cjzimmer1 Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) So I always find the differences of language use to be interesting. Especially when I discover that something that I assumed had a universal meaning doesn't. In the Kavanaugh thread there was a discussion about whether or not the statement "Can't see the forest through the trees" was meant negatively/insulting or was a just a neutral statement describing different viewpoints. So I'm curious if in a normal conversation, someone used that statement how would you interpret it? Edited October 8, 2018 by cjzimmer1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I've always heard it as '(S)He can't see the forest for the trees', and it's always been a mild insult. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I agree with Carol. I have always heard it as a mild insult, as well. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoraBora Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I usually hear this applied to groups or individuals who are so focused on small matters that they miss the larger (more important?) point. I agree that it can be mildly insulting, though I suppose that would depend upon the conversation in which it was used and how it was said. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2att Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Fascinating. My interpretation of this cliche has always been something along the lines of focusing on the details to the detriment of seeing the big picture. Not a personal insult, just an observation that the perspective is different than it seems. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I have not heard this; I only heard "can't see the forest FOR the trees". 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeAgain Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 It depends. With a "can't", it's negative, but if someone says "you see forest, I see trees" or the reverse equivalent, it's a neutral statement of how people see the world. We use it all the time here. One of us is a tree person, one is a forest, and the viewpoints tend to meet with understanding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoraBora Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, regentrude said: I have not heard this; I only heard "can't see the forest FOR the trees". Yes, I have seen/heard it that way, too. I misread the initial post, but the way you've written it above is the expression I know. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I have only heard can’t see the forest/wood for the trees in a scolding tone so definitely not neutral. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I don't think it's an insult. It's saying that the person is focused on the wrong thing, or missing a greater point, but I wouldn't think it wasn't saying it in an insulting way at all. I mean, not any more so that just saying, "I believe you're missing a greater point here." And to me, that's just fair in a serious conversation. You have to be able to say, I think you're missing the thing I see as important or part of the context. (I have no idea how it was used in the thread, just to note. I haven't been able to make myself read most of that thread.) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said: It's always been a mild insult (or really, mild enough that it's just a negative statement.) Basically, it means that the person is so wrapped up in the minutia of a particular situation that they don't realize what is actually going on overall. ETA: A much less polite way (aka more insulting) to say the same thing is something like 'get your head out of your *** and take a look at what is actually going on around you!' "You've got your head so far up your a-- you can't see daylight" usually doesn't go over well during a discussion, either. 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, HeighHo said: Can't see forest for the trees..it's a neutral. says the person is a bottom up thinker but hasn't moved up yet . statement of fact. "A bottom up thinker but hasn't moved up yet" sounds critical. B/c if you're saying the thinker hasn't moved up yet, that would imply moving up is desirable. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said: No, no it doesn't lol. Neither does: "You couldn't find your a-- with both hands and a flashlight." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjzimmer1 Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 46 minutes ago, regentrude said: I have not heard this; I only heard "can't see the forest FOR the trees". I went hunting around and saw that indeed when first mentioned in the other thread is was written as FOR the trees and apparently my brain translated it to THROUGH the trees as that is what is familiar to me. So perhaps this is just another regionalism thing or maybe because I'm from the land of bubblers we are just different. But since the meaning is generally the same (at least in my mind until someone enlightens me otherwise), I think people will still get my question. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassenach Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I said other but I changed my mind. I think it’s negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeAgain Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 18 minutes ago, cjzimmer1 said: I went hunting around and saw that indeed when first mentioned in the other thread is was written as FOR the trees and apparently my brain translated it to THROUGH the trees as that is what is familiar to me. So perhaps this is just another regionalism thing or maybe because I'm from the land of bubblers we are just different. But since the meaning is generally the same (at least in my mind until someone enlightens me otherwise), I think people will still get my question. Just to point out, the original statement that started it all was this: "It’s a lot more likely that I see the forest and you are looking at trees." Which can be interpreted much differently than a negative statement with 'can't', regardless of whether it's through or for the trees. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Mildly negative because I hear it in situations where it means someone is focused on the details that don't matter while missing the bigger picture which does matter. If it were a situation where someone was just a detailed oriented person and seeing the big picture wasn't important, then the phrase wouldn't be used. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selkie Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Negative. I can imagine certain people I know saying this and thinking they aren't being insulting, while coming across as being very condescending. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I've never heard it said in anything but a negative/critical way. (BTW I've always heard/read it as "can't see the forest for the trees.") Or, as Selkie said above, condescending. Have never heard it as a neutral statement about having a different point of view. