The Heart of the Matter: Meaning and the Failure of Facts

I’ve seen couples argue over what seems to be the most trivial of issues. At one time in my office, a couple spent nearly an entire session on whether an argument they had happened one week, or three weeks, prior. When I think about it, it doesn’t seem that outrageous compared to some of the nit-picky topics I have carried on about. It’s easy to watch young siblings snipe back and forth and see how ridiculous it all appears. For those siblings, and all of us, our arguments are fueled by what seem to be solid, irrefutable, facts. It is with this surety that we who are arguing are certain to take the prize. If we present what cannot be refuted, then (it stands to reason) the other side will see how right we are and concede—obviously!

The problem with this line of thought is that it seldom works, especially for those swept up in the emotion of a real barnburner. When two people argue (depending on their style of communication) they are usually trying to get the other person to understand them on two levels: thought and feeling (using all kinds of techniques). Facts can only work a small fraction of each of those. When one person says, “You walked in the house and did not say hello to me” (a fact), the other may fire off, “No, I said hello and you didn’t hear me” (another fact), neither are happy or appeased in their argument—neither thought nor feelings being understood.

In a court of law, the facts reign supreme. Two opposing sides come together, present their case, and a jury (or judge) must decide by weighing out the facts. In many courthouses, the statue of Justitia wears a blindfold, carrying a scale in her left hand, and a sword in her right—each serving as symbols of how difficult it can be to manage facts. As individuals, we are want to argue like they do on the court shows: presenting a solid case that cannot be denied. The problem with this tack is that we are not lawyers! (and we are definitely not impartial as Justitia’s blindfold represents) We are husbands, wives, children, parents, friends and workmates, all hoping to be understood.  

We can continue to fool ourselves into thinking that it is the facts that drive our feelings in the argument (thus, if we prove the facts as any good lawyer would then our feelings will be validated!) and so we miss the mark: what is driving the facts (and our attempt to foist our facts on our opponent) is the meaning behind the facts we present. Meaning is pushing both the thoughts and feelings we are trying to convey. Still need convincing? The following are five reasons why facts are secondary and meaning reigns supreme in the court of “relational law”. Not to be ignored, five reasons why meaning is most important follow.

How facts fail us:

1.      They can be argued and disputed—open to interpretation.

Part of the reason we go back and forth about facts is because they can be fuzzy—partly based on our memory of them. Memory, it has been found, can be a very impressionable and inaccurate tool. Add to this that it’s not just our memory that is the problem, it is how we interpret our memory of the situation. We may remember a man running down the street as fleeing from an aggressor, or having just stolen a wallet. Unless we are ready to draw him out and hear what he has to say, or witnesses if we can find them, we are left with only our interpretation of what he was doing. Such guesswork (or filling in the gaps) can leave us with an impression off point. Carry this over to relationships and we get ourselves in trouble. I have seen many people arguing from each of their own perspectives (what I call different corners of the truth) and missing the real point entirely.

Closely related to the facts being argued lies with the presenter (that is, the speaker at any given time) marrying the tightly held conviction that their facts are obviously more valuable than another’s. We have this idea that our interpretations are accurate while others are flawed. This leaves us dissecting what others say to us while at the same time attempting to drive home our point one more time. This oh so mild narcissism launches off the idea that we have just a bit more figured out than our opponent: Not that they are dumb or uninformed, (thought sometimes we definitely think so) just that they don’t see as much as we do, of course. This has shown itself in the political and personal arena from time immemorial. As a result, we will cut off, talk over, and condescend as we try to straighten them out. A corollary to this is that we can be ruined when someone else sees it another way—which then spills over to the meaning side of things!

2.      They are cold and impersonal—creating further separation from others and the deeper meaning.

As we build our case: gathering evidence, dissecting another’s argument, and shoring up our ammo, we can have a very difficult time asking ourselves why this argument is so important to us. In fact, the whole argument itself may be an attempt to meet a need, while at the same time attempting to avoid recognizing that need—a paradoxical crazy maker! In an exchange between two people, the goal should be to understand and connect, not win. Herein lies the problem: If we are only focused on the facts then we may be using them to win and not to grow in relationship and understanding to others. Facts are cold and impersonal, which may be what some of us are after in the short run. In the long run, however, we are left further separated and ill understood by those around us—losing valuable meaning. As we argue, the facts can serve as a shield to our hurts and hang-ups, a great distraction that, if we can get the other to concede, will keep us “safe” from going to that place of vulnerability held in the deeper meaning. This idea carries over to putting our being okay onto others—and even blaming them when they don’t come through.  Touching on the deeper meaning of what we are arguing may bring up some powerful feelings we are not ready to face; so, distance we will, distance we must!

