I will amend my statement. Your feeling, attitude, opinion for that moment IS reflected in your post... at that time.

We do all have changes of our feeling, attitudes and opinions from moment to moment. I don't mean to stereotype a person as being one thing or another by something they said.. in the moment.

What you have been "called" by others is simply their opinion from their point of view at the time.

I too have given opposite impressions to people so I know what you are talking about.

correct. my feeling, attitude, opinion for THAT time on THAT subject only.



lol. in a way it sucks but it is entertaining huh?

Then of course I have many different psyche's in my personality. Some of them don't even agree with each other. LOL

I don't know, I play 'the devil's advocate' enough that if one bases their opinion of what or who I am on the written content of these forums, in general...

They would confuse themselves, should they be of illogical nature, if not they may believe that I am.



It is not always safe to assume that a writer reflects his/her self in words in a public forum. Some would rather not, and therefore intentionally, deliberately do not 'leak out' too much.

Oh, do I know the feeling...

A reader will often attribute what can only constitute their own interpretation of a piece of writing along with most or all of the conscious/unconscious reasons that that particular interpretation exists upon the writer. It is when that situation happens to be accompanied with a reader's unshakable belief that s/he cannot possibly be mistaken, that a true injustice is done.

You may leak more than you think.

If you "play the devil's advocate" then you can easily be seen as "the devil's advocate" so if you are, you should not be surprised or complain about it.

If you attempt to mask who you are with ambiguity, you simply give the impression that you are hiding yourself behind your words. When you do this, it does not generate trust, just the opposite.

Communication is a two way street. People have to work together to accomplish understanding and it does no good to blame the other person. (For a reader to repeat what he thought you said is also a form of communication. He or she is trying to give you an idea of the scope of his interpretation,-- right or wrong.)

(There are those who will twist your words on purpose. They are not trying to communicate .. with you. They are simply speaking from their own egos.)

Everything a person says (writes) in this process is a clue to how he or she thinks, so rather than get offended or indignant, it might be better to use these clues to gather information about the person you are talking to. That is the extroverted rather than the introverted approach to understanding others. Unfortunately you have to evaluate, analyze and make some personal judgement which can only be based on what you know in general about people or from what you have in your experience base.

But if you take the dry approach of taking everything a person says completely literally and as the truth, you are not thinking. People don't always talk that way and people are not always completely honest.

To accomplish communication, you must work together. To claim that you are simply 'misunderstood' and hint that it is 'not your fault' is not going to accomplish communication.

(Of course this is in the event you even want to actually accomplish understanding and communication.)

(I'm not sure that "playing the devil's advocate" qualifies as a sincere attempt to communicate a true feeling or point. It may just be a game of some kind. So many of those types of conversations are just games and sometimes its all about ego rather than understanding.)

Getting back to your original question,




The answer is a resounding ... YES.

To add to that, everything you do or say, how you look, how you dress, is a reflection of you.

It bears repeating...



Accurate translation requires valid grounds.

Creative,

Clarification request.

Could you rephrase that first sentence for me?

I have tried to break it down grammatically. But I come up with two or three valid grammatical deconstructions, each of which appears to have a different meaning.

The main problem seems to with the objects of the transitive verbs - like "he ate the food he had in the morning". Did he eat in the morning or did he have the food in the moring?

TIA

Why do you think that "bares repeating?" I don't think anyone can argue that a reader 'often' interprets what they read.

BUT your question was not about accurate translations or flawed interpretations by the reader it was about the writer.

It asked:

The answer for me, is yes. How a writer writes is a reflection of how s/he thinks. That is my opinion. I am not addressing how a writer might be misunderstood or misinterpreted.

You also said:



How does that have anything to do with your original question? Is this the ambiguous point you are trying to make?

A writer should probably not be concerned by the many 'unshakable beliefs' or opinions of his or her readers. Especially one who is a published writer with millions of readers. That would drive a person insane to worry about all of his readers beliefs and opinions.

"A True Injustice?" How so? (What if the writer has an unshakable belief that s/he cannot possibly be mistaken? --And what if the writer IS mistaken?)

And why would you say that this situation constitutes a "true injustice?" (A pretty extreme statement IMO. According to some people there is the appearance of a lot of "injustice" in the world but I would not call this situation "a true injustice" but I guess its all a matter of how you would chose to react to things.)

I'm just being strait to the point here.

