Well for that matter, how can a reader be mistaken about their own opinion.

An opinion is personal to them, just as a meaning is personal to a writer.

Has no potential for causing harm.

The reader must reason.

Well, the same thing could be said of speakers and listeners in verbal communications as well. In short, all you're truly saying here is that all we ever have to go on about someone is the thoughts they express.

There's probably a lot of truth in that.

Therefore it seems to me that this idea of being 'misunderstood' must be at the heart of what you are attempting to get at. Otherwise why would you have suggested things like it being a 'true injustice'? What would be 'unjust' about reacting to a position if was not misunderstood?

So from my point of view I would just turn this whole topic around and instead of viewing it from the role of victim by attempting to claim that readers unjustly misunderstand writers, why not address it from a far more positive view and simply ask what writers can do to better communicate their ideas so they aren't being so grossly misunderstood all the time?

I very seldom have problems with people misunderstanding what I say. Especially long term conversations. As soon as I believe that I have been misunderstood I will instantly offer a clarification in an attempt to resolve that misunderstanding. I've never found that to be difficult. I very seldom have problems with long-term misunderstandings.

I have met difficult people though. But those encounters don't have anything to do with any misunderstandings. Some people can just be quite difficult. They usually have an agenda, and their agenda is usually pretty obvious. I don't take that personally because that's their problem, not mine.

Jb...




The question stated again below for clarity, in order to be answered logically, requires considering the following things...

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

1.) One cannot conclude *anything* about a writer without first reading it. That necessarily invokes the existence of the reader and a writer.

2.) A reader always translates a piece of writing based upon their own understanding of the terms. That necessarily invokes the reader's interpretation.

3.) That interpretation is what is being attributed to the writer. That necessarily invokes the furthered consideration of the translation's accuracy.

4.) That accuracy can only be measured through comparison of the reader's interpretation to the writers meaning.


If a reader feels that there is no possibility that they could be mistaken in such a case, then self-confidence outweighs the contrary. In other words, in such a case, the comparison is never made.




Are you seriously asking me how a reader can be mistaken about their opinion of a writer based upon the writing alone? That is what this thread is about. The same way anyone can be. It does not correlate to the facts at hand. The question directly involves one's own confidence in assessing another's thoughts through writing alone.



This avoids the issue at hand. Of course everyone has a personal opinion and personal meaning. It is how accurately those opinions are formed, and through what means based upon what grounds that the answer to this question must address.

This may be true, but how one writes is still a reflection of how one thinks, ---whether or not a given reader interprets it correctly or not.



True, but how one writes is still a reflection of how one thinks, no matter how a particular reader translates it or understands the terms. The failure of any given reader to interpret a writing accurately does not negate the fact that the writing, (if interpreted accurately) does reflect the thinking of the writer.



That interpretation is personal to the reader. The reader's opinion and interpretation are personal to the reader, accurate or not.



It would be difficult to compare the two, since they are from two different points of view, unless you hire a panel of judges to assess the entire situation and agree to abide by their conclusions.

What you mean to ask then is not what you asked. What you mean to ask is

"Is it safe to trust the opinion of the reader's interpretation of a writing in assessing how the author thinks?"







Who would want to make the comparison? The reader has done their best to understand and interpret the writing. S/he can not see things from the writers point of view, only his or her own.


***********************************************



An opinion is simply an opinion. If a person holding an opinion thought that opinion was 'wrong' they probably would not hold that opinion. All opinions are temporary and can be changed at any time given new information.

******************




Communication is a two way street as I have always said.

The writer should not expect that he will be understood by everyone.

If he desires to be understood by everyone, it is his job to improve his writing.

What means does the reader have of “ [comparing his] interpretation to the writers meaning ”?

That requires that he have both the writer’s meaning and his own interpretation.

But how or where does he get the writer’s meaning???

Other than the written word itself, he has no means whatsoever of knowing the reader’s meaning. That is implicit in the premise.

So how could he possibly compare them???

Sky, did you mean to say:




Exactly.

The only thing I can imagine he is asking the reader to do is to scrap their own personal interpretation and opinion, (which is based on their entire lifetime of personal experience) and blindly accept and believe the author's conclusions.

That'a not likely. And why should s/he? Why should anyone?

Either that, or in live conversations, simply address the misunderstandings when they occur. That's always worked for me.

I know I am not understood by everyone. I know that many people have very "wrong" or bad opinions of me simply because I read tarot cards.

Guess what?

If I let that bother me, I would probably lead a miserable unhappy life trying to please everyone or trying to change their beliefs, or trying to live according to what other people expect.

I won't do that.

Be true to yourself. That is my philosophy. That is my priority.