3.      We think facts are the end and not the beginning.

The general rule is that facts should be used as a starting point and not the final destination—which we most often get reversed. We want to end with facts and then back away; not just that, but we want the other to accept our facts so we can back away. Remember number one: facts can (and will) be disputed; as such, we need to enter into discussions with the idea that we put facts into a common pool of understanding rather then throw them at each other. Authors Kerry Patterson et al in their book Crucial Conversations note that by adding our facts into the pool of understanding we can then begin to sort them out and make sense of them. What instead ends up happening is that the other person does not accept what we are saying at face value and so we want to be done with it. A variation of this is that we may enter a discussion with a “convince me” attitude and never quite get the slam dunk we see in the movies or on TV—so we launch into what we know is true. Hearing someone’s facts in the beginning with the attitude that it’s still way early in the game can help us get to that oh so precious meaning that will save the day.

4.      They bog us down, taking up valuable time and energy.

This is part of the reason why some of our arguments can last several hours before we get to the real stuff. In fact, the pattern of arguments based on the facts tend to go in a circular fashion: We state our case, we are rebuffed with alternative facts, we state why their facts are wrong and ours are correct, then we do it all over again, several times, until we feel we are understood, or we just give up entirely and hope the issue goes away—which it never does. I am convinced that arguable facts take away valuable time and energy from us that we could really use in other areas of our life.

5.      We assume that facts are what we are really after: We are not after facts, we are after our feelings being fixed.

I’ve been in the front row during enough couple’s arguments to see this rule at work (I’ve got the best job ever!).  In a previous post “Six Stages of Relational Conflict”, its pointed out the pattern that an argument loop takes. In this mix, we who are arguing are usually looking for one of two things to happen: either a). We want the other to make this bad feeling in us go away (to fix it!) or, b). We want to try and make the other feel as bad as we do in that moment; thus, we will say and do things to try and get them to feel how we feel. Either way, facts then become transformed into a blunt force object that gets us what we want—sort of. An example might include one side starting off with, “you didn’t call me” (a fact) which eventually turns into “you NEVER call because you’re a selfish pig!” (a “transformed” fact with a bayonet attached!). Such a process usually takes place over the course of the conflict when facts are argued, dismissed, rebutted and ignored. All because they don’t really get us what we want, which is to feel better. This can hold true for opposition in close relationships and political adversaries (where our facts become our identity to which we attach our feelings).

The importance of meaning:

1.      Meaning gets to the heart of the issue not the surface.

If we concede that facts will not ultimately get us what we want, we can then move toward the real heart of the issue. But there presents another problem: what is the real issue? It’s often difficult for us to even know the deeper issues that drive our push to be accepted (in argument or deed). For this we must back off of the facts and get to some feelings. In my previous post “Emotions: Yes or No, Pedestaled or Punished” I explore some of the benefits and drawbacks of our emotions. If we are able to stop and reflect, “What am I feeling here? Because? What does that say about me? Why is this so important to me that they accept my positon? We can begin to crack the surface of the heart of the matter. We may discover that, when our spouse gets distracted by work, we take it as not caring about or needing us—which is scary. Being able to say, “You did this….and I am believing this….and what that means to me is….” will enable us to get to our heart issues and then look past the distractions facts seem to offer.

2.      Meaning is deeper down and more difficult to articulate—especially when we are distracted by "facts".

Speaking of distraction, focusing on the cold and hard “truths” we want the other to accept can really become a barrier to the meaning that they hold. In this we must consider the right and left brain model. Although the whole brain is used in our everyday functions, scans reveal language and logic modes of thinking emanating from increased activity in the left side of the brain; whereas the right side of the brain holds emotional, relational and empathetic processes. When we are employing facts, we fire off the region of the brain that moves away from an empathetic and understanding response. As such the facts become the only “reality” some grow accustomed to focusing on. That’s why, when we argue with “Mr. or Mrs. Logic” they can’t seem to understand why it was such a big deal they were 15 minutes late for dinner, but we may be incensed by the seeming callousness with which they shrug off our pleas to be on time. I have also seen this exchange play out when one partner attempts to explain the hurt they are feeling while the other can only see a perfectly reasonable explanation for why they did what they did. 

