Conveyed Confusion

Being in linguistics, and an analytical speaker of certain tongues, the topic and theme of communication isn't entirely foreign to my brain.

Specific-yet-generally speaking, men and women, for example, tend to understand geography in very different ways. Whereas it might be more communicative for a man to hear "drive north on Yonge, then head east on Sheppard. After the third set of lights, turn north again onto xxx dr., house number 34," a woman would be more comfortable with, "go up on Yonge, then turn right on Sheppard. After about a 4-minute drive, turn left. It'll be the green house on the left."

And while I cannot argue with the fact that directions given by women are effective for women, the same cannot be said when a woman is giving directions to a man. I say this not out of personal spite against all women, but rather from personal experience and random psychology studies (which we all know are very conclusive and totally reliable). In any case, as my sister tried to explain to me, the whole relativistic left-right business is effective because it gives the quick and immediate direction for the driver, without having to keep track of any cardinal direction. As for men, I think the beauty of the cardinal directions help with the general geometry of locations, relative to each other. (Thus, we know that Toronto, Montreal and New York City make a large triangle, and that London, Hamilton and Toronto form a rough line, tracing the northern coast of Lake Ontario.)

But despite this "well-documented" phenomena, I have found a certain common communicative confusion with both men and women in the way that I personally explain things. I've noticed that when met with a question, I would answer with a story -- a story which I start from the beginning, instead of starting from the ending, and back-pedaling to the front. (The idea that concepts make more sense in chronological order than antichronological order.) But maybe that's just me.

For example, if I were asked why fire doesn't have a chemical composition (unlike water, which is H20), I might start first with a review of atomic theory. bizzare, I know, but apparently this approach has caused more than one person, of more than one gender or sex to be confused as to why I would respond with a seemingly unrelated topic.

And in thinking about how and why this confuses others, I've become curious about how others would have addressed the same, or similar questions -- questions that cannot be easily and directly answered without the aid of allegories or analogies. Although, with analogies, you're basically describing its relationship as being similar to a more familiar phenomenon instead of actually explaining why things exist in such a state.

Curious, isn't it.