That's true. If we're talking about that kind of 'misunderstanding' then I'm certain that many people totally misunderstand me simply because of my spiritual interests.

That kind of misunderstanding is a constant in all of humanity, whether written, verbral, or in-person. But that kind of misunderstanding would apply to readers and writers equally.

Actually that has more to do with predjudices and stereotyping than it has to do with 'misunderstanding'.

For example, when I was growing up I was taught many things about 'witchcraft' that were quite popular sterotypical images. Even Hollywood supported those ideals in the movies. More recently I've learned to see 'witchcraft' as a serious religion that actually makes more scientific and practical sense than many of the other popular religions that the masses take quite seriously.

So I've come to an 'understanding' today of something that I had been taught to 'misunderstand' for decades.

There exists no mistake in what I meant to ask. I asked exactly what I meant to ask. The logical answer is not a simple, nor a thoughtless one. It requires more than just a passive and non-chalant answer. I have explained repeatedly what that answer must entail, patiently wading through the misunderstandings as I went, laid out a set of axioms which necessarily highlight the different elements of necessary consideration which must be present in order to answer the question in the OP. You agreed with that set of axioms, without exception.


Sky...



Therein lies the inherent problem when a reader over-confidently claims(assumes) that an author's writing can be 'safely' equated to his/her thinking.

It requires the reader's interpretation and later conclusion to be equivalent to the writer's thoughts.

For the reason's described here it is only logical to conclude that it is not necessarily a safe bet.

Then I stand by my answer. (Yes)



My answer is not a passive nor non-nonchalant answer.



Your set of axioms have nothing to do with your initial question as they assume there is a reader, and my answer still remains the same.

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

The answer: Yes.

There can be no other answer in spite of your "set of axioms." Your question is a general one and does not address a reader's possible misinterpretation.

One has to "think" in order to "write." One has to think about what they write. Ones writing has to "be a reflection of how they think."

What else would it be? A lie? A reflection of how someone else thinks? A bunch of ambiguous bull ****?

There is no reader here in this equation if you don't rewrite your initial question! I don't understand why you can't understand that.

You are assuming there MUST be a reader. Not only that, you are assuming a reader with faulty interpretative skills. You assume that, and you expect everyone else to assume that. I don't assume that.

I only look literally at the question without assumptions.

Why should anyone believe that an author knows better than them what the author's thoughts are?

Are we even talking about the same thing, because this response seems to be addressing the content of a debate in general.

The OP specifically concerns the question at hand.

Now you are changing the original statement and question by using a new term "equated" which I am not sure means the same thing as "reflected."

No wonder you are hard to understand. You keep changing things up.



No it does not.



That is your opinion, but you have now changed the question by changing the term "reflected" to "equivalent" and hence a total breakdown in communication in now in progress.

No I don't think we are even close to 'talking about the same thing."

Jb writes...



The logical answer requires a reader, lest there would be no source for a conclusion.



Does this not assume that people can and do write exactly how they think?



How about a reflection of how well they are able to put thoughts into words.





Based upon this latest response from you, iit seems to me that you are assuming what you think I am thinking. I am not assuming a reader with faulty interpretative skills. I am considering the possibility. There is a difference. There is no logical grounds for your claim of my assuming anything. If there is, then by all means please show it.

The author can know what his thoughts are better than anyone else in the world but if he cannot make his thoughts known or communicate his ideas successfully, or be understood by anyone, he may as well quit writing.

You not only assume it, you insist on it. You insist there must be a reader and he probably will misinterpret or it is possible he or she will misinterpret the author.

You are creating a problem that does not exist if no one reads the written material. But that written material is still a reflection of how the writer thinks. It can't logically be anything else.

This is where you are mistaken. The question can be answered (reasoned out) before the material itself is ever read. (Hence, there is no reader of the material at that time.)

It is only logical that what is written is a reflection of the author's thoughts. This is the answer to your initial question and it can be answered not even knowing what the written material is that you are talking about.

Fail. Ad hominem.

Tell me how one can conclude that a writer's thinking is reflected by his words without equating the two.

This is a non-argument.




No it does not.

It most certainly does. In order for a reader to conclude that a writer's thoughts are a reflection of their words, then they must first do the following...

The reader reads and then translates.

The reader concludes that what s/he thinks about the writing is an accurate portrayal of the writer's own thoughts.

Do you have a reasonable or logical refutation of this, or just your unsupported opinion? I seek out logical grounds. I am not interested in hearing just ungrounded opinions stated as fact.



I did not change the question.

Evidently you did not follow the response that you quote-mined from while ignoring the context. It was extrapolating upon exactly what happens when one falsely concludes that what they get from a writer's words is equal to what the writer thinks.

It is furthered consideration from the OP.