We argue about signals, interpretation & effort

By “we” I mean all of us.

You and I aren’t arguing. We get along great.

We as people argue a lot.

When people argue it comes down to three things: signals, interpretation and effort.

Dan Roam in his brilliant book The Back of the Napkin provides a remarkably clear explanation of how we take in information.

We’re visual creatures. Even if we’re listening to information we’re “picturing” six things:

1) Who / What

2) How many

3) Where

4) When

5) How

6) Why

After we take in information, especially if it’s the same information, we argue about signals (who/what, where and how many), interpretation (how and why) and we argue about effort (what should be done next and how much blood and treasure should be spent doing it).

Depending on attention and experience people will see different details of who/what is in a scene. Two people will look at the same scene and see different numbers, different locations and perceive different timelines and orders.

“How” is an interpretation of cause and effect. It’s a story we start telling ourselves about cause & effect relationships based on how the whos/ whats, the numbers of the whos/ whats and the location of the whos / whats change over time.

We take the story a step further with “why?” “Why?” is an interpretation of meaning, a reason behind the cause.

We see different things, argue about what we saw, get frustrated with different interpretations and then argue about what to pay attention to and what to do next.