Have you ever wondered if other people see what you see, in exactly the same way? Since childhood, I have had impeccable eyesight. I never fully understood how people with short-sightedness see their surroundings. I understood what it meant when they told me “I can’t see” in reference to an object that was tiny or far away, such as a sign on some bus turning a corner at the end of the street, or a faint star blinking in a night sky. However, what confused me was that they could see an object and even recognize its colour or size, but they could not tell what it actually was. After I passed the age 50, I was forced to understand what it meant to have eyes that ‘cannot see’ and to start living with glasses. Presbyopia. Far-sightedness due to old age, is what had inflicted my eyesight. Now, I need a pair of reading glasses to read a book or to work on my computer. I can see something written on a paper or screen, but I cannot read it without glasses.
Then, I realized where many of my miscommunications with my wife stemmed from, who has worn glasses since her teenage years. Everyone SEES objects in front of him/her and recognizes them. However, the resolution of an image each person has could be very different. For my wife and I, for example, if someone is walking down the other side of a pedestrian walkway, I can tell if he/she is someone we know or not, even from quite a far distance. She can only recognize the person much later with, what I assume would be, a much lower resolution. Then, after he/she has passed by, my wife would start asking me if I had seen the person just walked by. I would confirm that I had seen the person and would conclude that he/she was not one of our friends, albeit the person had borne some resemblance to the friend. However, she would always confidently claim that it had been our friend and would insist that I agree with her. I have to say “no, it was not him/her”, every time. Sometimes, she gets half convinced by my claims but other times she would get upset, saying I always disagree with her. What can I say to that?
In my research lab, we often use a microscope to see miniscule matter like mouse embryos, tissues, or organs. We have a teaching microscope that has an additional pair of eyepieces allowing share a same view with a second person. Using this, I teach a student how to dissect an embryo or tissue, like “this is a mouse preimplantation embryo”, or “here is the oviduct”. Because the student right next to me is able to see the same microscopic view, he/she would say “a-ha” or “yes. I can see”. After several years of teaching, I had realized that many were not looking at what I showed. They saw something else and convinced themselves as they had recognized and understood what I had indicated. For me, on the other hand, what I wanted to show was clearly visible and evident. In my mind, there was no way to be mistaken. However, they would often point out random bits and pieces in the view that I had not even registered because they were unrelated debris or such. To avoid these types of miscommunications, when I train someone new now, I always ask them to show me what they can recognize by themselves after I had already shown it to them once.
There are two implications here. We tend to think that everyone sees exactly as we do but that may not be true. We also think that everyone recognizes what we do in the same way but that may also not be true. We rarely doubt if own visual information could be different from others. However, none of us can ever truly share what we see and recognize. Our cognition is constrained within own brains and sensing organs. How to interpret it is also limited by own experiences, education, and training. Then, the question I have is if it is possible to have meaningful communication between two persons without recognizing possible differences in their inputs and cognitions.
When we learn a second language, we have a chance to realize that certain types of dialogue cannot be translated at all. Some concepts exist only in one language and not in the other. Such concepts are often lost in translation. Of course, there are many commonalities that allow direct translation to be possible; particularly, if two languages are closely related. However, if two languages are far apart in their origins, the gap of miscommunication becomes larger, and many concepts become difficult to communicate. I speak two languages: Japanese and English. The topics in our daily conversation change depending on which language I use. When I use Japanese, my thinking is influenced by Japanese culture and customs. The other person’s seniority (age, experience, etc) and gender would be a consideration when it comes to selecting words and sentences in a conversation. When I use English, these considerations disappear. Depending on which language we use, we switch our cognition patterns. On the other hand, my kids are natively trilingual- speaking Japanese, English, and French. They have grown up in Canada. They speak relatively fluent Japanese, but their thinking always leans towards their Canadian upbringing no matter what language they are actually speaking. Similar situations can be identified in religions, cultures, ideologies, scientific disciplines, and even in generational gaps. If a person has previously been exposed to two or more concepts, they can better recognize differences and help to bridge gaps between miscommunications. On the other hand, those who are only capable of one cognition pattern will tend to assume that others also see and recognize events in the same way. Other ideas are simply out of their imagination.
What we call a “dogmatic” view is often associated with the majority of each community. Belonging in the majority often gives some level of security and will lead to demands for the minorities to follow or convert along with the majority. If not, elimination or ignored is often the consequence. If someone is fully occupied by a dogmatic idea (in other words, common sense, social norm, etc.), is there any way to provide another viewpoint? I do not know. Unless the person is willing to learn, it already suggests he/she is aware of other possibilities, nothing can be reached. However, this is very difficult if the person is part of the majority. How do you convince someone as what he/she sees could be NOT what it exactly is?
Is there any way to communicate beyond the gaps of two (or more) dogmas? Our history has clearly shown many failures. Is it possible to be loosely united with respects, tolerance, and appreciations without dogmas? Science is also not free of dogmatic views because it is a result of human activities. I always tell myself to be open-minded and to not mind doubting the foundation where I stand. Don’t be afraid to challenge a dogma to make myself a minority. Though it is scary, this is the only way I am able to keep my identity and to produce fruitful outcomes.
I thank Vera Lynn for English editing.
Comments