Not Understanding Someone Is Not Evidence Against Them

There is a subtle move we make when another person does not make sense to us.

We treat our lack of understanding as evidence about them.

They are irrational.

They are immature.

They are difficult.

They are impossible to talk to.

Sometimes those judgments may contain useful observations.

But one fact should be established first: I do not yet understand them.

That is information about the relationship between my current frame and their behavior.

It is not automatically a diagnosis of the other person.

The distinction matters because judgment closes inquiry quickly.

Once the person has been explained as the problem, curiosity can feel unnecessary.

What are they responding to?

What matters to them that I have not seen?

What assumptions am I making about how a reasonable person should speak, dress, decide, react, or care?

Understanding does not require agreement.

It does not require approving of harmful conduct or abandoning boundaries.

It asks us to stop using confusion as proof.

Sometimes another person really is behaving badly.

Sometimes we simply do not yet know enough.

Knowing which is which begins by admitting the difference.