Conceptual Mondegreens

Mondegreens are words or phrases that listeners believe they've heard, but which weren't actually spoken or sung. They sound enough like what was said, and seem to make sense, but they're wrong. A cousin of the malapropism, which is a word or phrase mistakenly substituted by a speaker, the mondegreen is a word or phrase mistakenly substituted by the listener. Mondegreens [Wright 1954] are sometimes very funny, but usually they're just dumb. [Barber 1996]

Some famous mondegreens were demonstrated by Gilda Radner, a member of the original cast of Saturday Night Live, an American television program. During the show's simulated news segments, Radner appeared in the role of "Emily Litella," an elderly woman with a hearing problem. As a "columnist," she opined endlessly about topics such as "endangered feces" (species), "saving Soviet jewelry" (Jewry), and "sax and violins on television" (sex and violence). Upon being corrected by the "news anchor," Ms. Litella would sheepishly exit, saying, "Never mind," which became a catch phrase of the day, and remains in use in the U.S.

But I digress.

A conceptual mondegreen is a concept that a discussion participant mistakenly substitutes for the actual concept under discussion. It seems to makes sense, but it's incorrect, causing the misunderstander to miss the point.

For example, in a debate about circumventing arcane accounting rules regarding capitalization of software development, a mondegreen might involve the rules about capitalizing software, instead of software development.

Here are two common situations in which conceptual mondegreens arise.

Problem solving

When trying to explain why a problem solution failed, if the available data is of poor quality or incomplete, formulating a hypothesis can produce conceptual mondegreens. A hypothesis is useful for devising experiments to gather better data, but instead of devising experiments, some people just accept the hypothesis as true. Then they commit the organization to a solution modified on that basis, which can be an expensive error if the hypothesis is incorrect.

When solving A conceptual mondegreen is a
concept that a discussion participant
mistakenly substitutes for the
actual concept under discussionproblems, adopt candidate explanations as mere candidates. Devise experiments to reveal their shortcomings, rather than to confirm their strengths.

Contending with adversaries

Conceptual mondegreens also appear when we try to understand the behavior of adversaries such as political rivals, competitive companies, battlefield opponents, opposing sports teams, or products similar to our own. Observing the adversary's configuration and resources, we project its future behavior. But unlike problem solving, we can't always perform experiments to refine our conjectures. Still, we might try a feint on the battlefield, the playing field, or in the marketplace, to see how the adversary responds. That might provide useful data, but the best data comes from ongoing engagement with the adversary.

Adopt the view that continued engagement with the adversary has value beyond possibly winning the competition. It also provides data that can resolve the conceptual mondegreens pertaining to the adversary's behavior.

When a mondegreen makes an appearance, it can indicate uneven distribution of knowledge or expertise within the group. Unless that's addressed, mondegreens will likely appear again and again.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

Peace's Pieces

Just as important as keeping the peace with your colleagues is making peace again when it has been broken by strife. Nations have peace treaties. People make up. Here are some tips for making up.

See No Bully, Hear No Bully

Supervisors of bullies sometimes are unaware of bullying activity in their organizations. Here's a collection of indicators for supervisors who suspect bullying but who haven't witnessed it directly.

Some Subtleties of ad hominem Attacks

Groups sometimes make mistakes based on faulty reasoning used in their debates. One source of faulty reasoning is the ad hominem attack. Here are some insights that help groups recognize and avoid this class of errors.

Characterization Risk

To characterize is to offer a description of a person, event, or concept. Characterizations are usually judgmental, and usually serve one side of a debate. And they often make trouble.

The Risks of Rehearsals

Rehearsing a conversation can be constructive. But when we're anxious about it, we can imagine how it would unfold in ways that bias our perceptions. We risk deluding ourselves about possible outcomes, and we might even experience stress unnecessarily.

See also Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 3: Contributions in Team Meetings: Advocating

An agenda in the form of an ordered list of topics might not provide an appropriate framework for a given meeting. For example, if A depends on B, and B depends on A, we must find a way to discuss A and B together in some orderly fashion. Here are some alternatives to linear, ordered agendas. Available here and by RSS on September 3.

And on September 10: Contributions in Team Meetings: Scoping

Some meetings focus on solving specific problems. We call them "working sessions." More often, we delegate problem solving to task teams, while meetings wrestle with the difficult task of identifying or "scoping" problems rather than solving them. Scoping discussions can be perilous. Available here and by RSS on September 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info