Brain Science: Language and Its Many Meanings

Do you have communication problems in your organization? Dopeople argue endlessly, pointlessly, and never seem to make any progress? Anddo these communication issues end up with frustrated, grumpy, and unproductivepeople?

I see a lot of nodding heads, so this month I’d like to sharewith you one of my favorite classroom demonstrations which will help yourorganization improve its training and clarify its communication. You can incorporateit into any instructor-led training and it is especially nice because it getspeople standing up, laughing, and best of all, thinking.

A simple set of facts

To get started, read the following passage to your learners.

• Ahunter is walking through a forest when he spots a squirrel on a tree in frontof him. He slowly draws back his bow, but as he does so, the squirrel quicklymoves to the opposite side of the tree. The hunter decides to stalk thesquirrel and he begins to walk in a clockwise direction around the tree. Buteach time he takes a step, the squirrel takes an evasive step staying on theopposite side of the tree. The hunter continues moving clockwise around thetree but he never again sees the elusive squirrel. Eventually the hunter findshimself back where he started.

The facts of the case are pretty straight forward, but you canreread the passage verbatim until everyone agrees they understands thescenario. Then ask them the following seemingly innocuous question:

“Did the hunter go around the squirrel?”

The answer seems obvious to most people. Before we continue,let me ask what you think. Do you think that the hunter went around thesquirrel?

I have done this demonstration many times, and what isintriguing is that about half of the participants say, “Yes, he went around thesquirrel,” and half answer with an equally emphatic, “No, he did not go aroundthe squirrel.”

Everyone thinks they are right

The students are bewildered. “The facts are so simple,” theywonder, “how can anyone possibly disagree?”

I then invite students to justify their respective options.The students who answered “no” typically offer a solution that goes like this:

• Thehunter went around the tree, but he did not go around the squirrel. Thesquirrel was always on the opposite side of the tree. Imagine that the tree isnot there. The hunter and squirrel would be facing each other the whole time.

The students who answered “yes” typically respond with anargument that goes something like this:

• Thehunter went around the tree and the squirrel was on the tree. Therefore thehunter must have gone around the squirrel. It is true that squirrel was alsomoving in a circle, but the hunter formed the larger concentric circle so hemust have gone around the squirrel.

Figure 1: Debating the “squirrel and hunter” at theDevLearn 2014 conference

The discussion can become quite animated. Some people insiston drawing their explanation on a whiteboard or recruiting classmates to do areal world simulation. Occasionally, the discussion persuades someone to changetheir mind, but for the most part, people have chosen their position and spendtheir energies proving why they are right.

Does this sound familiar?

What is the problem here? Everyone agrees on the “facts,” andthe question being asked is simple. Why do smart people continue to disagree?

The answer is simple but elusive: the two groups are definingthe word “around” in different ways. For the “yes” group “around” means to createa large circle that entirely circumscribes what is within it. If this is yourdefinition of “around,” then the hunter did indeed go around the squirrel. Forthe “no” group, “around” means to circle an object and to see all four sides:its front, left side, back, and right side. If this is your definition of “around,”then the hunter did not go around the squirrel.

So which definition is correct? Both. There can be manyreasonable ways to define a term, and in this case, both definitions aretotally reasonable ways to define “around.” Given that we can use simple wordsvery differently, what is important is that we check in with each other andensure that everyone in a conversation is using their words to mean the samething.

A failure to communicate

Many of the world’s arguments can be traced to differences inthe way we define terms. I watched two colleagues arguing who was the greaterbasketball player. One said it was Kobe Bryant because he was a great defenderand made clutch shots. The other argued that it was LeBron James because of hisleadership and his ability to score a lot of points. They argued like crazy,but you know what? They did not disagree about any of the facts. They simplydisagreed on the definition of what constitutes a great player.

In an example closer to home, I recently heard about a motherand daughter who were arguing. Mom complained that her daughter neverapologized to her and it made her very angry.

 “My bad, Mom” said the daughter.

 “And that is another thing,”said Mom. “I am so tired of you always saying, ‘My bad.’”

Figure 2: Paul Newman as the title character in Cool Hand Luke

As they say in the movie CoolHand Luke, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Mom complainsthat her daughter fails to apologize while that is exactly what the daughterdoing every time she says, “My bad.”

These language problems have posed a challenge for millennia. TheGreek philosopher Socrates recognized the danger, and in fact the story of thehunter and squirrel is a variation of one of his lessons. The Chinesephilosopher Confucius, who lived about the same time as Socrates, saw it too. Hewas once asked what he’d do first if he were made emperor. He replied that he’dinsist that every word have only one meaning.

Clarifying communication in ourorganizations

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to insist that wordshave only one meaning. But using demonstrations like this, we can at least helpour organizations become aware that language can confuse us and prevent us fromfinding solutions that are pleasing to all of us.

Do you have favorite demonstrations that promote critical andclear thinking? Feel free to describe them in the comments or send them to meat [email protected].I will share these with readers in a future column.

Happy hunting.

Diggingdeeper

• Ifyou would like to have your memory of this article reinforced, send an email to[email protected]. Youwill automatically receive a series of boosters on this article. The boosterstake only seconds to complete, and they will profoundly increase your ability to recall thecontent of this article.

• A fantastic discussion of this topic ispresented by the American economist and engineer Stuart Chaser. His book Tyranny of Words was written in 1959,but his examples and his insights are as valuable as ever.