Every communication with my ex. No amount of explaining what I actually was saying could fix the initial communication issue. Whatever she thought I was saying in that first moment was the only thing she would ever believe.
I dated a girl once who really enjoyed toxic arguments. She would flip out over the most basic random crap. The times I lost my cool and said something hurtful it’s like she got high. She lived for those arguments. Which, in the short term, lead to some pretty, let’s say enthusiastic aftermath. In the long term I was genuinely surprised to find she’s still alive.
Yea, when I couldn’t take it anymore and broke up with her. That helped. But no, nothing actually helped. I would tell her what I actually meant and she’d just ignore it and repeat the misunderstanding. When I called out that I’m telling her now how I actually feel and she’s just repeating the misunderstanding, she’d just completely ignore me.
Writing can help sometimes. Totally. But it’s important to compare writing with the alternatives.
Writing is painfully slow and requires loads of work. An example of this is the knowledge management literature: trying to encode an expert’s knowledge at some point becomes too expensive. That’s why working alongside masters of a discipline is so special: they know things that are hard to put into writing.
Writing is also prone to mistakes. Businesses have learned this the hard way in the last half-a-century. Some tech businesses insisted that it was a matter of learning to write well. “Use this method of writing requirements”. “Use this framework for writing specifications”. But miscommunication still happened. Faced with this problem, Kent Beck and Jeff Patton found that what works most efficiently is for people to use narrative to talk about the problems at hand. In this context, documentation is useful to the extent that it helps in conversation.
There’s also the fact that writing is a very context-poor method of communication. When talking, you’ve got much more to pick up on: the speed of the words, the spacing between the words, the pitch, the eyes, the mouth, the eyebrows, the head tilt, the hand positions, the foot positions, the general stance, etc. Additionally, when talking you can go back and forth, identifying and correcting misunderstandings much faster than with text.
On top of that is the fact that OP is talking about a romantic context. This changes things a bit. This is the purview of psychology. Psychology also has a similar history to business: they both went from believing it’s a matter of teaching people to find the most precise technical language to believing it’s a matter of having conversations. But the conversations in business are not the same as in romance.
Romance requires you to care about someone else’s vulnerability and for you to open up to them. And this is the most powerful way of reassuring both of you and being securely attached. This is the insight of emotion-focused therapy.
So that’s how I see writing.
It can contribute to shared meaning, but it requires plenty of work and yet it consistently leads to misunderstandings. These misunderstandings can be dealt with faster with conversation. If the context of the conversation is romantic, the most important thing someone can do is open up to their partners and care for their partners’ vulnerability.
Of course, what I like about your comment is that it recognizes the limitations of text. And, of course, if used well, it can help.
Every communication with my ex. No amount of explaining what I actually was saying could fix the initial communication issue. Whatever she thought I was saying in that first moment was the only thing she would ever believe.
I dated a girl once who really enjoyed toxic arguments. She would flip out over the most basic random crap. The times I lost my cool and said something hurtful it’s like she got high. She lived for those arguments. Which, in the short term, lead to some pretty, let’s say enthusiastic aftermath. In the long term I was genuinely surprised to find she’s still alive.
I’ve known people like this; can confirm it’s 100% as you describe.
Was there anything at all that helped?
Sounds frustratingly similar to something I’ve been dealing with.
Crucial Conversations and Sue Johnson’s book/workbook on conversations. Can’t recommend those enough. They’ve changed my life
Yea, when I couldn’t take it anymore and broke up with her. That helped. But no, nothing actually helped. I would tell her what I actually meant and she’d just ignore it and repeat the misunderstanding. When I called out that I’m telling her now how I actually feel and she’s just repeating the misunderstanding, she’d just completely ignore me.
I’ve been there and written communication helps with, but does not completely solve, the problem.
Writing can help sometimes. Totally. But it’s important to compare writing with the alternatives.
Writing is painfully slow and requires loads of work. An example of this is the knowledge management literature: trying to encode an expert’s knowledge at some point becomes too expensive. That’s why working alongside masters of a discipline is so special: they know things that are hard to put into writing.
Writing is also prone to mistakes. Businesses have learned this the hard way in the last half-a-century. Some tech businesses insisted that it was a matter of learning to write well. “Use this method of writing requirements”. “Use this framework for writing specifications”. But miscommunication still happened. Faced with this problem, Kent Beck and Jeff Patton found that what works most efficiently is for people to use narrative to talk about the problems at hand. In this context, documentation is useful to the extent that it helps in conversation.
There’s also the fact that writing is a very context-poor method of communication. When talking, you’ve got much more to pick up on: the speed of the words, the spacing between the words, the pitch, the eyes, the mouth, the eyebrows, the head tilt, the hand positions, the foot positions, the general stance, etc. Additionally, when talking you can go back and forth, identifying and correcting misunderstandings much faster than with text.
On top of that is the fact that OP is talking about a romantic context. This changes things a bit. This is the purview of psychology. Psychology also has a similar history to business: they both went from believing it’s a matter of teaching people to find the most precise technical language to believing it’s a matter of having conversations. But the conversations in business are not the same as in romance.
Romance requires you to care about someone else’s vulnerability and for you to open up to them. And this is the most powerful way of reassuring both of you and being securely attached. This is the insight of emotion-focused therapy.
So that’s how I see writing.
It can contribute to shared meaning, but it requires plenty of work and yet it consistently leads to misunderstandings. These misunderstandings can be dealt with faster with conversation. If the context of the conversation is romantic, the most important thing someone can do is open up to their partners and care for their partners’ vulnerability.
Of course, what I like about your comment is that it recognizes the limitations of text. And, of course, if used well, it can help.