We Confused Comfort With Understanding — and It’s Breaking How We Talk, Learn, and Disagree
Yes — here is your fully merged final master version, with everything integrated: all sections, all refinements, the communication expansion, the education/system section, and the clean definitions at the end. It now reads as one continuous long-form essay with a consistent voice and structure.
PUT IN THE WORK
This started because I saw a video on TikTok.
A teenager was arguing that the word scrying was ableist because they didn’t know what it meant.
My first reaction was simple: look it up.
Not as a dismissal, and not as a judgment of the person, but because that moment itself felt worth sitting with. A moment where the gap between not knowing and responding to not knowing has shifted in how it is interpreted.
There was a time when encountering an unfamiliar word meant pausing, asking, inferring, or checking a dictionary. Now that same gap can sometimes be interpreted differently — as exclusion, unfairness, or harm.
And that is where confusion begins.
Because difficulty and discrimination are not the same thing.
Difficulty is when something is hard to understand, access, or do. It is friction in learning. It is the space between current understanding and next understanding. It exists in every learning process by design.
Discrimination, including ableism, is something entirely different. It refers to barriers, prejudice, or exclusion based on disability. It can be structural, interpersonal, or systemic. It is not simply the presence of difficulty.
Both exist in the world. But they do not mean the same thing.
Not knowing a word is not discrimination. It is learning.
And learning always begins in the same place:
Not knowing.
That space is uncomfortable, because it requires something modern information environments don’t always reward — sitting with uncertainty long enough to resolve it.
You don’t know what you know until you know what you don’t know. Every skill, every concept, every system of knowledge begins in that gap.
And that gap has not disappeared. But the way we respond to it has changed.
Even writing this, I had to pause and check spelling. The word mannequin is simple in meaning, but I still stopped to confirm it.
That is not failure. That is part of communication.
English spelling carries layers of linguistic history — Germanic, Latin, Greek, French — all shaping words that do not behave consistently. That is why spelling can feel irregular rather than logical.
So checking, correcting, and revisiting are not signs of failure in literacy. They are literacy in action.
Literacy is not static knowledge. It is a process of navigating uncertainty without stopping the process entirely.
This is something most people are introduced to very early in education.
In early schooling, especially in places like Australia, comprehension begins with context. Children are shown images, sentences, and situations and asked to infer meaning from surrounding cues. If a fish is in water and the sentence reads “the fish swam back to the ___,” the task is not memorisation but interpretation.
That is a foundational literacy skill.
Alongside that, phonics builds decoding — the structured relationship between sounds and symbols. Together these approaches form the foundation of reading.
In recent years, there has been renewed emphasis on structured literacy and explicit instruction approaches in reading education, as research has increasingly highlighted the limitations of relying too heavily on context-guessing strategies alone.
Reading is not automatic. It is constructed.
And construction takes effort.
That same principle applies beyond childhood education.
I am currently working through maths again using Khan Academy and additional learning courses. Not because it comes easily, but because improvement requires engagement with difficulty rather than avoidance of it.
At some point in any learning process, the most important step is simply acknowledging the gap:
I don’t know this yet.
That is not failure. That is the beginning of progress.
There is also a broader pattern in how learning and communication are discussed online.
In a recent short-form video discussing communication and disagreement, the idea of listening versus agreeing was raised in relation to how people interpret being heard in conversation.
https://www.tiktok.com/@robyn_holdaway/video/7652830430030236950
What often gets missed is that listening and agreeing are not the same thing.
Listening is the act of understanding meaning. Agreement is the act of sharing a conclusion. It is entirely possible for someone to listen carefully, understand the perspective being expressed, and still arrive at a different interpretation.
When those two ideas are treated as identical, disagreement becomes misread as non-listening. And that changes the nature of conversation itself.
Instead of exchange, the expectation becomes alignment.
But alignment is not the same as understanding.
And that distinction matters.
Because sometimes when people say “you’re not listening to me,” what they actually mean is not a failure of attention, but a difference in conclusion.
That phrase often carries frustration as well — not just disagreement, but unmet expectation. The conversation is not moving toward the outcome someone anticipated, and that emotional mismatch gets expressed as “you’re not listening.”
But frustration is not the same as being unheard.
It is possible to be listened to, understood, and still be challenged. In fact, being listened to properly often includes being challenged in return. That is part of what makes conversation real rather than transactional agreement.
At a broader level, there have always been informal boundaries around how disagreement is handled in everyday life. Many people are familiar with the idea that certain topics — politics, religion, and deeply personal bodily matters — can quickly shift conversations into conflict if not handled carefully. Not because those topics are unimportant, but because they carry strong identity weight.
These informal boundaries were never about avoidance so much as navigation.
But in modern communication environments, especially online, those boundaries are less stable. Conversations happen faster, with less shared context, and with higher emotional intensity. As a result, disagreement can be more easily interpreted as dismissal, and frustration more easily interpreted as disrespect.
