I have always been curious about why we don’t hear each other, why we get into conflicts, and how the very mechanism of communication works. It is fairly obvious that conflicts often arise not from ill intent, but from basic mismatches in communication styles. These differences are subtle, often unconscious, and can lead to growing tension, alienation, and misunderstanding—even when both sides are convinced they are acting reasonably. I am gradually getting into the habit of analyzing dialogues to see what exactly went wrong and what could have been done better.
Roughly speaking, conflicts most often arise at the intersection of the rational and the emotional. Of course, both styles have value: the rational approach helps find solutions, while the emotional approach helps maintain connection and trust. Conflict emerges when one style dominates or when the other is unrecognized and ignored.
What are the key differences in focus, goals, tone, expectations, emotional styles, and ethical approaches that subtly shape every interaction—and can we learn to recognize and overcome them?
Why do We Communicate?
Let’s start by asking ourselves: why do we communicate at all? The general answer is simple: it allows us to satisfy a basic need for connection with others and to influence the world around us. If we look deeper, we can identify several main reasons:
- Sharing information — exchanging knowledge, experience, facts, or arranging actions.
- Self-expression — expressing thoughts, emotions, values, and identity.
- Creating and maintaining relationships — friendships, partnerships, professional or family ties.
- Regulating social interaction — setting rules, boundaries, and agreements.
- Seeking support and safety — receiving empathy, help, or sharing burdens.
- Influence and persuasion — changing others’ thoughts, moods, or behavior.
- Co-creating meaning — discussing, interpreting, and making sense of reality.
At this stage, a potential conflict of interests becomes clear. For example, when I write, I most often aim to express myself, influence the state of affairs, share burdens, and perhaps most importantly — to formulate and co-create meaning. Meanwhile, people come to my texts with their own goals, such as expressing themselves, seeking empathy for their own problems, or attempting to influence me (that same desire to affect the world). Therein lies the conflict.
Key dimensions of communicative mismatch
Focus: What attention is directed toward
Example of a conflict: one person focuses on the emotional reality (e.g., “I’m hurting.”), while the other focuses on practical solutions (e.g., “Here’s how I avoid this pain.”). The result: the first feels unheard, the second feels misunderstood. Both believe the other is missing the point.
Goal: What each person aims to achieve
One person seeks recognition, empathy, and connection, while the other offers advice, strategies, or analysis. If the first person’s need for empathy, sharing, and self-expression is not acknowledged and is instead met with practical advice, the dialogue is already doomed. The result: the first feels rejected or corrected; the second believes they are helping or remaining neutral — failing to notice the openness and vulnerability of the other. Each continues to “stick to their own line,” generating increasing mutual resistance and rejection.
Expectations: What each person considers acceptable in the conversation
One expects emotional safety (a space to feel rather than fix, a space just to be). The other assumes that intellectual discussion or rational exchange is appropriate. The result: one opens up, while the other criticizes, rephrases, or fills the space with themselves — and trust collapses instantly.
Tone: HOW something is said — detached or connected
One speaks personally and emotionally. The other maintains a cold, detached, or abstract tone. The result: the emotional speaker feels vulnerable or shamed; the rational one feels proud of their objectivity.
Ethical approach: What each person considers “right”
One considers it right to express emotions and thoughts, even chaotically—it exists for expression. The other believes it is right to remain calm and keep everything under control, even in pain. The result: they not only disagree—they judge each other’s style as ethically wrong. For example, one may believe sharing personal experiences is always appropriate, while the other thinks it can be inappropriate in certain contexts (a personal celebration on a day of mourning).
Four hidden pitfalls of dialogue
Even well-meaning people often fall into them, especially when they believe they are acting constructively.
1. Advice disguised as empathy
“Here’s what helps me not feel what you’re feeling.”
Although presented as support, it actually means: “You shouldn’t feel what you feel.”
The focus shifts from the speaker’s experience to the listener’s strategy, often shutting down the vulnerability that was just shared.
2. Devaluation through comparison
“This doesn’t affect me—and here’s why.”
It sounds innocent but implies: “If this affects you, the problem is your sensitivity.”
The result: the emotionally open person is subtly labeled as irrational, weak, or “not yet grown up.”
3. Prioritizing intention over emotional reality
“I didn’t mean to hurt you.”
The intention matters—but so does the impact. If someone says, “I’m hurt,” the response shouldn’t be, “Well, I didn’t mean to.” This reduces their pain to a misunderstanding instead of acknowledging it as a signal.
4. Rational superiority
“I follow principles that help me stay balanced.”
This may be true—and we must always remember the multiplicity of truths. But when shared in response to someone else’s pain, it can sound cold, even condescending—especially if these principles are presented as universally superior.
Mutual responsibility in dialogue
From the text above, it seems that the main weight rests on the listener: they risk giving advice, devaluing, or rationalizing. But in reality, the mismatch is created by both parties—the speaker and the listener.