Because facts tend to be the most ready weapon in reach, they will invariably keep us from reaching what we need most—understanding the meaning. This heart of the matter is way more difficult to get to and requires more drawing out, which we don’t want to do. It can be difficult to sit in our emotion (or others emotions, definitely). If we are able to set the facts down and help the other articulate what they are saying and feeling, we will get to the meaning that will then more readily lead to resolution. One popular technique is to get to “Three Yeses”, in which we ask questions of the other, clarify, expand and check for understanding until we hear three “yeses”—try it, it’s difficult, and its good!

3.      Meaning is far more powerful than any fact.

Though facts seem easy to us, and an okay weapon, they are not enough to sustain in relationships or past hardships. When we hear the stories of those who have lived through the most harrowing of circumstances, it’s a safe bet that they didn’t take a look around their dire situation, gather all the facts, and determine they were going to thrive. In fact, I would say the opposite would be true. If Louis Zamperini looked at his situation, either in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or as a prisoner of the Japanese during World War II, from only the perspective of the facts he could see, we would have never heard of his story in Unbroken. What we can gather from him and others like him is that they had a meaning that far outweighed the facts in front of them. Meaning drives us further: to push, to hope, to inspire and not concede. If we try and use facts to defeat meaning, we don’t stand a chance.

Given how powerful meaning can be it will be no small stretch to see that we will do most anything to protect it – even things we are later embarrassed by. When things get hot we may ramp up or shut down, all the while not knowing that there is meaning in our behavior. One example can be when we hear some pretty compelling facts and attempt to dismiss them outright (Recall the person who, when faced with all the facts replies: “Whatever”.); or, when it gets intense we bark out an angry reaction—often not knowing where it came from.

4.      Meaning is more difficult to argue.

I Take couples through a communication process that involves the following: what was seen and what was heard (or what wasn’t seen or heard), the story that is being believed by the speaker, the meaning of that story, feelings, and a request at the end. Where it’s true that the listener must be instructed on not explaining themselves (which we do as a means of dismissing and distancing) it is hard to tell someone, “no, that didn’t mean that to you”. What the listener must examine (if what the speaker is sharing is difficult to hear) is the meaning of what is being said rather than just attempt to explain away and dismiss. What meaning we hold in a situation belongs to the individual. When hearing someone out, the meaning the individual takes in a given situation may require some personal working through. What I have found is that when people cut others off and don’t let them explain (or when they want to justify their actions and statements to those that have been hurt) they most likely have not recognized the meaning they are attributing to what is being shared. What I encourage them to do is not fire back but to dig deep and ask themselves: “When he wants to bring up this subject, what does that mean to me? What am I feeling? Why is it so hard for me to listen?” In this way, the hearer can have to chance to not focus or be distracted by the facts but really get to what it means to them.

5.      Meaning speaks to who we truly are or truly want to be—our need.

When we listen to the meaning others are taking from a circumstance, or action that has occurred, and when we ask ourselves what meaning the areas and issues that bother us hold, we can get to the real issues that are getting in the way of connection and understanding. This can be a difficult prospect given all the very good reasons we employ our facts—after all, we’ve done it for quite some time and have become good at it! The meaning we attribute to most everything comes by way of the filter we have placed on it—which speaks to the deeper us and who we truly are. The reason why facts are so distracting is because we are trying to be connected beyond the fact level, in our deepest selves, but using facts to do so! When digging into ourselves we will begin to see what we really need. At times, to say we need something can have us feeling helpless and vulnerable, which can be excruciating. We may start off by blaming others for our feelings: “What this means to me is that you are making me feel bad!” But in all cases, we will need to take the focus off others or situations and bring it back to what our hurt says about us. “Which tells me that I look to you to make me happy, because I don’t feel complete in who I am.” From this example, we can then begin to touch upon our need: “I need to accept who I am and what I am feeling, not try and force others to deliver me from my discomfort.”

Remember, facts are not useless but we often use them incorrectly. We as people want connection, not facts. When we put our factual weapons down and take the time and energy to get to the heart of the matter: the meaning, we will find the better win comes in understanding one another. If you are in need of connection with yourself or others, a good therapist can help you get to your true need. If you have any other questions, leave a comment on my Facebook page Chris Oneth LMFT; or, if you would like to see my other articles and posts visit my website at www.marriagetherapistmodesto.com.

Blessings:

Chris