About a year ago during a conversation a friend of mine mentioned a movie she thought I’d really like. In fact it was a documentary, and as a fan of docs, I was eager to hear more about it. “You’d find it interesting,” she said. “It’s kind of about stuff you investigate. It’s called What the Bleep Do We Know!? Have you heard of it?”
I had indeed heard of the film, a New Age-y jumble of pseudoscience and mysticism about supposed links between consciousness and quantum physics, produced by followers of J.Z. Knight, a woman who claims to dispense information from a 35,000-year-old ghost. In fact I had done my best to keep it from misinforming the public when it was first released. Not wanting to get into an argument, I just let the conversation trail off. But before I did, she made an interesting comment: “To be honest I didn’t really understand a lot of it…. But you’re really smart—you would get it.”
She assumed that the reason she didn’t understand the film’s information was because she had no background in science. I, on the other hand, did not understand the film precisely because I do have a strong background in science. When people don’t understand something they are told, there are three possibilities or root causes:
1) Most commonly, the person assumes, as my friend did, that the problem lies with the listener. Her (quite reasonable) assumption was that the film was comprehensible, and if she didn’t understand it, it was due to her limitations or lack of knowledge. This was a mainstream, feature-length documentary film with some famous people in it—including physicists. Surely these people would not appear on camera discussing self-evidently nonsensical things such as thoughts can control reality.
2) Less often, the problem lies with the speaker’s inability to effectively communicate—perhaps he or she does not share the same native language as the listener, is disorganized, or has a speech impediment, for example. In this case the information and message may be correct and clear, but communication does not occur because of a problem with the source.
3) Sometimes the problem lies not with the listener, nor with the speaker, but instead in the content. In this case, the reason that the listener doesn’t understand what is being said is that what is being said makes little or no sense by any objective measure. This is insidious and difficult to detect because people do not like to challenge authority, especially in public and on a topic they are presumably trying to become educated about. The speaker is not talking gibberish; quite the opposite, he or she may be very eloquent. Furthermore, identifying nonsense often requires some basic understanding of the subject.
In my book Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us, I discuss this phenomenon at length and refer to it as “the illusion of meaning.” As children we are taught to assume that the words we hear and read have meaning and comprehensible content. When we hear information we don’t understand, the common, default assumption is that we just don’t get it—not that the authoritative person we’re listening to is speaking nonsense. Yet as we grow older, we are sometimes faced with “information” devoid of content—grammatically correct and often impressive words that are either patently untrue, self-contradictory, or simply meaningless.
I thought about this again recently during Dragon*Con, when I was speaking to LaVerne Angela Knight-West, Desiree Schell, and others after a panel on women and skepticism. LaVerne had mentioned that she was new to skepticism, and that sometimes when people were talking about science or something she didn’t understand, she’d raise her hand or just say, “I don’t understand what you’re saying…. Can you please explain?”
This simple statement, I believe, holds a wise lesson for skeptics. LaVerne was exactly right. Too often we are embarrassed to admit that we don’t understand what we are told. We don’t want to appear stupid to the speaker or others in the audience. But more people should ask questions, because other people may be just as confused but not want to speak up. There is no shame in not understanding something, and it’s a good lesson for skeptics to remember. Asking for clarification not only helps both the speaker and listener communicate more effectively, but is also a powerful tool in revealing bullshit.
Fuzzy thinking and fuzzy language often go hand in hand. Purveyors of pseudoscience usually use vague terms with unclear meanings and definitions. New Age healers, for example, use words and scientific-sounding phrases like “human energy field” and “vibrational frequency” without understanding (nor clearly explaining) what it is that they are talking about. This is a case where skeptics should be emboldened to raise their hands and ask, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying…. What vibrations are you talking about? What, exactly, is this ‘energy field’, and how can science detect it?”
The next time you hear something you don’t understand, ask for clarification. You don’t have to be apologetic about it, and the situation doesn’t have to be confrontational. Those with science and facts and evidence on their side will be happy to explain what they mean. If the speaker cannot explain what he is talking about in plain language—or without resorting to other, even less clear terms and concepts—that’s a warning sign that there’s confusion on both ends of the line.
For me, at least, there’s another layer besides embarrassment. I was brought up to ask question and my inclination is to ask when I don’t understand something. But, sadly, I’ve found that with certain people asking one question leads to the assumption that I’m a complete idiot.
