Reflection: When Rhetoric Masks Process

​

This story is not about dueling.

It is about how misunderstandings persist when shared language hides different assumptions.

 

Pause before moving on—not to reach a conclusion, but to examine process.

​

1. Shared words, different meanings

 

Think of a situation where you and another person:

• used the same terms

• agreed verbally

• but later discovered different expectations

 

What assumption did you believe was shared—but wasn’t?

 

2. Ritual without clarity

 

Dueling survived long after its meaning became unstable.

Where in your life do rituals persist:

• meetings

• conversations

• agreements

• roles that no longer have clearly shared rules?

 

What fills the gap when clarity is absent?

​

3. Intent vs. interpretation

​

Hamilton’s intent did not protect him from Burr’s interpretation.

​

Where do you rely on your intent to be understood

without confirming how it is received?

​

What risk does that create?

​

4. Process questions (bias-aware)

 

Before entering a difficult interaction, consider asking—not aloud, but internally:

• What does the other person think this process is?

• What outcome do they believe is possible?

• What constraint do they assume applies—or doesn’t?

​

Not to agree.

Only to notice.

​

5. One small practice (optional)

 

When stakes are high, replace assumptions with one clarifying question:

​

• “Before we continue, can we name what we each think is happening here?”

Clarity does not eliminate conflict.
But it often prevents escalation.

Where to go next

 

You may:

• return to the gallery

• explore the next story

• or remain here

• ​

This project is not about winning arguments.
 

It is about recognizing when rhetoric has outpaced shared process.