Is this what you are saying? That when a reader misinterprets a writing (and/or disagrees with it) and thinks s/he is right (unshakably) that this is a true injustice? Or, is it because then, the reader makes some sort of judgment about the writer? Is that the "true injustice?"

Since when has disagreement become a 'true injustice?' Since when has an opinion or evaluation of a person become a "true injustice?" Call it what it is. A disagreement, a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding, a lack understanding etc. Blame who ever you want to blame if it makes you feel better.

But if that is all that constitutes "true injustice" the world is in pretty sad shape.

((Personally, I don't believe in injustice. I believe in the law of cause and effect. I trust in the law of attraction. What goes around comes around. Nothing comes into your life that you do not invite or create. But that's just my philosophy. You can have all the injustice you want. ))

If your post is about you personally, then it sounds like you are complaining (again) about being misjudged, and you are blaming it on the reader who has an "unshakable belief" that they are right.

If so, if I were you, I wouldn't worry about it.

What other people think should not concern you. You know who you are. Right?

You have very little control over what other people think so why be bothered about it? Truth is truth. You are who you are.

I used to agonize about what other people thought about me until I decided that other people's thoughts and impressions were simply not under my control. What I think of myself is the most important thing. I am who I am and who I think I am. You are who you are and who you think you are.

Just write what you want the way you want to write it, and allow your readers to respond or react any way they choose. Don't worry about what they think or understand (about you.) That is not under your control.

But if you are trying to actually communicate to a select few or convince them of something, feed back does become important.

Exactly.

If misinterpretations or misunderstanding occur that's a totally different concept that should be easily addressed with the individual reader. (especially on an open forum where instant feedback and live communication is readily available).

Also, if a single writer is constantly complaining that everyone is always misunderstanding his or her writings, then there's a very high likelihood that it is indeed that single writer who is communicating poorly.

If that's the case, then the writer is repsonible for having created the misunderstandings in the first place. Once again, it's a relflection of the writer, not the readers.



Truly. Especially the last part in bold. If a writer is even suggesting that this is true of his or her readers then it's probably true of the writer.



For any writer to claim that everyone is always misunderstanding and misinterpreting everything he or she writes is a clear indication that the writer is a very poor communicator to begin with.



Just based on what this topic is asking it seems to be biased toward the 'writer' and against the 'readers'. If many readers misunderstand the same writer why should anyone conclude that it's somehow the fault of the readers?

That makes no sense at all. That very implication appears to be a view of a writer who blames all of his or her communication deficiencies on eveyone else.

The "true injustice" in this situation would seem to be the judment of the writer against all of his or her readers.

If a writer finds that he or she is being misunderstood often, then the writer should seek to improve his or her communication skills.

Either that, or there is no "misunderstanding" at all, but instead the writer just thinks that he or she is absolutely right about everything and everyone else is wrong and in some sort of denial tries to make it out like he or she is being misunderstood, rather than to face the reality that his or her arguments just don't hold water.

It's far easier to just claim misunderstanding than it is to face the fact that the arguments a writer is making are genuinely empty and devoid of any merit.

That's a hard fact for anyone to face. Hiding in denial by claiming to have been "misunderstood" is a far easier and more attractive solution. Many people opt for the latter and we see examples of this all the time on Internet forums.

The underlying issue here is one inherently had within the 'language game'. Terms can and do have several different meanings and those meanings are often contextually and historically influenced. I am not a linguist, however, one need not be in order to understand the above. When a person reads a piece of writing, that writing always assumes the meaning that the reader gives it. If there is a history of a reader and writer exchange(such as in a public forum), then there must exist an experiencial bias, no matter what that bias specifically is.

A reader's opinion of the writer can be formed and is always based upon what the reader personally attributes to the writer based upon the writing alone. That is all that it can be based upon.

Is that assessment an accurate one?

That is the root question here, is it not? How safe is it for a reader to mentally perform a personal value assessment of a writer based upon what s/he thinks the writer means/implies? Now there are some situations in which the writing is open and obvious, therefore there is little room for translation error, those are not in question, nor should they be.





Sky...



Of course...

A reader can and often does equate what they think the writer means and/or implies with what the writer actually does mean/imply. It is usually the implications which can cause problems like the one I am attempting to address here. There can be a difference between the two.

Some terms can hold a very negative connotation within a reader which affects exactly how they interpret a writing which contains that/those term(s).





