non sequiteur [Goddag yxskaft]

I like the Scandinavian saying much more - "Goddag, yxskaft" - it has a whole story behind it. I've tried to find the translated version somewhere but failed and figured I could make my own translation to share the fun*.

A man is sitting by the road working on a shaft to an ax; you know, carving with a knife and trying to make it smooth and fit properly. He has slightly bad hearing and when he sees a man walking towards him he decides what he will answer, since he already knows (he thinks) what the questions will be.

A: He'll ask "what are you doing?" And I'll answer "shaft for the ax". Then he'll ask "how far to the city?", and I'll answer "2 kilometers" and then he'll ask "which way to turn to get to the city" and I'll say "towards left".

Said and done. the passing man (B) comes up to the man with the ax (A).

B Good day ['Goddag']
A Shaft for an axe ['yxskaft']
B Eh, that's a long one
A 2 kilometers
B Are you a bit drunk? (maybe more "are you not screwed on properly" or 'are you a bit turned/crazy]")
A Towards the left

In short, person A and B are not communicating. In the story of course, it's said that A doesn't have proper hearing (i.e. deaf) but other explanations are offered. I mean, clearly he has already decided what the other person will ask... and therefore... he answers without listening or trying to listen to what B says.
Sometimes I wonder about the focused listening and actually paying attention to the person talking to you. (And also the added not scattered "I'm texting/reading email/shuffling paper but sure I hear what you say" since it's not the same thing as listening and acknowledging you've heard what the other person said.) Simply stated: "actually listen to what the other person is saying and confirming that".**

When I was in high school we were even taught this thing called "How to communicate; Sender and Receiver". In order for the communication to run smoothly, the Receiver has to pick up on something that the sender said, often actually repeat parts of it to make sure the Sender understands that the Receiver has listened and therefore acknowledges that sentences.

(Fairly common practice if you do short wave radio transmission or even have been in the military. "Go to the hill to the left! -Hill to the left, yes sir") Many people are taught part of this as "just repeat the last sentence or some words to indicate you are listening to A". (Note, some people will use this as a ruse to pretend they are communicating. Actually, they are simply making the other person feeling good/avoiding being called out on not paying attention but it's not as obvious as not even trying to feign interest.)

It's not as complicated as I make it in text. It's not something you need to do every time, but - most often when there is a conflict between people - there is a disconnect between what person A said and what person B thought they heard. Not to mention, what A heard B say in response to the interpretation of what A said.... or what A thought B said....***

When you think about it like this, it's amazing there aren't more implosions all over. Or maybe there is?!

And yes, I would like to point out that it isn't always crucial what B answers but that B acknowledges what A said. There's a difference. And that not answering at all usually means that the Sender doesn't know anything since it is hard (impossible?) to know what someone thinks if they don't say anything. Being heard is more important than being ignored. Best of all though, is being understood. Of course, as I have stated before, we do not live in a perfect world...


*fun might be a bit overstating it but it's an explanation of the saying if nothing else
** meeting notes could be one example of this... where it is in writing "this was decided" since everyone might not agree on what they remember being decided...
*** sometimes a "third party" - an Interpreter/Listener - can be helpful to suss out the difference between "what A said" and "what B heard"