

John: Will you marry me?
Mary: Yes, I will.
John: How is Tuesday?
Mary: Thursday would be better.

is stilted, whereas:

John: Will you marry me?
Mary: I've always dreamed that someday something like this would happen.
John: Me too. So what is your answer?
Mary: When my brother returned from Iraq, deaf and blind, I promised him that I would finish the symphony that he started.
John: What does that have to do with anything?

is also terrible, but more interesting, and realistic.

Closer to home, my education is in marketing, which means I make about 20% of what my dentist friend makes. But it also means I know more about marketing than she does, and I can't tell you how many times we've had this conversation:

dentist: My practice has fallen off about 10% since the economy went bad.
RKS: What do you think's causing that?
dentist: Oh, people are putting off procedures because money's tight.
RKS: Do you do any followups on people who you've recommended procedures to?
dentist: No, I don't want to come across like those cheesy dentists who annoy everyone with their telemarketing.
RKS: Well, it doesn't have to be cheesy. You're simply reminding someone of a problem you found in an exam, and perhaps getting them to think again about doing it before it turns into a bigger problem. If you do it right, they should appreciate it, or at least it shouldn't bother them.
dentist: I really don't want to do any of that. My practice is fine, really. I like having an afternoon off every so often.

Short version of the conversation, which usually ends up with her expressing her total distaste for what I do for a living. Until I finally realized she was just making conversation, DOES NOT WANT A SOLUTION, and I learned to do it this way:

dentist: My practice has fallen off about 10% since the economy went bad.
RKS: Well, I hope it gets better. More pie?

Which illustrates another reason people don't always answer questions or go down the path you expect in a conversation; it tends to commit them to something...
posted by randomkeystrike at 12:29 PM on December 9, 2010 [23 favorites]


Response by poster: Thanks, everyone, for your great answers. (And thanks to those who 'marked favorite' answers they agreed with.) Your insights make a lot of sense, and I feel like I have a better understanding of what's been frustrating to me in these situations. I really appreciate this.
posted by blahtsk at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2010 [4 favorites]


Reading these answers reminded me of another reason conversations go off the rails: One party is uncomfortable with the topic or tone, or just with the intimacy required for real conversation. This isn't quite like the examples you cite, but here is an example:

blahtsk: I read that 1 in 5 divorces are related to Facebook.
Interlocutor: Did you know that Christina Aguilera is getting divorced? Oh my god! She looked so sad at those awards last night.... and did you see her dress? Oh girl!

This conversation should be read as:

blahtsk: I read that 1 in 5 divorces are related to Facebook.
Interlocutor: Something about that statement scares or threatens me! I will change the topic to something very lightweight and you will drop the subject now!

Some people just don't like to talk about anything but happy fluffy rainbows and/or TV shows/gossip. Nothing you can do but avoid them, or else go along to get along.
posted by ROTFL at 1:45 PM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


The way I read it, your wife is responding to what you said:

blahtsk: I read that 1 in 5 divorces are related to Facebook.

To me, this means that you are feeling insecure about Facebook and fidelity - and she responds directly to assuage your fears:

"Wow! That's a really high ratio. See! That's why I never 'friend' my ex-boyfriends on facebook."

Your other conversational partner is doing the same thing - he is assuring you that X doesn't work for other people, and it's not just you.

What it seems like actually that you are missing other people's point - your wife want to talk about her jerk of an ex-boyfriend, and your friend wants to talk about X, and I honestly have no idea what sort of response would be acceptible to you from your wife or your friend.
posted by fermezporte at 2:11 PM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you were talking to someone and noticed that the house had caught on fire, you probably would be too distracted to worry about getting their point. In both your examples, the the emotional content of what you said outpowered your point. Bringing up Bob was not something your wife could ignore. That you would ever fall for something as foolish as trying X, just like your co-conversationalist, needed to be addressed. Why do you think threads get derailed on the blue? It's always around the emotional content of something that was said.
posted by Obscure Reference at 3:16 PM on December 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


As an unusually linear thinker myself, I am often confused by where other people go in conversation. That does not mean they missed my point, though, so disabuse yourself of that notion. People just have different approaches to discussing a subject.

I mean, in my ideal world, people would communicate in outline form, because that's how I think. But then again, in my ideal world, Idris Elba would be bringing me a delicious hot toddy right now, and that isn't happening either.

The Deborah Tannen book mentioned upthread is a really useful read to get insight on different communication styles.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:20 PM on December 9, 2010


My strategy is that if I want a response, I ought to ask a question. I'm usually disappointed when I fail to do so.
posted by kidbritish at 4:52 PM on December 9, 2010


The reason why this happens is because other people do not care nearly as much about your point as you do. For example, in the last example you cited, the person was really not that invested in the idea that you couldn't get anything to work. So they seized on the thing they did care/know about, which was that X doesn't work. This isn't personal, as in people just don't like you so they don't care about what you care about, it's just that it's kind of hard to care as much about anything that other people care about unless you can fit it into your own personal frame of reference/experience. It's human nature.
posted by katyggls at 2:00 AM on December 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


« Older islands of industry   |   GTD for Anxieteers Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.