Jb...



The question is all about translations. How can one conclude that without considering the reader's translation? Answering the question requires considering the translation. In order to make a conclusion about a writer's thinking, the reader must first translate the meaning and implications of what has been written, and then attribute that to the writer.

The 'safe' part directly involves the reader's confidence in their own ability to do such a thing based upon writing alone. One can feel safe and still be incorrect, just as one may not feel 'safe' and be correct.



Well sure, if we do not address the possibility for a wrongful translation, then we will always be safe in assuming that what we think about how a writer thinks is correct. There is no need to address a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation unless we choose to admit the possibility for being wrong.




How does that have anything to do with your original question? Is this the ambiguous point you are trying to make?

It has everything to do with the original question. In order for a reader to assess the thinking of a writer based upon the writing alone, then the reader must possess some sense of certainty concerning his/her ability to interpret the content of that writing.



Pointing out the different elements which must be taken into consideration in order to address the question at hand does not mean that the writer is worried about it.








James writes...



I agree if the writer is complaing about everyone, but what if it is only a few out of a hundred?

I can also envision a situation which logicaly refutes the above conclusion...

There exists a group of people who hold a tremendous amount of trust and confidence in one of their members' opinions. If that particular member paints a negative picture of an individual prior to the rest of the group actually meeting that person, then it can and will affect the rest of the group's initial impressions of that person.

All possible things must be considered in order to approach this topic from as many aspects possible. The more facets of a subject one can entertain, the greater the possible understanding.

ah, my jeaniebean shame on you. lol. now you're doing it. when you begin a reply with something along the lines of, "is this what you are saying?" and then type what YOU think he is saying you're diving head first into a straw man argument. what he was saying is contained in the exact words he wrote. ask for clarification if you need to but don't clarify HIS statement with YOUR words and then commit the even greater "true injustice" by arguing against a notion that is not even his own but one you created.

I would, but asking him to clarify has never really worked well in the past. I think I made myself quite clear. I also think by stating what I 'might think' he 'might mean' shows him where I am --in trying to understand what he means. I wanted to know what to him constituted a "true injustice." I don't get into all that 'straw man argument' stuff. It makes no sense to me. I think I am being quite clear.

Answer #1:
No, the question is not all about translations. The question:
"Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks? " does not ask or state or even imply in the slightest ANYTHING about any reader or readers or their translations.

A 'reader' is not even mentioned in the question. Translation or interpretation is not even mentioned in the question. You are expecting people to assume these things.




Answer #2:
We can conclude an answer to the general (and generic) question about whether or not "how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks" because that was, after all, the whole of the question. The question was not about how a given 'reader' might go about translating a writing and or misinterpret it.

Given a team of readers, I am sure they could learn a lot about a person (the author) by the reading of a suicide note or a ransom note, or a threatening note, or even a diary. Why? Because it is safe to assume that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks.

Now this is not to say that every single person will conclude the same thing. But your initial question is NOT addressing the reader, (any readers) ability to accurately interpret a writing. It is addressing whether or not the nature of a writing is a reflection of how one thinks.

It is NOT about the reader.

If you want to ask a question about the reader, then you must change your question.

"Is it safe to conclude that how one writes can be accurately interpreted by every (or most)readers, giving them correct information about how the writer thinks?

The answer to that would be NO.


"Is it safe to conclude that how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?"

The answer to that would be YES.





No it does not.



True. But you seem to be assuming there is only ONE reader, and that that reader is mistaken or flawed in making a correct interpretation. That is a lot of assuming. To add to that, the question, again, was NOT about the reader.



Again the question is not about the reader or his or her confidence or ability to interpret a writing.

It is about whether or not a writing reflects the thinking of the author.

The answer to that specific question is: Yes it does.

This is not to imply that every reader will have the ability to interpret a writing and accurately access the author.

The actual question you asked was answered. You need to change or expand your question if you want a different answer.

How can a writer be mistaken about their own meaning?

The kind of thought is an injustice to not only the writer, but to the reader themself. What reasons could one possibly give for thinking that they know what writer means moreso than the writer themself?

I cannot envision where this could ever be true.



So, every situation in which a reader attributes mistaken meaning to writing and the author demonstrates that to be the case, it is to be held as true that the writer has an unshakable belief that they are confident that they know what they mean?

