In this post we try to understand why, in our opinion, Russian and Iranian diplomats sometimes find it difficult to understand their American counterparts. We think that this arises from a word-action delta. We define word-action delta to be the difference between the mental model communicated via words and the mental model communicated via action.
We first understand how language can be used in two ways. One way to use language is to use it with more focus on emotions. So, one assumes that the other person is close enough to express their emotions and react with their gut to the words you said. So what you do is, you say something and try to gauge the emotions created in the other person through the words they use. This method is often used in social situations, and assumes that the other person would “react” to what you said with their real emotions, assuming that they share a social group with you and are comfortable reacting with their gut. Certain languages, like English, are more amenable to this method.
The other common way to use language is to use it more like math is used to describe the world, i.e., with much less focus on emotions. In this way, the language is not looking to intentionally incite any emotions in the other person, but is instead trying to just describe one’s intent. In this way, the person speaking expects the other person also to be using words in the same way; otherwise, there is miscommunication of intent. When words are used in this way, they assume that the other person is not looking for an emotional response but a response with reflection and patience. Certain languages like Sanskrit are more amenable to this method.
When the first method is used, it can lead to a huge word-action delta. For example, someone saying “I will kill you,” when using the first method, can lead to a smile, because the other person assumes that the intention is not ill-conceived, and the words are being used to incite emotions. But when the language is being used in the second way, it may lead to the other person moving away, because they assume that the language is not being used to check the emotional response, but to convey intent.
A classic example comes to mind in this video of Angela Merkel, saying that the girl did a great job with her question instead of saying something to stop her crying. The commentator quickly corrected her understanding and behavior to save face. This is kind of extreme, but captures the two common ways language can be used: