Understanding that instead of Understanding how
Acknowledge feelings, don’t accept actions
We use the word understanding all the time when we deal with other people. We say we understand someone when we want to show sympathy with the feelings that they are having in a particular situation: “I understand what you are feeling.”.
We also use it when we refer to how well our internal model of the world matches with how the world actually works. In this case, we say we understand something when we know the rules within a system such that we can predict an outcome based on the inputs: “I understand how that works.”
The two uses are related but they are fundamentally not the same thing. And it is the bleed through of these two different meanings that prevents the resolution of the majority of the world’s strife, between individuals and between groups.
In the first case, strictly speaking we are talking about understanding in the sense of empathy. That is we recognize the feelings that the person is having.
That’s all.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the feelings “make sense” because fundamentally feelings have nothing to do with sense. They do not arise from our rational, intellectual mind. They arise from our physical bodies, our animalistic cores.
Empathy is often confused with sympathy or compassion but it really is nothing more or less than an intellectual acknowledgement (an “understanding”) of what someone else is feeling.
In the second usage of “understanding”, we are talking about laws of nature. Of objectively how the world works. Of facts, not feelings. This is strictly rooted in our rational, intellectual mind. It is physics not psychology.
People can disagree on what the laws of nature are but they can agree that those laws are unaffected by our opinions. They stand apart from our messy humanity.
Understanding in this case implies that there is an objective shared reality that we all experience and that the closer our internal model matches that objective reality, the better we can be said to “understand”.
There is a strict sense of correct and incorrect rather than a fuzzy sense of morally right or wrong. And more importantly, two people agreeing on that understanding is not only possible, it’s the whole point.
The trouble comes when we take the first situation, showing understanding, and assume it means that we have to include the second definition. That showing understanding towards someone means that we agree that the way the person is acting is objectively correct and as a result we think we would act the same way in the same situation.
Because we are operating with the idea of “understanding” referring to correctness, we hesitate to show understanding or empathy to those we disagree with since we think that when we show empathy that means we are validating the other person’s actions.
We think that showing “understanding” means that we “understand how” that person feels and acts the way they are. That we agree that we would feel and act in the same way as they are were we to be in the same situation.
When we find someone’s actions morally wrong, this merging of definitions blocks us from any chance of bridging the gap.
If instead we say we “understand that” someone feels a certain way we are putting feelings in the right place. They exist in and of themselves, generated by our experiences in reality but not derived from a rational analysis of reality.
“Understand that” gives us the space to step back from the actions that a person is doing and whether or not we agree with them and instead focus on what that person is feeling.
Empathy is about “understanding that” someone feels a certain way, not “understanding how” they can feel that way. It is an acknowledgement that they are feeling a certain way and those feelings drive them to certain actions but it doesn’t imply any approval of those actions.
The funny thing is that when we separate these two meanings, when we separate empathy for someone’s actions from sympathy for someone’s actions, we often discover that we actually would act in the same way had we had the same feelings.
Feelings lead to actions that we later justify by cherry picking evidence. Evidence is merely the facts we choose to believe, not the actual reality of the situation.
Why does this matter? On the face of it this seems like a purely academic discussion about semantics.
But the difference between “understanding that” and “understanding how” is vitally important especially in today’s polarized world. It shows us how we can acknowledge someone’s feelings without supporting their actions.
Feelings drive actions so the way we reach people who are doing negative actions is not by attacking those actions. Because those are not something we can agree with and so by definition they cannot be the common ground that we can build upon to change their actions.
We cannot condemn them as irredeemably terrible people due to their actions because that leaves no room for them to change. On the other hand we cannot agree with their actions either just to preserve the peace because that is not fair to us and our authentic selves.
That vs how is the way out of this predicament.
We validate their feelings “I see what you are feeling” whether or not we imagine we would feel the same way and regardless of whether we agree with their actions.
That gives us the opening to start a true dialog, almost no matter how much we disagree with them.