I ask for one clarification and suddenly I’ve set a precedent, I become the girl that doesn’t know anything. And, yeah, this particularly happens with men who after one question will forever after talk down to me.
I don’t like being patronized. Personally, I prefer it if people assume I understand UNTIL I ask for a clarification. Mostly because that’s what I assume. I assume that people are smart but intellectually lazy.
People are experts on different topics. Even in academic circles, you’re an expert in your particular field. I wish more people could embrace that perspective.
So, while I completely agree that it would be better if we could all feel comfortable asking for clarification, I also understand why some people aren’t. I only really let my inquisitive side out in trusted circles.
With people I trust, I’m totally willing to show that there are as many things I don’t know about, as things that I do. Although, maybe this is a girl thing. I feel like I have to fight for respect, such that giving people (men or women) a reason to think I’m just another dumb girl is an issue.
I never graduated from college. I have a lot of curiosity, and I am a natural skeptic, but because of circumstances, the time and discipline to finish the required courses for a degree never were available. It was wonderful, though, when a friend pointed out that Mark Twain, too, never graduated from college.
I hold my own. I went back to night school in my thirties and took several courses in the Communications department at our local Community College, including Argumentation, a version of Critical Thinking; a few Anthropology courses; Geology; some Sociology courses; these all opened my eyes so much that it didn’t seem to matter whether I didn’t have a degree. I finally learned that it’s not the degree that makes you smart — it’s knowing that you can look up the information.
In those days, it was by going to the library; now it’s by looking online — but the key is to be proud of one’s curiosity, not ashamed of it, and that’s in addition to what Ben is talking about. The part about speaking up and calling a speaker out when you think you hear one talking nonsense is good, too. Trying to paraphrase the nonsense works: (I was going to paraphrase the astrological forecast for the year in the newspaper for persons with the birthday October 3rd, but it was too silly to copy!) But you know what I mean… it takes practice, though, to remain calm.
My seven-year-old and I had a discussion the other day in which we tried to think of situations devoid of opportunities to learn something new. I couldn’t think of any, but he came up with: rooftop, playtime, and sleeping. We then talked about the importance of having a curious mind.
I agree with Wendy about paraphrasing, but for me it’s difficult to honestly paraphrase without sarcasm.
The opposite holds very true as well – we should all be asking ourselves how we would explain to someone who was new to the subject. I was lucky to interview Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, I don’t know if USians will know him but he is a very famous science communicator in Australia. He described what he does as telling stories, because if you can’t explain it to someone else then you don’t understand it yourself. People asking questions is an opportunity to check whether we really understand what we are talking about, or if we have fallen into the trap of making assumptions or skimming over things ourselves.
Elizebeth- I understand what you’re saying, and you’re right, that might be another reason why people don’t speak up and ask questions. It’s a shame that you’ve had that reaction– most speakers should be happy to answer questions and not think the asked is an idiot (unless the question is so basic and obvious that anyone paying attention would know it).
But I guess I’d suggest that asking is always better than ignorance… if you really don’t understand something (maybe something important you may need to know later), what’s the options? Either ask someone else later, or ask the speaker in private, or try to research the answer on your own, I guess. But, assuming the speaker is not an asshole, I’d still rather try to get a direct answer than stay silent and not understand.
Good point, Deb. It’s easy for experts to forget that audiences are not on their level, and slide into jargon or complex subjects without realizing it. I’m usually pretty good about that, but a few times recently during talks someone asked me to clarify a topic, or explain a word. I very much appreciated it, because it reminded me to keep my at the audience’s level.
Thank you for your reply.
I would agree with you that finding out an answer to your questions, weather by asking the person presenting the information, or asking someone your trust, or attempting to find a second source (like by looking it up), is a wise behavior for any critical thinker. So, I totally agree with the sentiment, “don’t just go uninformed.”
But you also said in your post, “There is no shame in not understanding something” and “You don’t have to be apologetic” and “the situation doesn’t have to be confrontational.”
If part of your position is “no one will think less of you for asking,” then my personal experience contradicts that. Sometimes people do think less of me for asking and that can be very frustrating and discouraging. So, the part of your post that I had a problem with is the suggestion that that there aren’t (possible) negative results when a person seeks out clarification.
In an ideal world what your saying should be true. And I really do think it depends on if the individual speaking is an asshole, weather or not they will treat someone poorly for seeking clarification. Sadly, the result is that I raise my hand on a case by case basis, instead of feeling comfortable raising my hand every time I feel confused.