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin M Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 concentrating on the minutiae, rather then the bigger picture. Not intended as an insult, but bringing to someone's attention that they need to look at the big picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmandaVT Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I've only heard it used in a negative way. My high school calculus teacher used it regularly to insult us in class. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 To night's Ear Worm is brought to by Linda Ronstadt/Stone Poneys. It's a little break up song called "Different Drum." When she's dumping you because you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not a positive! Different Drum You and I travel to the beat of a different drumOh can't you tell by the way I runEvery time you make eyes at meYou cry and moan and say it will work outBut honey child I've got my doubtsYou can't see the forest for the treesOh don't get me wrongIt's not that I knock itIt's just that I am not in the marketFor a boy who wants to love only meYes, and I ain't saying you ain't prettyAll I'm saying, I'm not readyFor any person, place or thingTo try and pull the reins in on me 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbel Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, unsinkable said: To night's Ear Worm is brought to by Linda Ronstadt/Stone Poneys. It's a little break up song called "Different Drum." When she's dumping you because you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not a positive! <snip> That song has been going through my mind ever since I first saw the discussion of the expression on the other thread. Not a burden, though; it's such a great song. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said: I've always heard it as '(S)He can't see the forest for the trees', and it's always been a mild insult. Sort of like s/he can't see the bigger picture because s/he is so focused on one little thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 It's an observation. It is based on perception, and one can choose to take offense from it if they are so inclined. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarlaB Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 38 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said: It's an observation. It is based on perception, and one can choose to take offense from it if they are so inclined. Nah, its usually just a subjective opinion - ie judgement- as 24 people will see it differently. Unless coming from a clinician, in peer to peer relating it’s usually expressed as a demeaning or dismissive mild insult. YOU don’t see it appropriately, but I do. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, LarlaB said: Nah, its usually just a subjective opinion - ie judgement- as 24 people will see it differently. Unless coming from a clinician, in peer to peer relating it’s usually expressed as a demeaning or dismissive mild insult. YOU don’t see it appropriately, but I do. Subjective opinions are not necessarily insults. It is a way of explaining why someone is viewing an issue differently. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said: Subjective opinions are not necessarily insults. It is a way of explaining why someone is viewing an issue differently. I wish you had mentioned this on the other Kavanaugh thread as well. Looks like it could have served as a good reminder. And I would expand that when a person voices why they are viewing something differently, they still deserve to be treated politely even if I disagree with them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I would propose that negative =/= insulting. You have to be able to disagree. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Always have heard it as a mild insult, meaning the person being chastened is focused on pointless details and does not grasp the larger picture. In my marriage, I am a detail person, while dh is a big picture person, but if we are talking about this difference in a neutral way, we aren’t using the forest/tree metaphor. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storygirl Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 It's always a negative in my neck of the woods ( ? ). Because the inference is that the tree person is missing out on seeing the forest, when the forest is so obvious. They are missing the whole point and are latching onto details that are inconsequential. The point of the saying, as I have always heard it used, is not that there are detail people and big picture people and everyone has strengths to offer. But that the tree person is not grasping something that they should be. They are not getting it, even though the forest is right there. It's not necessarily an insult, but an observation that is not complimentary. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne in ABQ Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I don't see it as negative, definitely not insulting. It's easy to get wrapped up in the details. That doesn't mean that those details are stupid or insignificant. It's just a reminder that maybe we should (all) just take a step back, look at the big picture, and get our bearings before proceeding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junie Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I've always heard it as negative and insulting. I remember this term being used by one relative to describe another and it was definitely not complimentary. In fact, it was said in a very condescending "I'm better than he is" kind of tone. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, happysmileylady said: I don't necessarily disagree. But I would also say that "negative" doesn't not equal the same as "neutral" Sure, but a discussion where everything is neutral is really a bit pointless. Like, how's the weather. I sure do like that sports ball. Isn't ice cream sweet? Aren't babies cute? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzanne in ABQ Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, unsinkable said: To night's Ear Worm is brought to by Linda Ronstadt/Stone Poneys. It's a little break up song called "Different Drum." When she's dumping you because you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not a positive! Different Drum You and I travel to the beat of a different drumOh can't you tell by the way I runEvery time you make eyes at meYou cry and moan and say it will work outBut honey child I've got my doubtsYou can't see the forest for the treesOh don't get me wrongIt's not that I knock itIt's just that I am not in the marketFor a boy who wants to love only meYes, and I ain't saying you ain't prettyAll I'm saying, I'm not readyFor any person, place or thingTo try and pull the reins in on me I interpret this whole song as "It's not you. It's me. We're just two different people. You want a committed relationship. I'm not ready for that right now. In fact, I'm feeling tied down. I know it's hurting you, but all your crying and moaning isn't making me want to stick around. We'd both be happier if we quit trying to make this work, and just moved on. He's desperately trying to hold on to whatever he thinks they have, and he can't see that she's really not part of it. There is no longer a "we". But, that doesn't mean she's breaking up *because* he can't see the forest. She was already *done* before he started acting desperate. ETA: You left off the last part. Part of my interpretation (above) is contained in the last verse: So goodbye. I'll be leaving. I see no sense in the crying and bleeding. We'll both live a lot longer if you live without me. Edited October 9, 2018 by Suzanne in ABQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersDozen Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I used this phrase with my dd a few weeks ago as she was struggling with the math section of the PSAT. I told her what the phrase means and how it applies to her approach to the math problems...and she got it. She wasn't insulted because the visual made sense to her. So I believe the phrase can be used in a constructive way just as much as an insulting way. Context, tone, etc. all play a big part (imo). