Quote:
Originally posted by Halx
RESCINDING
Under normal functioning, you cannot brainwash from your mind the impression that you received from a message, even when it has been rescinded. While you may be told that you have misunderstood, the chance of you forgiving the misconception decreases with the intensity with which you have acknowledged the original message. It's easy to dismiss something trivial, but you'll still entertain it's alternative in the back of your head.
|
I think this depends on the intent of the retraction - if the intent is to erase the event, then yes, you will fail. It happened. If, however, the intent is to produce a new understanding in the mind of the listener such that it is a victory over the past interpretation, then you have a decent shot IF you are responsible for the impact of the words you use, and IF you are committed to making sure that person is "complete" with the communication - making sure they understand your intent, and making sure there is nothing left to be said on their part.
Quote:
|
On the other hand, cognitive dissonance grips you hard if you originally misunderstood something that affected you in a dramatic fashion. You put so much emotion into this notion that when you are informed that it was in fact misunderstood, you are then inclined to believe the false version more. (Please note, all psychological assumptions are provided with the pre-attached disclaimer, "on average.")
|
I think this depends on how the true version is framed. If someone has had a powerful reaction to a message, it will take an equally powerful message to override that reaction.
Witness one of the largest instances of mass cognitive dissonance in the past year: in the first few months after the Iraq war, something like 71% of Americans believed that we HAD found WMD in Iraq, despite the fact that the news media had repeatedly reported that no such weapons were found. This was a result of 1. a clearly stated but misleading phrase from GWB's public address, and 2. people's preference for consistency over truth. Supporters of the war were more likely to believe that WMD had been found because it meshed with their beliefs about the activities in Iraq and their desire for justification for military action.
It took MONTHS of mild media coverage to reverse this misunderstanding. It could have been done much more quickly with dramatic coverage to counter the equally dramatic statement.
Similarly, if someone is deeply and vocally offended by a misinterpreted statement, yes, they're gonna look stupid if they back down, so you're going to have to give them something better than looking good and being right in order to make it worth their while. Usually, what it takes is:
1. acknowledging their position
2. taking responsibility for the misunderstanding (this is the price you pay for having control of the situation: you can either be responsible and understood, or you can be right at all costs and leave the offense in place. Choose 1)
3. creating a new understanding in place of the old one.
Again, it all depends on your intention. If your intention is to be known and understood, then you are ultimately responsible for how your words are taken.