s/o Kavanaugh, "Can't see the forest through the trees"

[cjzimmer1]

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

[Carol in Cal.]

I've always heard it as '(S)He can't see the forest for the trees', and it's always been a mild insult.

[Catwoman]

I agree with Carol. I have always heard it as a mild insult, as well.

[DoraBora]

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.

[mom2att]

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.

[regentrude]

I have not heard this; I only heard "can't see the forest FOR the trees".

[HomeAgain]

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.

[DoraBora]

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.

[Arcadia]

I have only heard can’t see the forest/wood for the trees in a scolding tone so definitely not neutral.

[Farrar]

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.)

[unsinkable]

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.

[unsinkable]

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.

[unsinkable]

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."

[cjzimmer1]

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.

[sassenach]

I said other but I changed my mind. I think it’s negative. 

[HomeAgain]

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. 

[HS Mom in NC]

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.

[Selkie]

Negative.  I can imagine certain people I know saying this and thinking they aren't being insulting, while coming across as being very condescending.

[marbel]

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.  

[Robin M]

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. 

[AmandaVT]

I've only heard it used in a negative way. My high school calculus teacher used it regularly to insult us in class.

[unsinkable]

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 drum
Oh can't you tell by the way I run
Every time you make eyes at me

You cry and moan and say it will work out
But honey child I've got my doubts
You can't see the forest for the trees

Oh don't get me wrong
It's not that I knock it
It's just that I am not in the market
For a boy who wants to love only me

Yes, and I ain't saying you ain't pretty
All I'm saying, I'm not ready
For any person, place or thing
To try and pull the reins in on me

[marbel]

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. 

[Liz CA]

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.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's an observation. It is based on perception, and one can choose to take offense from it if they are so inclined. 

[LarlaB]

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.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

[Liz CA]

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.

[Farrar]

I would propose that negative =/= insulting. You have to be able to disagree.

[Guest]

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. 

[Storygirl]

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.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

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.  

[Junie]

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.

[Farrar]

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?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

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 drum
Oh can't you tell by the way I run
Every time you make eyes at me

You cry and moan and say it will work out
But honey child I've got my doubts
You can't see the forest for the trees

Oh don't get me wrong
It's not that I knock it
It's just that I am not in the market
For a boy who wants to love only me

Yes, and I ain't saying you ain't pretty
All I'm saying, I'm not ready
For any person, place or thing
To 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

[BakersDozen]

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).

[kiwik]

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 

[LucyStoner]

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.  

[lailasmum]

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. 

[TechWife]

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.

 

[KrissiK]

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.

[unsinkable]

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?

[Bluegoat]

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.

[DawnM]

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.

[EmseB]

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

[LMD]

Negative. When someone is tunnel vision focussed on unimportant minutia and spectacularly missing the point.

Another variation is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic

[Barb_]

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.