If people communicated better, do you think there'd be less hostility and aggression in this world?

Answer 1

What do you mean by that? What the hell are you trying to say?

...Yes. A great deal of the frustration I feel on a daily basis comes from simple failures to communicate. But communication takes two... a big part of the problem is that people don't listen very well.

Answer 2

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking of the Babel fish from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". By translating everyone's thoughts into their opponents' languages, it contributed to renewing hostilities rather than ending them.

In real life, not speaking the same language as your opponent gives both sides "wiggle room" -- by not saying directly what they mean, people might gain time they otherwise wouldn't. On the flipside, this enforced ambiguity could lead to disaster.

One commonly cited incident refers to Japan in 1945 when it was contacted by the Allies about surrendering. The Japanese response to the Allies' statement about a new weapon (which turned out to be the atomic bombs) they would use if they didn't surrender was rendered something like, "We must be given time to consider the matter."

Especially Truman interpreted THAT as "no", and the rest in history. However, Japanese rarely say "no" directly -- I don't remember if there's a word for it in the Japanese language. Instead, each language utilizes varying degrees of ambiguity -- "liquidation" for "murder" in the old Soviet Union, doublethink in George Orwell's "1984" -- to make negotiation and concession possible between disparate societies.

Okay, okay, what's the answer to your question? No. To paraphrase Van Loon, similar languages do not prevent conflict any more than different ones bring them about. During the American Civil War, both North and South spoke a common language, but this didn't prevent them from going to war with each other. That's true of any civil war, especially true with larger populations (e.g. Europe's Middle Ages, where Latin was the lingua franca -- or would it be "lingua latina"?) due to struggles over finite resources, the base cause of any war. And it doesn't take a war to develop hostility and aggression in this world; rather, war wouldn't exist without them against one another, no matter what meanings we attach to things.

Answer 3

Absolutely! Look at DUMBO in the White House! If he had any common sense at all and if he paid attention to and listened to the UN investigators who stated in their reports that there were no WMDs in Iraq we woul not be murdering innocents in the Middle East!

The guy is a moron who does not listen and lacks all the skills of communication, and as long there are faithful followers to his cause this world would continue to be a hostile and aggressive place!

You seem to be a cultured and well groomed person, the world needs more people like you, not haters like DUMBO in the W-House and his chronies.

As long as the greed for world dominance and control of OIL is DISGUISED as the "war on terror" we are going to have continued and ever growing hatred for our people and country. Our national slogan needs to be "God Save us From the Mad Bushes and their Chronies" not "God Bless America"!

Answer 4

I think so Laura, it would still be around though..Nature of the Beast , wanting what the beast wants and all. But yes it would come down with better understanding from communicating better. Dissagreements and hostilities would be based on real and honest information....and that too can change ?? Human growth Ahhh! Nice .

Answer 5

No, lots of people have dramatically different ways of thinking.

I think if they really want to lower hostility and aggression in the world, they would outlaw religion.

Answer 6

oh, yes......i think as human beings that is our greatest problem....lack of communication.......

Answer 7

most definitely.