Sure, I agree. Of course a writer knows what they mean. It is when a reader refuses to acknowledge the possibility of that that there exists an injustice.




Yeah, exactly! If the case is true with everyone, I would have to agree. So there can exist a case in which a writer is claiming to always be misunderstood by everyone, and this could constitute reason to believe that what the writer means to say and what is actually written are different. This is especially true if the writer has problems putting their thoughts into words.

What if it is not everyone though?




An unshakable false belief which leads to negative personal conclusions would constitute an injustice, to not only the writer, but also a sort of self-sabotage to the reader's own self-honesty.



How does that question seem to be biased against a reader?



How does posing that question equate to a "writer who blames all of his or her communication deficiencies on everyone else?"

Well that conclusion certainly constitutes a reader's bias regarding the reasons for the question at hand.

How does that conclusion follow from the question at hand?

To address the question it becomes necessary to consider all of the equation. The writer's meaning. The writing. How close those two things correlate. The reader's interpretation. How well that correlates to the actual meaning.

The thread itself presupposes nothing of the reader, nor is it aimed at anyone personally. It is just looking at all of the different aspects which need to be considered.

I think this is a very good point, but I’d like to take it a little further.

The mental state of the reader (i.e. his assumptions and interpretations) is not, and can never be, any less “just” than the mental state of the writer. (How could the term “justice” be applied to a subjective mental state at all? Visions of “thought police” come to mind.)

Justice can only enter the picture when there is interaction between the reader and writer. (How could there be an injustice if there were no interaction?)

But that means that the writer must be subject to exactly the same standards of justice as the reader. No more, no less. (Otherwise it would be, by definition, injustice.)

And where does that leave us? Are we any closer to a resolution of “the problem”?

Doesn’t look like it to me. I mean, if the source of the problem has truly been identified, then it would be a simple matter of eliminating the source. But I don’t see anything to eliminate there – except justice itself. And I don’t really believe that would solve the problem.

Now let me propose what I think is the real source of the problem.

Disagreement.

Now that may seem ridiculously obvious to some, and ridiculously simple to others. And maybe even simply ridiculous to still others.

But it does lead directly to a solution.

What happens if there is agreement?

There is no problem. It is gone! It no longer exists.

So really, all that need be done to solve the problem, it to find a way to reach an agreement.

In other words, if one focuses entirely on the problem (disagreement), one is effectively “holding the problem in place”. But if one focuses on the solution (agreement) one is truly “trying to remove the problem”. (This is why “agreeing to disagree” is considered a solution. The focus changes from disagreement to agreement.)

This even applies to the context of formal debates. It is true that the format of the debate requires that there be disagreement between the two sides. (Otherwise there would be no debate.) But that’s not the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate is to obtain agreement from whomever is judging the debate.

And this shows why I consider it to be “morally wrong” to insist (in a social context) one is right in the face of disagreement. It does not diminish the problem - it exacerbates it.

In short, it does not matter what the viewpoint of either side is. The viewpoints are not the problem. They are nothing more than subjective mental states. The real source of the problem is disagreement.

I don't think anyone thinks they know what a writer means moreso than the writer himself.

But that again, was NOT the question you asked.

I don't know what you guys are talking about...

Here is the question at hand.



What constitutes 'safe'?

What must happen in order for one to be able to draw a conclusion about whether or not how one writes is a reflection of how one thinks?

This obviously needs a reader, a writer, the writer's meaning, the writer's intent, and the reader's translation and conclusion.

It was in response to this that you wrote earlier...



Now, since the topic is directly addressing whether or not a reader can safely read and interpret writing to later conclude that that interpretation is an accurate reflection of the writer's thinking, we must consider the possibility for the reader to be mistaken.

Your response asked what if the writer is mistaken.

That makes no sense. So I asked...



To which you say that it was not the question originally asked. It does not need to be. That is where the conversation went, through your own question which did not make sense to me. So I asked the above, which you agreed to. Now I am confused on what you as a writer mean. Did you misunderstand the question?

If you compare the two topics above, you will see that the re-written one posted first is not at all the same as your original question.

In your original question you did not mention "a reader" or whether or not said reader can safely read and interpret a writing to later conclude..... etc etc..

...and you did not mention anything about considering the possibility for the reader to be mistaken.

So is this your rewriting of your original question then? Because they are not the same thing in the literal sense.