(Or: how to better understand each other before badly judging one another)

We speak.
But often, we don’t really hear each other.
Not out of disagreement, but out of misunderstanding.

A word slips, a meaning veers off course, a tone escapes—and already the other reacts to what we haven’t said — or said poorly.
At the origin of our words, there is often a fog of still-floating ideas.
Neuronal connections searching for each other, assembling into an attempt at speech — enough for ourselves, but too diffuse to be clearly conveyed,
and even more to be properly understood.

What’s missing is a clear structure, a logical flow, a precise choice of words, an adaptation to the listener’s decoding mode.

And what if artificial intelligence could become a salutary mirror?

Not omniscient, nor perfect, but attentive, patient, enlightening.
It can help us formulate before publishing, clarify before projecting, and understand what we think we’re saying.

Not as a substitute tool, but as a companion to lucidity.
A neutral space where thought can be polished, structured, clarified—and misunderstanding defused.
Not to make us all the same, but to better convey
what we truly mean to express.

And I testify that, in this role, it proves surprisingly competent.

Most conflicts do not arise from true oppositions, but from blurred formulations, hazy intentions, and foggy receptions.
In that case, assisted intelligibility would in no way mean the end of human language.
On the contrary, it could become the engine of a more universal understanding.

Perhaps even its Socratic midwife, whispering:
“Listen to yourself before asking to be understood.”

Because in the end, most misunderstandings stem from something being misunderstood — by others, and by ourselves.

And you, dear reader, do you agree with Paul Watzlawick, author of The Pragmatics of Human Communication, that we don’t know what we’ve said until someone else tells us?