What is the name of an effect when a person debating with you says that you want them to do Z while you did not have this in mind and did not intend to get to this?
For example, from a conversation with a software engineer colleague.
Me: I think we started our discussion too abstract, and the actual problem is the errors presentation in technology X. Why not formulate that problem and consider options for it first?
Colleague: You're saying we should throw away most of our accomplishments and standardize on technology Z status codes?
Technologies X and Z are different, and Z came up only once in my earlier statements and only tangentially because it was mentioned by another colleague in this context.
Such situations most often happen to me when I try to switch the debate to a more general level of discussion and find out (not even question) goals the other person might be pursuing.
Simply put, I feel I get misunderstood. Yet I think this pattern or bias might have been studied and might have a name so I'm curious how it is called.
This seems related to the confirmation bias and maybe it is just that.
However, I thought that the confirmation bias is when a person looks for positive reinforcement to their beliefs. In a situation like this one the other person gets to a point when they verbalize and ask if I want them to do something that goes against their beliefs. This is done in such a concrete formulation that on one hand I’m surprised how I could be misunderstood to that degree, on the other hand I’m left suspecting that the person just does that to essentially hear from me “no, I don’t want you to change your opinion” (absence of “yes, I want …” is also treated as “no”) and carry on with their beliefs without much interest to discuss the point I was interested in.
I oftentimes run into similar situations when debating with my wife and feel tricked because it feels it doesn't matter if I answer "no, ..." or "yes, ...". It feels like this effect is used as an evasion tactic to avoid revising goals and proceed in the set direction or hand off responsibility to the one who raises the question.
Update: indeed, the straw man argument suggested by @JonB in the comment seems the most plausible explanation when the other person has an intent to deflect the conversation.
I checked with that colleague later, and it turned out that he was actually thinking about technology Z as a "worse alternative" for quite some time. This makes me more confident that he misunderstood my suggestion to "zoom out" as if I was alluding him to go after technology Z.