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwik Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I think I have mostly heard it as "I can't see the forest for the trees' as an "ah ha" moment or when confused and overwhelmed with the data". I put neutral because of this. When I have heard it as You or They can't it has been negative but a very subjective dismissable negative 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I think it could be neutral or mildly negative or, in the right context, mildly positive. Tone and context matters. I can think of times where I have seen it used different ways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lailasmum Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I've always heard it as "Can't see the forest for the trees". I think it can be neutral, negative or a mild insult. It just depends on the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I posted extensively on this in the other thread, so I won't repeat myself other than to chime in and say that it's neutral. It's just a way of describing detail oriented thinking and big picture thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrissiK Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 15 hours ago, DoraBora said: I usually hear this applied to groups or individuals who are so focused on small matters that they miss the larger (more important?) point. I agree that it can be mildly insulting, though I suppose that would depend upon the conversation in which it was used and how it was said. 15 hours ago, mom2att said: Fascinating. My interpretation of this cliche has always been something along the lines of focusing on the details to the detriment of seeing the big picture. Not a personal insult, just an observation that the perspective is different than it seems. I agree with these interpretations. I wouldn’t consider it insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, HeighHo said: It's sad to hear that some of you have peers who are using this phrase to insult. Is this really the type of communication you want to have? Pehaps it would be helpful for the group to take a step back and assess the group health and consider other methods of effectively communicating. It seems insulting to me to tell someone they are a bottom up thinker who hasn't moved up yet. Does your peer group talk to each other that way? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I said other, because I don't think it has to be meant as an insult. Saying "you are missing the point" does not have to be meant as an insult. On the other hand, there is a fair chance that people being told that they are missing the point might be peeved and see it as saying they are dumb, so perceived as an insult. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 My son with ASD was diagnosed with lacking Central Coherence. That means he does indeed miss the forest. http://aspiewriter.com/2014/08/autism-and-central-coherence-missing-the-forest-for-the-trees.html So, while I think it is "negative" I have had to rethink a bit after trying to figure out the way my son thinks and processes information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmseB Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) I've heard it used neutrally...in meetings like, "Come on people, we're losing the forest for the trees here. Let's get back on track," and in that case it's pretty neutral and not calling anyone out. Since I think I was the one who took issue with it originally in the thread (I think I said it was 'mildly insulting' but condescending is probably a better word), in the context of the thread, it was used to tell me I was wrong (which is obviously not a problem in a discussion thread), but it was a one-liner so not really an attempt at discussion, while the person who used it said I was being personally insulting to her. It all feels a bit "neener, neener" when I type it out like this. ? So it wasn't the phrase in particular that made me call it out, I guess, but the context of the back-and-forth at the time. And the insistence that it was a metaphor not an insult, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Metaphors make some of the best insults. ? Edited October 9, 2018 by EmseB ETA: So I chose "other". :D 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMD Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Negative. When someone is tunnel vision focussed on unimportant minutia and spectacularly missing the point. Another variation is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 6 hours ago, EmseB said: I've heard it used neutrally...in meetings like, "Come on people, we're losing the forest for the trees here. Let's get back on track," and in that case it's pretty neutral and not calling anyone out. Since I think I was the one who took issue with it originally in the thread (I think I said it was 'mildly insulting' but condescending is probably a better word), in the context of the thread, it was used to tell me I was wrong (which is obviously not a problem in a discussion thread), but it was a one-liner so not really an attempt at discussion, while the person who used it said I was being personally insulting to her. It all feels a bit "neener, neener" when I type it out like this. ? So it wasn't the phrase in particular that made me call it out, I guess, but the context of the back-and-forth at the time. And the insistence that it was a metaphor not an insult, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Metaphors make some of the best insults. ? I was the OP who brought up the forest and tress. The whole poll is based on something I didn’t say. I never said, “you can’t see the forest for the trees.” What is said was, “I am seeing forest while you are looking at trees.” By that, I meant I was asking after multiple posts for you to try and switch focus to the implications the case had for the integrity of our institutions rather than the details of a single incident. It was a neutral statement. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.