tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post8483256318983346847..comments2023-12-07T00:37:30.109-08:00Comments on Historical Threads: "Ugh! Harumph!!"James V. Hillegashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-33975916911190480472011-03-07T22:32:10.789-08:002011-03-07T22:32:10.789-08:00Here we go: A reflection on the historical methodHere we go: <a href="http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2011/03/reflection-on-historical-method.html" rel="nofollow">A reflection on the historical method</a>James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-84019447741080158842011-03-07T20:38:01.593-08:002011-03-07T20:38:01.593-08:00Great points, Heidi.
we all receive messages thr...Great points, Heidi.<br /><br /><br /><i>we all receive messages through our own unique filter. This filter is formed through our experiences, values, knowledge, schema</i><br /><br />This is a fascinating point, and one that I return to often. One way I have tried to address this issue is in my post "<a href="http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-science-trust.html" rel="nofollow">On Science and Trust</a>." This post featured a fascinating radio program about the creation of the scientific method. Robert Boyle and the first advocates of this method in 17th century England were trying to create a system that enabled people to come to agreement on fundamental processes and techniques precisely so that they could avoid conflict. This method has achieved some amazing concordance among people with otherwise very different cultural and spiritual beliefs. <br /><br />However, for people who don't first agree to follow the scientific method, very different cultural and spiritual beliefs make it hard to come to agreement on fundamental principles. What to do in these instances I don't know, besides start with the Golden Rule.<br /><br /><i>I have been trying harder lately to make sure I repeat back messages that I THINK I’m hearing to the people I communicate with</i><br /><br />Excellent -- the Golden Rule in action!<br /><br /><i>since the nuance may not be apparent</i><br /><br />If I had a nickel for every time this happened to me . . . etc. This happens to me with just about every post I write on the topic of religion that people comment on.<br /><br />: )<br /><br />Regarding your question about history and purity, that topic deserves a post of its own (stay tuned).James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-57622998392035866432011-03-07T18:11:42.379-08:002011-03-07T18:11:42.379-08:00Okay, this is my second attempt at posting my thou...Okay, this is my second attempt at posting my thoughts. I learned the hard way that I need to write in Word first and then cut and paste to your blog – 25 minutes of writing later, my post was GONE! I don’t believe my second go at this will be anywhere near as good as the first, but here goes.<br /><br />So, I think you are not going to win this one. Communication is inherently flawed because we all receive messages through our own unique filter. This filter is formed through our experiences, values, knowledge, schema…call it what you like! Every one of us has a very unique view of this world. While we may think that we are sending clear messages that are explicit, they are received through the filter of our listener and modified to fit the schema hooks that are available in their brain. No schema hooks, no comprendo. So the message comes back to us as either rejected or warped. <br /><br />I have been trying harder lately to make sure I repeat back messages that I THINK I’m hearing to the people I communicate with – especially if it is a high stakes situation that requires true listening. What is surprising to me is that sometimes even just repeating back the words of the speaker does not show that I’ve understood the message! There is nuance and non-verbal messages and body language that go along with what a speaker says. And if I don’t repeat back to the person what they said with the nuance they originally imbued, they will reject what I say and may even think I’m mocking them! Just think about how misconstrued an innocent email can become because the receiver did not comprehend the nuance beneath the message. <br /><br />As for the angle on the field of history, I have a question for you: do you think that historians provide “pure” interpretations of history, and if so, what is meant by a “pure” interpretation?? Here’s my take on history: the event happens, multiple people try to “interpret” it and write it down, then more people (historians) “interpret” the interpretations until we are left with something that may not resemble the original at all (take the Bible for example). Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that historians commit malfeasance on purpose; I’m only saying that each of them (including you) interprets history through your unique lens. Who is to say, after all, that even at the moment of action the historical event can be reported purely? This is what makes history (and communication) rich! The fact that there can be, and are, multiple interpretations based on who is receiving the information.<br /><br />So, how to remedy this conundrum? You can’t! Expect that people will misunderstand your messages even when you think you have been explicit, try to understand the messages that are sent to you to the best of your ability, and accept the fact that sometimes even if the message is understood, the receiver still may not agree (I include the smiley face to soften my message since the nuance may not be apparent).Heidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03389514712298855139noreply@blogger.com