Biased interpretation
All interaction is based on information, from chemical communication between bacteria, the color of flowers, or the human language I’m using right now. Among humans, the only language with shared and universal objectivity is mathematics —and for now, it doesn’t constitute an effective way to transmit opinions or emotions. Mathematics is objective because there exists an ‘absolute’ consensus about its meaning, functioning as a closed system that derives from itself, contrary to what happens with verbal or written communication.
Each word, phrase, intonation, or gesture is invariably tinted by the subjectivity of each individual’s personal and egocentric experience. The connotation we give to received information, filtered through our personal bias, makes everything and nothing truly judgeable, unless there’s a laborious prior exercise of definitions or prolonged exposure that allows for tacit understanding of these connotations.
Expressions like “for me this word means that” or “it sounds wrong to me because…” demonstrate this reality, especially notable among people who don’t know each other well. Deep understanding usually emerges after prolonged mutual exposure, either through shared time or immersion in the other’s thinking, as happens when reading a lot from the same author.
To reduce (since avoiding is impossible) this subjectivity, we could infinitely extend definitions and explanations, but this would be impractical and counterproductive to the very purpose of sharing. Therefore, given the brevity of the connection we establish here if we don’t know each other, let’s accept a certain margin of error and capture the essence of the content, to integrate it with our own knowledge and thus enrich our personal understanding of what we consider truth or valuable.