Misunderstanding occurs when facts are misleading due to differences in context or due to a lack of experience on the part of the person dealing with the facts. Misunderstandings also result from differences in experience. For example, medical doctors have experiences that may result in their being insensitive to the their patients' anxieties. A medical problem that a doctor may have seen a hundred times is still new to each new patient, making it difficult for the doctor to appreciate a patient's apprehensions and concerns. As professionals, doctors are expected to compensate for this difference in experience by deliberately raising their sensitivity to it.
Thus, doctors have to work on their bedside manner, placing themselves within the frame of reference of each patient. Once they are within the patient's frame of reference, it is easier to communicate medical information in its proper context for the patient. While most of us know that our doctor is making this effort in a less than totally empathetic frame of mind, we appreciate the effort. Also, the doctors who make this effort to communicate are likely to be more effective in diagnosing the medical conditions of their patients, and they may even become truly sincere in their concern for their patients' frame of mind.
From a business perspective, it is more likely that patients will return to those health management programs where they feel the most sincerity and concern from the doctors and nurses. However, in those health care organizations not driven by a business-development motive (profit), the doctors and nurses may not be so patient with the patients. For example, military doctors have little to be concerned about in terms of building their business. Military doctors do not have to build a business. Moreover, with increased longevity there is a disproportionate number of retired military people seeking treatment at military medical facilities, as compared with active duty personnel. Thus, there is a continuing problem with military doctors treating with disdain the many retired military personnel and their dependents.
The military doctor's workload would be much less if it were limited to active duty personnel and dependents. To the extent that retired military people and their dependents are shunned by military doctors, the effects of this difference in context are made apparent. In spite of these less than ideal effects, it is not clear whether they represent a condition requiring remediation.
Thus, as noted above, shifts in context can lead to misunderstandings and confusion. Again, we must return to principles, objectives, and integrity to be able to perceive what should be done. Then we need the enlightenment, resources, and time to do what should be done, including deciding to do nothing.
When we study an issue, we change the apparent context, making its context dimensional in a sense similar to changing the dimensions of location and time. Technidigm-2000 makes this apparent through the use of its four levels. Rather than just four levels, most issues could be viewed from many levels, each of which might be superior to a prior one. However, the superiority of a given context can only be judged in terms of the consequences of making a decision based on that context. This is why it is not appropriate to make important decisions in a context that is only based on opinions (level 1).
Again, it is important to understand the dimensional nature of context. From the inherent differences in our respect for opinions and facts, we might decide that our perception of an issue's context is influenced by misunderstandings and confusion. We naturally assume that the more facts we have the less misunderstanding and confusion should be present. Unfortunately, this assumption regarding the credibility and clarity of facts is only valid in a general sense and may not be valid in specific instances. For example, insurance salesmen are well known of selecting only those facts that are most likely to lead to a sale. Important to the dimension of context are the integrity and purpose of the people dealing with the issue.
A doctor's sensitivity to the patient's frame of reference may be artificial, but the intent is (at least in most cases) to do what is best for the patient. It is the doctor's intent that makes their artificial acts of sensitivity (reaching out across context levels) acceptable to their patients. It is part of the profession of being a doctor, and it is viewed as a necessary part of being a good doctor. It works because the doctor is trained and experienced in the highly technical field of medicine. A doctor's technical credibility is earned, and the development of an appropriate bedside manner is simply a way of dealing with the doctor-patient interface.
Newspapers gain a reputation for being either liberal or conservative, although most of them try very hard to be balanced. When a reporter's "story" presents points on both sides of an issue, the reporter is viewed as having done a good job. The relative validity of the diverse points is of secondary importance, and the reporter often has no way of knowing which side is "right" or even in the "right ball park."
Often, news stories are, at best, as "balanced" as a two-part medical diagnosis, one part of which is provided by the doctor and other part of which is provided by the medical insurance company. Since reporters often balance the views of high-integrity experts with those of either low-integrity experts or non-experts, it is often best to ignore the second half of their stories or articles. Even when many high-integrity experts agree, news media organizations feel compelled to find some kind of counter-opinion.
Most often, those who know what they are talking about provide the basis for the story. Those who do not know much about the topic provide the counter argument, valid or not, resulting in a balanced but distorted context for the reader to sort out. In this increasingly technical world, the average reader is not able to remove the confusion. The best the reader can do is try to judge the credibility of each side and draw conclusions accordingly. Unfortunately, the reader often does not know anything about the news story writer or at least the spokesmen for one of the sides of an issue. This confusion can be addressed by stating context for each side, which under Technidigm-2000 would be in terms of levels.
As will be discussed later, the difference between doctors and news reporters is that they are working at different levels. Doctors are responsible for understanding and presenting a complete set of facts based on directly applicable education and experience. If additional testing and research are needed in a particular instance, doctors are aware of and can take the appropriate actions to solve their patients' problems.
Reporters are often limited to first impressions or opinions, even when those opinions come from supposedly valid sources. Reporters are at a disadvantage in evaluating the technical and context-related accuracy of the information that they use. In a complex, technical society the readers and viewers of those stories are also at a disadvantage. Properly understood and applied, Technidigm-2000 helps the news media as well as the audience.
We associate integrity with truth and honor, so we give people of integrity an initial presumption of being on-the-level. Good leaders do not have to prove that they are working a problem in its proper context -- we take it for granted. People of integrity are often viewed as being natural leaders, and we do not feel compelled to quibble over their intentions and motivations.