Responsibility of the conversation initiator
- State the need clearly. Say directly: “Right now, what I need is not advice, but for you to simply listen.”
- Acknowledge the other person’s boundaries. If the listener is tired or lacks resources, it does not mean a lack of respect.
- Avoid hidden expectations. Speaking emotionally while demanding a rational response (or vice versa) also creates conflict.
Responsibility of the listener
- Clarify the need instead of guessing. Ask: “Do you want advice, or just for me to listen?”
- Pause the impulse to fix. Often the first reaction is to help through action, but the best approach is to provide space.
- Reflect rather than evaluate. “I hear that you’re angry/upset” instead of “Don’t take it to heart.”
Role mirroring
The initiator and the listener constantly switch roles. Yesterday you shared your pain; today you are the listener. Therefore, it is important to see yourself in both roles and practice empathy both toward yourself and toward the other person.
A simple “meeting halfway” algorithm
- The initiator states: “What’s important to me is ___ (empathy/advice/space).”
- The listener clarifies: “Do I understand correctly that what you need is ___?”
- Together, they agree on the format: listen without commenting, discuss solutions, or simply sit in silence together.
How to recognize a mismatch in communication
Ask yourself:
- Am I trying to fix something that isn’t a problem for the other person?
- Am I shifting the focus of the conversation to my own worldview instead of staying in theirs?
- Have I paused to ask: “What do you need from me right now—support, reflection, or just space?”
- Am I trying to prove I’m right while the other person is trying to show that they are hurt?
If the answer is “yes” — stop. You don’t have to agree with someone else’s feelings to acknowledge that they are real.
Communication is Not Just About Words — it’s Also About Power
The power to set the rules of a conversation often belongs to the person who sounds calmer, clearer, or more rational. But sounding calm is not the same as being right. A person can speak in a quiet, rationalizing tone and still devalue your experience, undermine your trust in them, or emotionally gaslight you—even unintentionally.
True communication requires humility. And this means:
- Listening not only to the words but also to the cost at which they are spoken.
- Giving space to the pain, without rushing to label, comfort, or fix it.
- Acknowledging when your “objectivity” is, in fact, a form of emotional detachment.
The way forward: restoration, not domination
Healthy dialogue does not mean “agreeing” or “calming down.” It means:
- Seeing the other person’s frame of reference.
- Naming mismatches when they arise: “It seems we are having two different conversations. Can we pause and clarify what each of us needs?”
- Honoring emotional risk, especially when someone speaks from a place of trauma.
- Taking responsibility not only for what you meant, but also for how it was received (affective responsibility ❤️).
Interestingly, these same mechanisms also appear in our self-communication: internal devaluation, “rational superiority” over our own emotions.
Examples of dialogues
| Situation | Unsuccessful dialogue | Rational response | “Pulling the blanket over yourself” | A closer version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A person shares their pain | A: I’m out of strength, I’m exhausted. B: Well, everyone’s tired right now, nothing surprising. | A: I’m out of strength, I’m exhausted. B: You need to plan your day better, or you’ll burn out. | A: I’m out of strength, I’m exhausted. B: Pff! I didn’t sleep at all yesterday and I was at work too. | A: I’m out of strength, I’m exhausted. B: I hear you. Do you need to vent right now, or would you like some advice? |
| A person asks for advice | A: I don’t know how to handle this project. B: Don’t worry about it; it will work out somehow. | A: I don’t know how to handle this project. B: Just make a list and tackle things one by one—it always works. | A: I don’t know how to handle this project. B: Oh, I had an even tougher task last week—I barely survived. | A: I don’t know how to handle this project. B: Do you want me to share how I usually handle it, or would you rather just vent? |
| Emotional pain | A: What you said hurt me. B: I was joking, don’t exaggerate. | A: It hurts me, what you said. B: It’s just a fact, you’re overreacting emotionally. | A: It hurts me, what you said. B: You don’t even know how much I’m hurting from everything I’m going through. | A: It hurts me, what you said. B: I didn’t mean to hurt you. Help me understand how you heard my words. |
Conclusion: misunderstanding is not a flaw, but a signal
Most of us were never taught to say, “I’m hurting,” “I need you to listen, not solve,” or “You’re crossing a boundary, even if you don’t mean to.” And most of us were never taught to hear these words without a defensive reaction: “That’s your problem,” “It’s just your perception.”
If we knew how to do this, conversations wouldn’t have to turn into battles. It would reduce the gap and the loneliness.
Explore further:
- Marshall Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication – a classic on nonviolent communication.
- Psychology Today – Communication Articles – articles on the psychology of communication and conflicts.
- Greater Good Science Center – Active Listening & Empathy – research-based practices for empathetic listening.
- Gottman Institute – Conflict & Communication – research on family communication and constructive conflict resolution.