Which is where another older skill becomes relevant again: the ability to agree to disagree.
Not as avoidance, and not as indifference, but as recognition that two people can understand each other clearly and still not arrive at the same conclusion.
That is not a failure of communication. It is part of being human.
Critical thinking sits inside all of this.
It is the ability to separate meaning from agreement, and to recognise when disagreement is about interpretation rather than comprehension.
It also requires tolerating discomfort — the discomfort of not immediately aligning with an idea, and the discomfort of not immediately rejecting it either.
Because not every moment of confusion is a failure. Sometimes it is an entry point.
In that sense, encountering an unfamiliar word like scrying — a historical term referring to seeking insight through reflective surfaces such as water or mirrors — is not a barrier in itself. It is simply a point where understanding has not yet been formed.
What matters is not the gap, but the response to it.
And that brings us to a broader question about learning, responsibility, and systems.
Because difficulty is not the same as exclusion, but exclusion does exist. Disability support, educational access, and learning accommodations exist precisely because not everyone experiences learning in the same way.
In Australia, there are structured supports designed to help people engage with education and training. TAFE provides vocational pathways. Libraries remain open learning spaces. Services such as the Reading Writing Hotline assist adult literacy development. Youth Allowance and Austudy provide financial support for study. Disability-related payments can include education support supplements, recognising that learning is part of participation in society.
These systems exist because learning is ongoing, not because it is assumed to be effortless.
But access alone is not the whole process. Participation still matters.
Every job requires forms of literacy that extend beyond reading and writing. A janitor works with ratios, safety procedures, and chemical dilution. A garbage collector operates within routes, timing, and spatial planning. Retail workers navigate stock systems, customer behaviour, and real-time problem solving.
These are all forms of applied literacy.
Not everything important happens in a classroom. And not everything difficult is oppression.
Sometimes difficulty is the mechanism through which skill is built.
And this is where education systems, responsibility, and expectations intersect.
Children are still learning how actions connect to consequences. That is part of development. In any functioning system — whether educational, physical, or social — actions have outcomes. Learning that connection is part of growing into adulthood.
At the same time, schools today are operating under increasing complexity. Teachers are managing curriculum delivery alongside behavioural demands, administrative pressure, and diverse learning needs in the same classroom environment.
Many teachers are leaving the profession globally, and while there is rarely a single cause, workload pressure, reduced support, and system strain are recurring factors.
Inclusion remains an important educational principle. The idea that students should learn together where possible reflects a commitment to equity and access. But inclusion is not just a value — it is a system that depends on resources, staffing, and structure to function effectively.
When those supports are not present in sufficient capacity, the pressure does not disappear. It redistributes across teachers, students who need support, and classroom environments as a whole.
Specialised learning environments exist because different learners benefit from different settings at different times. Ensuring students are placed where they can learn effectively is not exclusion — it is educational design. At the same time, mainstream classrooms also require the capacity to support diversity without becoming overwhelmed.
These are not opposing ideas. They are parts of the same system challenge.
And underneath it sits a principle that applies far beyond education:
Doing things we do not want to do is part of life.
But learning how to do them — and in what environment that learning is actually possible — is where systems either support growth or become strained.
So what does improvement actually look like?
Part of it sits in structure rather than sentiment alone.
Parents need support in their role as parents — not as a moral judgment, but as recognition that accountability, routine, and expectation are learned behaviours that require stability to pass on consistently.
Teachers need conditions that allow teaching to happen: manageable workloads, adequate resourcing, and functioning support systems rather than constant pressure management.
Students need clarity in expectations. If work is not completed, support should exist to help them catch up, but the learning step still matters. Support enables learning; it does not replace learning.
And there is no shame in adult education.
Adult learning is not a correction of failure. It is a normal extension of life. People return to study for employment, independence, confidence, or rebuilding foundations that were never fully formed the first time. That process is not exceptional — it is normal.
Learning is not a single stage of life. It is a continuous system of adjustment.
And when that system works well, it does not rely on shame or assumption. It relies on structure, access, expectation, and willingness to engage.
None of this removes difficulty. It makes difficulty usable.
Because at the centre of all of this is a simple idea:
Not knowing is not the end of understanding.
It is where it begins.
And what matters most is not avoiding difficulty, but learning how to move through it — with support where needed, responsibility where appropriate, and honesty about what is and isn’t yet known.
That is not a rant.
It is what learning looks like when taken seriously.
Put in the work.
Quick definitions (for clarity, not decoration)
Scrying — A historical term referring to the practice of seeking insight or visions by looking into reflective surfaces such as water, mirrors, or polished objects.
Context — The surrounding information, situation, or cues that help determine meaning in communication or learning.
Responsibility — The ability to recognise and accept consequences of actions and engage with obligations, including the process of learning itself.
Critical thinking — The process of evaluating information by questioning assumptions, checking evidence, and forming reasoned conclusions rather than reacting purely emotionally.
Comments
Post a Comment