Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

We all have heard the adage “Say what you mean, and mean what you say.”  And that advice usually strikes us as being sound.  Why say something that you don’t mean?’  You know potential answers to that question.  Some obvious ones that readily come to mind, for instance, are that we fear hurting someone’s feelings and/or of diminishing our standing in their eyes.  There are a thousand “good” reasons not to truly say what we mean or truly mean what we say.  

What do all the potential reasons have in common?  They all depend on what psychologists call “mindreading.”  When we consider what to say to someone we must explicitly or implicitly “decide” what to say.  Another way to frame the issue is to consider whether mindreading is distinctly separate from or merely a sub-part of metacognition (thinking about thinking, in general).  That is, when you try to guess what another person thinks or will think, is that process different from how you think about your own internal thoughts?  Some theoretical and experimental psychologists say “yes” and some say, “no.”

I do not propose to have the answer—only to have you consider the concepts.  I do so because I believe that your mindreading and metacognition tendencies are critical for your mental health.  

Let’s begin with metacognition, since it is the more general issue.  Metacognition essentially is listening to your thoughts as objectively as possible—being aware of the thoughts that course through your mind. In the verbal realm, for instance, that means tuning-in to the denotations and connotations of what you say.  Denotations are dictionary-derived and connotations are specific to an individual speaker or listener.  If I say, “You are tough,” I could mean that you are a resilient person or one who is hard to deal with.  And you could make either interpretation, depending on your connotative predilection.  I know which meaning I intended by using my metacognition and you presume what I meant through your metacognition.

If you accept Carruthers’ position (2015), metacognition and mindreading are intimately related.  Extrapolating from his theory, one would expect that those accustomed to attending to their own thoughts are better prepared to imagining the thoughts of other people.   Moreover, Carruthers believes metacognition and mindreading depend on similar resources.  It makes intuitive sense that persons unaccustomed to monitoring their own thoughts would be unlikely to think sufficiently about the thoughts of others.  Carruthers also showed experimentally that when one’s metacognitive resources are diminished so too are their mindreading resources.  

Like any other capability, some people are more naturally predisposed toward the introspection that facilitates metacognition and mindreading; they have developed the facilitative habit, and, therefore, have an easier time monitoring and understanding their own thoughts and comments, and those of others.  But, even for those so predisposed, metacognition and mindreading require effort.  Fatigue, anxiety and other stressors disrupt their habit and can cause them to think and say things out of character.  All these challenges, of course, are greater for those disinclined toward introspection.

Whether or not you believe that metacognition and mindreading are directly related, you probably will concede that both capacities are important for your awareness of self and others, as well as for your interpersonal relationships and general mental health.                 

What is the lesson for “Say what you mean, and mean what you say?”  You can decide that for yourself.  But, I conclude that, whenever possible, before I speak I must think about what I truly believe (metacognition) and what I imagine my conversation partner will think (mindreading) if I communicate what I truly believe.  If I determine that my true thoughts would be unacceptable to my partner, I need to make another decision.  Is it more important to be authentic, or to be diplomatic?  Moreover, I need to consciously decide whether being authentic may cause me interpersonal stress.  One way to diminish the risk of that stress would be to tactfully question your conversation partner before making a comment that your mindreading suggests will be unacceptable to her or him.  I bet you can think of some other strategies.

However you accomplish it, using metacognition and mindreading succesfully enables you to thoughtfully and deliberately say what you mean and mean what you say.

Reference:

Carruthers, P. (2015).  Mindreading in adults: evaluating two-systems views.  Synthese, 194 , 673–688.