We don’t simply misunderstand what people say. We misunderstand what their communication means.
When we don’t understand something, we fill the gap. We make assumptions. We create explanations. We tell ourselves stories about the other person.
Sometimes those stories are accurate; often, they aren’t.
When the person communicates differently from what we consider “normal,” those assumptions can become particularly powerful, but not always in a good way.
This is where myths, stigma, and misinformation enter the picture.
An Everyday Communication Failure
You send someone a text. They read it. They don’t respond, and almost immediately, your brain starts drafting the story; it makes assumptions.
They’re upset. They’re ignoring me. I must have said something wrong, or maybe they’re being rude.
But here’s the problem: you don’t actually know if there is a problem. You have information about what happened; they didn’t respond. You don’t necessarily have information about why it happened, but you have made an assumption.
This is important because what we observe isn’t necessarily what we understand.
Three layers of Communication and Interpretation
I believe there are layers that we need to consider.
Layer 1 – What actually happened. We need to examine what we actually know about communication and appreciate how our expectations may be affecting our understanding.
The facts could be that the person we are trying to communicate with didn’t make eye contact. They may have interrupted. They may have given a shorter answer than we expected. They may not have responded as immediately as we wanted. Maybe they sent a very brief email, or they may have talked at length about something, which was too much, or maybe they avoided a phone call.
Layer 2 – What we think it means. This interpretation is key. We may decide intuitively based on our biases that they are rude, uninterested, not listening, difficult, they’re socially awkward, they don’t care, they’re not confident, and they’re not professional.
We often trust ourselves to make these judgements, often without considering alternative explanations. I know I have been guilty of doing this.
Layer 3 — What else might be happening
This is the layer we often skip. We need to consider that maybe the person is processing what we have tried to communicate; maybe they’re overwhelmed by what we said or by something else we are not aware of; maybe they’re concentrating; maybe the form of our communication is not their preferred or the best way of communication to allow them to express themselves more clearly; maybe they’re anxious. Maybe they misunderstood the question, and/or maybe they’re excited about the subject.
The important warning: Don’t replace one assumption with another. We need to realize the point isn’t that they didn’t make eye contact, so therefore they’re not paying attention. The point is that “They didn’t make eye contact, but I don’t actually know why.”
That distinction is crucial.
Stories we tell ourselves
As a species, humans don’t like uncertainty. When information is missing, we have a tendency to fill the space, often without consciously realizing it. Unfortunately, we often fill it with what we already believe.
For example, if someone doesn’t make eye contact well, we will often assume they are not listening. If someone provides a blunt answer, we assume they are rude. If someone doesn’t answer immediately, we assume they don’t understand. If someone talks about themselves too much, we assume they are self-centered. If someone interrupts, then they must be disrespectful. If someone avoids phone calls, then they must be a poor communicator. If someone asks too many questions, then they are difficult. If someone doesn’t engage, then they are unfriendly. If they don’t pick up on nuance or sarcasm, then they lack social skills, and if they don’t communicate like everyone else, then they are not a good fit.
But what we need to ask ourselves, since their behavior is real, what if our interpretation is what is wrong?
Myth → Stigma → Misinformation
Confusion, wrong assumptions, and a bias towards past explanations are all problems, and each contributes to myths, stigma, and misinformation, and all are harmful.
Myth – A simplified belief about how people behave, for example, “People who don’t make eye contact aren’t listening.”
Stigma – The negative judgment attached to that belief. People who don’t make eye contact aren’t listening; therefore, they aren’t professional.
Misinformation – The conclusion we make based on the myths and stigma. People who don’t make eye contact, don’t listen, they aren’t professional, and “Therefore, they wouldn’t be a good employee.”
Suddenly, something as seemingly insignificant as eye contact can influence someone’s employment and becomes about opportunity, exclusion, and fairness.
Neuroinclusion connection
People who think and process information differently are neurodiverse. Being neurodiverse is not better or worse than neurotypical people. What is important to realize is that anyone who communicates, processes information, interpret social cues differently is just as entitled to the same rights, opportunities, and life as anyone else.
The important message shouldn’t be: “Here’s how neurodivergent people communicate.” That risks creating another set of stereotypes. Instead: There isn’t one neurodivergent way of communicating any more than there is one neurotypical way of communicating.
The real issue is our tendency to treat difference as deficiency.
The Online Problem
Communication isn’t just face-to-face anymore. We communicate through email, text, messaging apps, social media, video calls, online interviews, résumés, and cover letters.
Every one of these has strengths and weaknesses, and all remove some part of traditional human communication.
With text, we can’t hear tone. With email, we can’t see expression. Both of these give the illusion of interactive communication, but they aren’t really.
With video, we may obsess over eye contact and body language, both of which are discriminatory to neurodiverse people.
With social media, we often know almost nothing about the person behind the words, nor do we know if what they present is true or not.
Yet, with each, we confidently interpret them, and as a result, technology hasn’t eliminated communication bias. In some cases, it has amplified it.
Because when information disappears, assumptions rush in to replace it.
An uncomfortable question.
