I don't "understand"

We use “understand” as if it’s always a good thing. But when someone says, “I don’t understand,” it can signal curiosity—or judgment.
The word itself sits on the fault line between empathy and distance.

When we say we want to understand someone, it often sounds noble—an attempt to bridge differences and connect more deeply. At its best, understanding comes from empathy: the desire to see the world through another person’s eyes, to learn how their experiences have shaped the way they think, feel, and act. This form of understanding doesn’t seek to fix or correct; it simply seeks to know. It’s about curiosity, openness, and the willingness to hold another person’s truth alongside your own without judgment.

But too often, the word “understand” is used as a softer disguise for distance. “I don’t understand" really carries the idea I wouldn't do that.”  Thus, it moves from empathy to judgment.  It suggests that the listeners  way of being is the standard, and anything outside of that is suspect or wrong. In these moments, understanding stops being a bridge and instead becomes a wall. Maybe the real goal shouldn’t always be to understand, but to accept—to recognize that empathy doesn’t require agreement, and connection doesn’t depend on comprehension. Sometimes, the most compassionate thing we can say isn’t “I understand,” but “I’m listening.”