Amman - It may begin as a family conversation or a discussion among a group of people, where opinions overlap and views differ, and each party brings up what they know about a situation, incident or problem that has occurred.
اضافة اعلان
Between one remark and the next, someone mentions a piece of information that may be accurate, or may need verifying. Suddenly all eyes turn to another person, not to discuss what was said or establish the truth of the situation, but to ask a question that seems simple in its wording yet can change the course of the entire conversation: "Who told you?"
When the source of the words becomes the focus
This is where a new phase of the discussion begins. The conversation no longer centres on the original problem or the offence that may have occurred, but on the source of the words: how they reached the speaker, who passed them on, and what the relationship is between the parties. Conversations become tangled, interpretations multiply, and the core issue recedes, as if it had never been the topic of discussion from the start.
In some situations, asking about the source of information is necessary and legitimate. Not everything people pass around is true, and positions and judgements cannot be built on unconfirmed accounts. The problem begins when the question becomes a way of evading the root of the problem, or an attempt to distract attention from the conduct that provoked it, rather than clarifying what happened or taking responsibility for it.
In family relationships in particular, the results of this shift can be more complicated. Questions, resentments and misunderstandings pile up, and the offence or disagreement remains unaddressed. The matter may end in a long-running quarrel or estrangement between family members, not necessarily because the original problem was impossible to solve, but because the discussion moved away from it and its participants became absorbed in side details that drained the relationship.
Looking for the root of the problem and where the error lies
The question "Who told you?" may be a necessary step towards establishing the truth, but in other situations it can become a way to avoid confronting the problem. The more important question remains: what happened? And how can what took place be addressed, rather than simply chasing the person who spoke about it?
In this context, Raouf Tulfah comments that disagreements and problems within families are normal, whether between spouses, parents and children, or siblings and relatives. The real problem lies in neglecting them and allowing them to fester without being addressed, which makes them harder to resolve as time passes.
He stresses the importance of dealing with disagreements with honesty and fairness, listening to all parties, and looking for the root of the problem and where the error lies, rather than getting caught up in side details that divert attention from addressing it.
Layla, for her part, believes human relationships are built on affection, compassion and the ability to talk. She points out that avoiding discussion, and failing to confront problems calmly and clearly, can create gaps in relationships and make them drier over time. She stresses the importance of not overlooking the search for solutions and not becoming preoccupied with the secondary aspects of the problem.
Sharing information without verifying its source
From the perspective of family and marital relationships, family and marriage consultant Ahmad Abdullah believes that asking about the source of information is a positive and important thing, because it helps verify whether it is accurate and understand the context in which it was passed on, before getting drawn into discussing the problem or taking a position based on it.
He explains that circulating information without verifying its source is an old phenomenon that predates social media, and has contributed to the spread of many rumours and harmful information when it is repeated without checking whether it is true.
With these platforms spreading, some people are content to say, "I read it on Facebook" or "I saw it on Instagram," without naming the author of the information or the owner of the content, opening the door to the circulation of inaccurate or misleading information.
Knowing the source reveals the background of the information
Abdullah points out that the source of information may be unknown, the person passing it on may deliberately distort the truth for a particular purpose, or they may relay it inaccurately because they did not understand the event correctly.
Therefore, discussing a problem without pausing to consider the source of the information may mean dealing with part of the truth and taking a fragment of reality out of context. He stresses that knowing who passed on the words and their motives is an essential part of understanding the problem and reaching a solution.
For this reason, Abdullah stresses that the problem cannot be separated from the person who passed it on, because knowing the source can reveal the background of the information and the nature of the relationship between the parties, and help distinguish between a misunderstanding, an innocent retelling and deliberate misinformation. He sums it up this way: "Tell me who passed the news to you, and I will tell you what their purpose is in telling you."
Intrusion on privacy and personal boundaries
Psychotherapist Khulood Al-Rifaiyah believes that a person's discomfort when they discover others know details about them is not necessarily linked to knowing the information itself, but more to the meaning that knowledge carries for them, and the psychological and social consequences that may follow.
She explains that one of the main reasons for this discomfort is a sense that privacy and personal boundaries have been crossed. Every person has a private space in which they decide what to share, with whom, and when.
When someone discovers that details about them have been circulated without their knowledge or consent, they may feel they have lost some control over their private life. Al-Rifaiyah notes that keeping certain details to ourselves does not necessarily mean concealing something wrong. Privacy is a human right, not proof that a secret or a problem exists.
Al-Rifaiyah believes that the desire to protect one's social image and fear of others' judgements may be among the factors that explain this discomfort. People seek to present a certain image of themselves to those around them, and may feel threatened when others know information they believe will change how they are viewed or affect their standing.
Shifting the focus from the content of the information to its source
Some people may prefer to keep their decisions and new experiences away from others, especially during the stages of thinking and planning, to avoid questions, interference and social expectations, and out of a desire to pursue their experiences calmly and independently.
In other cases, the discomfort is linked to the person who passed on the information, especially when it is someone close whom the individual trusted with details about themselves, only to discover that they have reached others. This creates a sense of disappointment and loss of trust.
Al-Rifaiyah explains that the question "Who told you?" can sometimes become a defensive response, in which the person's focus shifts from the content of the information to its source, rather than confronting the main issue, particularly when they feel threatened, embarrassed or afraid of having to take responsibility for a certain action.
However, she stresses that the question does not necessarily mean an attempt to avoid the truth. It may be a legitimate objection to a breach of privacy or betrayal of trust, or an expression of a sense of injustice when the information circulating is untrue and damages a person's reputation and image in the eyes of others. This behaviour cannot be interpreted in isolation from the context, the nature of the information, and the relationship between the parties.
Dealing with the situation consciously
On the motives for passing on information about others, Al-Rifaiyah explains that they are varied. It may happen spontaneously, without thinking about the privacy of the information or the consequences of sharing it, while some people enjoy following others' news and the details of their lives, or seek to show how well informed they are in front of those around them.
In other cases, information may be passed on out of embarrassment, revenge, or a desire to pressure or harm the other party, while it sometimes happens with the aim of protecting someone or alerting them to something that could affect them.
There is therefore an important distinction between sharing information for a protective purpose and circulating it out of curiosity or to defame; knowing something about a person does not mean having the right to publish or spread it.
Al-Rifaiyah advises pausing before reacting emotionally and trying to understand the real reason behind the discomfort. Dealing with the situation consciously begins with establishing whether the matter involves a breach of privacy, a betrayal of trust, inaccurate information, or conduct that requires accountability and remedy.
If there has been a breach of privacy, this can be expressed clearly and appropriate boundaries set. If the matter involves betrayal of trust, it is important to discuss how that has affected the relationship. If the information is accurate and relates to conduct that needs to be addressed, it may be better to confront the matter rather than focusing only on the person who passed it on.
According to Al-Rifaiyah, respecting others' privacy is a moral and social responsibility that calls for thought before circulating any information about them, even if it reached us from a reliable source. Trust in relationships is built not only on the information we exchange, but also on respecting what others choose to keep to themselves.
Source: Al-Ghad. Reporting by Taghreed Al-Saayideh