On the other side of the same coin, if we suspect that someone as being less than honest, we will quibble over their intentions and motivations. They may also be natural leaders, but we do not fully trust them. Due to the shortage of people whom we fully trust, we often find ourselves voting for the person whom "we trust most." Polling questions are often couched in terms of whom we trust most rather than whom we trust.
Most of us want to be viewed as having integrity and as dealing with problems fairly and in their proper context. Our own experiences and frames of reference limit us, but we do not necessarily realize that other people have a significantly different set of experiences and, often, a much different frame of reference. Just as doctors practice their bedside manner and news reporters practice appearing sincere, politicians practice their appearances of being good leaders, all-knowing, empathetic, and eager to please. Politicians become experts at "looking good like a candidate should." They know that this is part of a government or political leader's context, at least as applied to influencing most voters.
As in the case of doctors, voters recognize that politicians are not necessarily as sincere as they appear, so the voters are not too critical of this point. Appearances only become real problems when doctors or politicians are not on-the-level. Again, the key difference is often integrity, without which we are not able to ensure that problems are addressed with circumspect wisdom.
A political candidate who does not at least look like a leader will have difficulty getting elected even if that candidate could solve all our social and governmental problems quickly without raising taxes. Other candidates may be basically incompetent, but in the context of modern politics all they have to do is pretend that they are competent and they are highly competitive in the political process. After all, in the confusion of modern politics and a shallow, sound-bite media, the opinion polls are as variable as the weather. As will be discussed in more detail later, even when they happen to be on-the-level, modern politics are often only on level one -- unsubstantiated opinions.
Doctors are judged on what we might call absolute integrity. Politicians and the news media are expected to have at least some integrity, but they are judged primarily in relative terms. Also, politicians and the news media often present us with information and decisions that are outside our personal knowledge and experience, so we may not realize what aspects are out-of-context or "blown out of proportion." We are seldom able to assess their integrity in relative terms, much less within a circumspect frame of reference and, thus, in absolute terms.
In the nuclear safety arena, the integrity of plant managers is expected to be absolute, much like the integrity we expect in doctors. To be successful, nuclear plant managers must establish and maintain a special nuclear safety culture, a culture that provides a unique context within which all nuclear plant activities must be performed. Anti-nuclear activists and organizations have their own culture and frame of reference. Thus, as compared with other professionals such as doctors, nuclear plant managers must perform their jobs in a culture of constant anti-nuclear sentiment.
Nuclear plant managers must be technically competent to do their jobs, but anyone can challenge their decisions even without any particular technical experience or knowledge. Anti-nuclear activists need not subscribe to a nuclear safety culture, nor do they need to understand what it is. As mentioned above, news reporters usually treat them as equals. Technidigm-2000 provides a framework for defining the cultural differences between opposing groups, even when both sides are on-the-level.
Also, as mentioned in previous parts of this online book, it is very difficult for polarized groups to both be on-the-level. In many instances, polarized groups force each other to be off-the-level, twisting the context of their issues as far as they can in self defense. In the wake of polarized discussions, the true context of an issue is often lost, and we are expected to come to a "compromise" solution between two extremes. Using the Technidigm-2000 framework, we are less compelled to accept compromises between confusing and contradictory options.
When we feel that we can depend on someone else's integrity to help us make decisions, we feel comfortable dealing with even the most complex and obscure issues. It is often just too hard for us to deal personally with issues within the context of their comprehensive set of actual facts. We are in a constant search for persons of integrity who at least claim to know what is right to do in various circumstances. Thus, we make ourselves vulnerable to manipulation by those people who do not mind taking advantage of our human limitations.
When neither side of an issue or political campaign can claim much integrity, then we often have to resort to relative levels of integrity. In these times of individual specialization, we have to rely constantly on individual integrity to get things done properly. We are sometimes disappointed with the results, but by then the damage has been done. Our understanding of the context of a problem changes with time, but so does our memory.
Without the tools to deal with the changing context of a myriad of issues and problems, we are often at the mercy of savvy politicians, who are themselves dependent on getting context information from special interest groups. Moreover, without the right underlying principles and integrity, there is nothing keeping politicians from gradually becoming too dependent on special interest groups for information, especially when such groups donate to their political campaigns.
The out-of-context deliberate distortions of politicians and the sensationalism of the news media would not work if we had the time and the energy to investigate and keep track of everything on our own. Our failures to do so are caused by normal human limitations, so we just do the best we can. But rather than have to weave our way through conflicting and sometimes subtle details, we find it easier to think in terms of extremes or polarized litmus tests. We cooperate with the over-simplifiers and distortion artists, making them heroes instead of villains.
The villains have a clear advantage. The further we are from a specific situation, the easier it is to use generalized facts and to over-simplify a problem. Also, the greater the number of specific situations and subtleties involved, the more likely a human being will want to deal with issues using generalized facts. When we compare modern complexities with those of colonial days, it is easy to see how much more difficult it is to be a good citizen in today's world. In today's world, context is more complex for almost every problem.
Technidigm-2000 reverses all of this by seeking out and encouraging personal integrity and by keeping things in their proper context. Technidigm-2000 responds to off-the-level professional politicians and to the less ethical elements of the news media by providing a mechanism for simplifying context. Technidigm-2000 is a means of simplifying context.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page