(The human mind, that dynamic tool beyond understanding.)

It is trite to say that we are all different, but I must take care to acknowledge the fact of our differences because I am naturally concerned that my observations about people’s attitudes are not seen out of context. In short, I am not writing about you. I am only seeking your agreement or disagreement about my observations, which may or may not apply to all those other unidentified people who exist somewhere out there and who are involved in the great mass of everyday communication.

Save for mundane communications which are simply ordinary everyday business, for example: a confirmation of an appointment, an acknowledgement of a simple order for everyday supplies, and also all the bundle of routine exchanges which are of a continual repetitive clerkish nature, receipt of written communications should be carefully considered. Of course, I am not saying that the routine exchanges in communications should not be carefully attended to, rather that there is a distinction between the routine communication and the non-routine communication.

If the last paragraph begins to look as though I am digging myself into a hole, then that is good because that is the truth of the matter. The problem with the receipt of written communications is about how to decide, at the time of receipt, which communications should be dealt with in the manner of simple routine matters and those which should be thought about more carefully. In one’s own environment it is usually quite easy to identify the obviously clerkish material ( e.g., the confirmation of an appointment) from the obviously critical communications (e.g., the receipt of a notice of a pending claim for damages) which require special attention. The problem is the mass of written communications that lie in between.

If one recognizes that the receipt of a particular written communication is something which requires special attention, then something can be done about it. If one fails to recognize such a communication, then no doubt one will be reminded about it at some time in the future and hopefully the circumstances of the reminder will still allow time to redeem one’s previous failure.

Let us say, for the purpose of this article, that one is about to recognize a written communication, which has just been received, as a communication that requires special attention.

When such a written communication is received, it is likely to have an impact upon the mind even before the detailed text is fully read. Once one has opened the communication (the envelope, the e-mail, or just that one sees the next piece of paper in the bundle that the secretary has placed upon one’s desk) one’s mind can begin to accelerate into hyperactivity at an alarming pace. That, as far as I know, is quite normal, although I have been told that some readers of text see only a reflection of the actual words in their minds. Be that as it may, I am quite certain that most readers will immediately note the source of the letter and any obvious subject matter; and I am also quite certain that before the text is even read there is, at the very least, some mental activity taking place about the source and the subject matter. Even more important, there is likely to be major subliminal activity.

Let us now move to the text itself. Many readers will glance across the totality of the text before reading the text in detail. Some people make a habit of looking to the final paragraph or a section headed ‘conclusion’ before reading anything else. However, the point which I am trying to make is that often a process takes place which is about looking at the text in a manner other than simply starting off with the first word and working sequentially through until the end of the text is reached. In the process of this, the eye will spot many things and the mind will be activated by such things. Even for the reader who claims to keep a blank mind until the text has been read sequentially from beginning to end, there is no real telling what actually takes place in the totality of mind.

However, I am not suggesting that there is a right or wrong way to approach reading a written communication, but there is a problem if the method used leads to a preconceived idea of what the communication actually says; and that perception is wrong.

It seems to me that if one recognizes the part which the mind plays, either in its conscious or sub-conscious activities, then one can begin to control that factor. At the very least, one can rely upon the old adage of sleep on it first before making a reply as being good advice. In fact, the actual date of a response to a written communication is often quite irrelevant to the issues involved when viewed in the context of disputes and in the context of reviewing written communications many years after the event. At such a time, the discussion is not usually about whether a communication was replied to within a day or two or even a week or two. Although sometimes the timing of a reply is important, more often than not the content is much more important.

I am reminded of hearing about one particular dispute where there were probably a hundred or so letters on one topic and the exchanges between the parties took place on a daily basis. The first letter in the sequence was from the main contractor. The letter stated that the details of the windows required clarification (there were hundreds of windows of varying types and sizes). The response from the architect acknowledged the contractor’s letter, but it did not deal with any of the points. Instead, the architect’s letter stated that upon a site inspection he had noticed that there were insufficient bricklayers and other trades and also he listed a range of quality points. The third letter, which was from the contractor, acknowledged the architect’s letter, but it did not deal with any of the issues raised by the architect. Instead, it simply repeated the text of the first letter. And so the sequence went on in a like manner for the hundred or so letters. Both parties were equally convinced of the value of their part of the total bundle of letters. The case was typically an example of what I would call parallel communication; points were continually being made but nothing was being addressed.

I wondered what was really in the minds of the parties. Many would offer suggestions about a writer’s fear to acknowledge a truth in the written communications being received, but at the same time highlighting a desire on the part of the writer to make advantageous points. I have heard of all sorts of reasons for such actions and, yet, most reasons would equate to the equivalent of the child who denies taking a piece of the cake even though the mother was in the same room at the time. However, I am sure that the problem is different. With the many examples that I could cite and I am sure you could also cite, there is more to the strange nature of the way people deal with responding to written communications than can be accounted for by many of the reasons generally promoted.

This is especially so when one considered the consistency of such failings which are recounted daily in the arena of dispute resolution, but, of course, the same failings would also be found in the remainder of correspondence which is not subject to the scrutiny which takes place when there is a dispute.

However, the simple fact is that people who are well qualified and experienced in their field of activity frequently do very strange things when it comes to responding to written communications. So much so that I am inclined to think that the mind is a more powerful influence in the process than is generally believed. More powerful in the sense that the person replying to the written communication is likely to believe, at the time of writing a response, that the response is driven by sound reasoning. And, yet, often much to the dismay of that writer, upon subsequent review of that written response by an arbitrator or a judge, the writer is told that reasoning was the one thing which was clearly absent.

(An article appeared in the last issue, no 53, January 2004, p. 17, ‘Disputes – written communications’, by the same author.)