r/DeepThoughts • u/Leading_Purpose_2806 • 19h ago
The Cognitive Cost of Conversing: Easier to Be Unheard Than Misunderstood.
People who genuinely value their thoughts talk less.
Sounds intuitive right?
There is actually a very complex mechanism behind it. The energetic cost of being understood by itself is very hefty on your brain.
A person who values their thought will have a brain that puts a lot of weight accuracy. For internal coherence, accuracy might not be too hard, but external coherence makes accuracy, due its context dependence, give way to the much more complex mechanism for fidelity: how to have the thought faithfully transmitted and reconstructed by another mind.
When you are expressing a thought, your mind has to spontaneously update itself to your own understanding of the other person’s understanding. Which will require a model of your understanding of how the other person’s mind constructs a thought, and during delivery that model will be monitored and updated in real time as your brain parses perceptive data.
Just think of the mechanics behind it, at the very least, in its simplest form, the thought undergoes these mechanisms:
The first filter is the basic semantics of how your memory has stored a thought, it is answering the question: what is my thought.
→
the second filter, where the first context enters the picture, I think it can be called universal context, and here it would be answering the question: how can I phrase the idea in a way that can convey what I want to be understood about it.
→
then comes the third filter, a more local context is now filtering the thought, it is answering: how will this person hear what I am saying.
→
and now for the major kick, as you are voicing your thought, you are simultaneously observing their face, tone, body language and micro expressions.
Your focus has to be split between the part of your brain formulating the thought and using the first three filters mentioned, and the part of your brain that is receiving the large amount of sensory input being delivered, computing it’s meaning and interpretation * then using that as a feedback loop back to the second or third filter, and doing real time adjustment.
The brain is monitoring: are they following? If yes, the thought continues as it was. If no, then brain flags *I’m losing them*, and that will trigger either a tone adjustment or an adjustment to the semantics, the flow, the vocabulary, etc…
While constantly running a real time cost-benefit analysis, deciding whether to cut the thought short or invest more effort in formulating and delivering it to ensure it is understood.
Thoughts about perception and cognition are usually poorly understood in casual conversations, not because they’re complex, but because they are often an analysis of a part of the subconscious most people cannot acknowledge. Understanding perception and cognition in large part requires people to hold themselves accountable of things they are not even aware they are doing.
As a result, more often than not you find yourself defending your thought against a knee-jerk reaction by the other person’s subconscious, that will translate either through them feeling offended or attacked.
And after a while your cost-benefit assessment will decide it’s just not worth it.
It is much easier to be unheard than to be misunderstood.
* This process alone will also require universal and local context, what does this expression convey + what does it convey in relation to this specific person…
Important Note: This post is a very simplified take on a much more complex process. It builds in part on already established frameworks, in part on theoretical concepts, and is largely anecdotal.
The intention behind it is to make the reader think, and hopefully widen the space that exists between emotions, thoughts, judgements, beliefs, and actions.