One of the biggest sources of unnecessary and often extreme friction in human interactions is the assumed context applied to observed facts.
People make up stories to explain an event, based on an assumed context for the event.
Better patterns could be found by asking what actually happened and listening to the participants’ observation of events. Instead, the facts are mentally re-arranged within some new assigned context which “perfectly” aligns with and supports some new story that is assembled.
First of all, all facts are contextual for their meaning. Much much much more so than most people realize. This applies to facts of all shapes and sizes, whatever materials or medium they are composed of.
And humans, drifting around humanoidally as they are wont to do, have a deep tendency to view the world lenticularly – similarly to viewing through a lens, they see most magnifiedly what is central to them ideologically or closest to them physically. And like Galileo’s accusers, feel they are quite entitled to assume that what they see and where they stand is somewhere close to, or at least within sight of, the center of the cosmos.
The assumed context for any fact, person, or occurrence which comes close enough to be viewed, is typically some portion of that context which functions as the matrix for all other events which one is accustomed to.
An example of this is laid out in the following story:
Have you ever had a case made against you, or gotten a bad review at work, because of someone’s assumptions of a completely different context for a factual event?
If you’re at all intelligent, especially if you’re an outside the box kinda person, I’ll bet you have.
Not so much if you’re a follower and blender inner play it safe type.
I’d like to hear your stories.