Talking Does Not Always Lead to Understanding: What a Hoarder Taught Me

The other day, I watched a television program interviewing a man who lived in a house overflowing with junk.

Everything from the yard to the inside of the house was buried under piles of stuff, and his neighbors were at their wits’ end.

I assumed that someone like this might not even be capable of having a normal conversation.

That was my preconception as I watched, but to my surprise, the resident responded just like an ordinary person.

He invited the reporter into his home and answered every question properly. He also understood that people around him called his home a “junk house.”

But the moment the conversation turned to the “junk,” his entire world changed.

It Is Not Junk. It Can Still Be Used

The reporter asked why he collected so many things.

“Everyone thinks they are garbage, but they can still be used.”

A plastic bottle could become a water bottle if it was washed. A broken bicycle could be ridden if it was repaired.

Fair enough. His reasoning was not technically wrong.

So the reporter asked:

“Have you ever actually used any of them?”

“No, I haven’t.”

The man laughed.

It made me laugh too, but on reflection, it was no laughing matter.

What mattered to him was not whether he would actually use something, but whether the possibility of using it still remained.

Most people would dispose of a broken bicycle that had gone unused for years.

But to him, if it could be repaired and used, there was no reason to throw it away.

The conversation made sense. His reasoning also had a certain internal logic.

But his starting point was fundamentally different.

That was why no amount of explaining, “Surely this is garbage,” would get through to him.

From his perspective, perhaps those of us trying to throw away things that could still be used were the truly irrational ones.

How Do We Reach an Accommodation with People Whose Common Sense Is Different?

Watching the program reminded me of a news report I had previously seen about the issue of Muslim burials in Japan.

Cremation is the norm in Japan, while Islam generally requires burial.

As a result, there have been efforts to establish cemeteries in Japan where burials are permitted, and in some areas this has led to conflict with local residents.

For Muslims, this is an important religious requirement.

Local residents, meanwhile, may be concerned about sanitation, the effects on groundwater, and the surrounding living environment.

What makes the situation difficult is that both sides are speaking from their own sets of assumptions.

“Why is cremation unacceptable?”

“Why is burial unacceptable?”

Even if each side asks these questions, the discussion will not move forward easily when their underlying values are different.

Of course, a junk-filled house and a religious burial practice are completely different issues.

But they do share one structural similarity: something that seems self-evident to the people directly involved can be difficult for those around them to understand.

Discussion Has Its Limits Too

We often say, “If we talk things through, we can understand each other.”

But that only works when both sides share roughly the same values.

Tell the resident of a junk-filled house, “This is garbage,” and he sees it as a resource.

Tell someone who wants a burial, “You can just be cremated,” and you are ignoring a different religious premise.

No matter how many words are exchanged, some discussions remain at an impasse.

That is why society needs laws, ordinances, and administrative rules.

As long as it does not cause problems for others, people should be free to believe what they want and value what they choose.

But when those values affect the lives of people around them, some form of accommodation must be reached.

What is needed then is not necessarily to persuade the other person to change their values.

It is probably to find a compromise that allows people to coexist, even if neither side is convinced by the other.

Reasoning with Someone and Reaching an Understanding Are Not the Same Thing

The resident of the junk-filled house spoke normally until the very end.

He answered questions and understood jokes.

Even so, he refused to accept that the things inside his house were garbage.

That was what stayed with me most.

Just because two people can have a conversation does not mean they will arrive at the same conclusion.

When you think about it, this is not limited to junk-filled houses.

At work, in politics, and online, it is common for people to present their reasoning to each other while completely talking past one another.

You can understand what the other person is saying.

But you cannot understand why they believe it.

And the difficult part is that the other person is thinking exactly the same thing about you.