I saw a tweet that read “I am responsible for what I say, not for what you understand” and at first it seemed like an irrefutable axiom. Our western culture prizes individual freedom and with that freedom comes certain responsibilities, like the responsibility for our own actions. My action is to say something so I am responsible for what I say your action is to hear what is said, so you are responsible for what you understand. It makes sense. In a free society this is a true statement… Or is it?
There’s a scene in an old Peter Sellers movie where Sellers is standing next to a dog and a man approaches him:
Man: Does your dog bite?
Sellers: No.
Man reaches to pet the dog and is mauled.
Man: You said your dog doesn’t bite!
Sellers: That’s not my dog.
The scene is funny because there is an underlying assumption that our responsibility extends no further than the words we utter. The man asked a question and received an honest reply. Sellers is not responsible for any conclusions or assumptions the man drew based on the honest reply he received. Sellers is only responsible for his completely honest reply. Or is he?
If a man tells a woman “hey, I can only meet you once a week, because I’m very busy and I have a wife.” And the woman walks away thinking “Well he can only meet me once a week because he keeps busy trying to avoid his wife.” He’s not responsible for the assumptions she made. However, six months later when his life turns into a remake of Fatal Attraction, it won’t matter much who was responsible for the communication at the start. You are responsible for what you say, and you are responsible for what is understood because you share in the consequences of that communication. Your responsibility does not stop at the words you say, it must continue through the consequences of the exchange. What is understood by the other person matters in the communication. You are responsible for what is understood.
You are responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what is understood and you are also responsible for what you intend the person to understand. By saying “Honey, I was with the guys from church last night” the intent is to communicate something completely different from “we went barhopping and ended up at a strip club”. When that person is accused of lying, it will be a valid accusation. The intention was for the person to understand something different from the truth, though the words used were true the intent of the communication was a lie. Remember the whole “I did not have sex with that girl” fiasco. Intent matters. You are responsible for the intent.
We have laws that make you responsible for what you intend the other person to understand. By law an advertiser is responsible for what it says and for what it intends people to understand. When an advertiser says ‘Buy this product, it will grow hair on your head’ its intention is to make people believe the product will grow hair. When people discover it doesn’t grow hair, there is a lawsuit. The advertiser’s responsibility does not end with what is said, it extends to the consequences of the communication. The consumer spent money on a product that does not work. By the way, that’s why we invented fine print, to get around our intentions. ‘This product will grow hair on your head”- and in fine print - “if you’ve recently had Dodo skin surgically grafted to your right buttock on a Friday.” Now it’s caveat emptor baby!
You are responsible for want you say. You are responsible for what is understood. You are responsible for your intention in the communication. There is no way around it, the responsibility is yours! So next time you are walking your dog and your elderly neighbor smiles at you and says “Good Morning, fine day for a walk isn’t it?” Just kick the cane out from under her and run like hell! It’s not worth it!