Half Full: Don’t Attribute Motives to Others

One of the biggest problems in any relationship (family, friends, classroom) occurs when there is miscommunication. Unfortunately, one of the most painful mistakes that people make is imputing motives to someone else's behavior. Take as an example two friends named Kyle and Eric.
"Well, Kyle said such and such to Eric, and so he must have

But Eric, no doubt, interpreted Kyle's comment by filtering it through his own personal history and culture, and Kyle's history and culture might actually be quite different. Now Eric is full of pain because he thinks Kyle intended to hurt him, and Kyle ends up feeling pain because he senses Eric's anger or sees Eric pulling away from their friendship. Eric imputes motives on Kyle's behavior, because in his past whenever something like that was said, it was meant to hurt.

Kyle might actually be completely dumbfounded by the situation. He may have been joking in the way that his other friends and family were accustomed. He may have been ignorant of which subjects were sensitive to Eric. He may not have learned the same sort of manners. Then again, he may have been angry at Eric and spouted off without considering his words carefully. He might not even realize how painful his words came across.

So here sits Eric, angry that Kyle meant to hurt him, and ignoring his texts. He doesn't want to confront him because he figures it was intentional and he also figures that it will do no good. Best to just let it go (but not be in a position to let it happen again.) And here sits Kyle, wondering why Eric has excuses not to hang out with him, not even realizing that any harm was done, because in his heart he didn't "mean" anything by what he said.

There needs to be a one-on-one conversation. “What did you mean when you said ____?” Or “When you said ______, I took it as meaning _______ - can you explain?” There’s no opportunity to set things right if there’s no honest interaction.

It’s a good idea to always consider that the ball is in YOUR court instead of putting the responsibility on the other person. A good example is found in the Christian religion when the offended person is told to go to the offender, but the offender is also told to go to the person he offended. You have got to find out the truth of what happened AND why, so apologies can be made, if needed.

The truth is that most of the time we don't really know why someone acts as they do. So both Kyle and Eric have the responsibility to approach the other and resolve to come to a true understanding of what took place. Until then, Eric should give Kyle the benefit of the doubt, and not attribute motives to him.

Ask, don't assume.