Our workplaces can be a breeding ground for myths, stigma, and misunderstandings. Consider the progression: a person with an unconventional resume that is designed to stand out can be rejected because it doesn’t conform to someone’s belief of what a resume should be. The cover letter may be seen as it “doesn’t sound enthusiastic enough.” In the interview, a person may have been seen as not making enough eye contact. If they were nervous or anxious, they may have “talked around the question.” Perhaps because of this nervousness, they paused to consider the question, and the interviewer assumed they “Didn’t seem confident.”
Perhaps their interview follow-up email was deemed to be “Too brief.” As a result, the interviewer could easily say their communication style was “Not a culture fit.”
In my experience, this is not an isolated example, but the uncomfortable question that needs to be asked is “How much of that was actually about their ability to do the job?”
This is an important one because we can take a communication preference and turn it into a judgment about competence.
I’ve spent enough time working with job seekers to know that what looks obvious from across a desk isn’t always obvious when you understand the person sitting in the chair. I’ve watched people get judged on how they answer a question, how quickly they answer it, whether they make eye contact, or whether their resume looks like everyone else’s. Sometimes those things tell us something useful. Sometimes they tell us almost nothing about whether the person can actually do the work.
What’s wrong with most interviews
Employers often say they want to know: Can this person do the job? Unfortunately, many conventional interviews measure much more than that.
Often they measure speed of response, eye contact, conversational style, confidence, body language, ability to interpret ambiguous questions, ability to make small talk, ability to tell stories, and ability to perform under pressure.
Some of those things may matter for some jobs. Some may have surprisingly little relationship to actual job performance.
This creates another uncomfortable question: Are we assessing someone’s ability to do the work, or simply their ability to perform the version of communication we are most comfortable receiving?
Turning the lens around
The solution is not about “How can neurodivergent people communicate better?” Instead, it’s about “How can the rest of us become better receivers?”
Communication requires at least two people. Mostly we talk endlessly about the responsibility of the sender, but what responsibility does belongs to the receiver?
The receiver brings their own experiences, expectations, biases, cultural assumptions, communication preferences, fears, and stereotypes into the conversation.
Therefore, communication isn’t simply about what is sent. It’s also about what the receiver does with what they receive.
Performance vs Communication
Our society has created an enormous number of unwritten communication rules, such as: Look at me when I’m talking, Don’t interrupt, Answer quickly, Smile, Use a firm handshake (although, post-COVID this is less of a factor), Use the right tone, Don’t talk too much, Don’t talk too little, understand and appreciate nuance and sarcasm, Read between the lines, and Know what I mean without asking.
Then often we sometimes call people who don’t naturally follow those rules: poor communicators.
What we should be asking: Are we teaching people how to communicate, or teaching them how to perform communication in a way that makes the rest of us comfortable?
Curiosity before Conclusion
This is a simple principle. Instead of thinking “They’re being rude.” Try, “I’m not sure what they meant.”
Instead of “They’re not interested.” Try “I wonder if something is getting in the way.”
Instead of “They don’t understand.” Try “Maybe I haven’t explained it clearly enough.”
Instead of: “They aren’t a good communicator.” Try: “What communication method allows them to communicate most effectively?”
This isn’t about being endlessly accommodating. It’s about not confusing assumption with evidence.
The PQR Rule
Moving forward, I suggest adopting this tool. When speaking with anyone you encounter who has different ways of communicating, try this approach: Pause – don’t immediately interpret their behavior. Instead, ask the question: What else could explain it? Then Reframe: instead of judging the person, consider whether the communication environment is working for both people.
For example: If someone interrupts you, Pause, then ask the Question: “Why might they have interrupted?” then Reframe: “Perhaps I should clarify expectations around taking turns.”
The PQR rule is Simple. Practical. Human.
Don’t create more Stereotypes.
Not every unusual behavior is caused by neurodiversity, and not every neurodivergent person behaves in the same way. I am not arguing that we should replace old assumptions with new ones. It’s that we should become more comfortable with not immediately knowing.
We all want to be understood.
Every one of us has experienced being misunderstood. Someone interpreted our tone incorrectly. Someone assumed something about our intentions. Someone judged us on a moment. Someone decided who we were before they actually knew us.
Yet often we sometimes do exactly the same thing to others. If we want other people to give us the benefit of the doubt, then perhaps we need to become better at giving it.
The very human costs
Getting communication wrong isn’t always harmless. It can mean: A friendship ends or is strained, a qualified candidate doesn’t get hired, an employee is labelled difficult, a student is misunderstood, someone stops participating and/or stops asking questions, and someone stops trying.
Too often, Someone begins believing the story other people have been telling about them.
That’s where the stakes become very human.
The final question
As leaders and managers, co-workers and colleagues, and friends and family, “How often are we willing to do the work of understanding someone else?”
We aren’t necessarily lost because people communicate badly; sometimes we’re lost because our assumptions have become the map. If the map is built from myths, stigma, and misinformation, we’re going to keep arriving at the wrong destination.
Maybe the next time someone communicates differently than we expect, we don’t need to decide what it means quite so quickly. Maybe we can pause. Maybe we can become curious. Maybe we can ask one more question before reaching one more conclusion.
Sometimes the person we’re struggling to understand isn’t failing to communicate. We’re simply interpreting their communication through a lens that doesn’t fit.
We become Lost in Our Own Biases.
Paul