Math has an agreed consensus about how common problems are to be solved. By convention, operations are to be performed in a specific order. Life isn’t like that. In this week’s TBL, I propose a specific order of operations for life. I don’t claim it should be universal. But I think it’s a good general rule of thumb. Please let me know whether or not you agree.
No question that everyone has been wound up to 11 these days. But the ole "listen more to understand" is a losing game when it's assymetrical. If the "other side" is unreasonable, either because they will never spend as much effort for you as you do for them, or has an irrational position from ad hominem attacks or plain stupid allegations, then spending any resources on trying to "understand their position" or "meeting them halfway" is a category error of unrequited projection.
Spending time on stupid is stupid. It simply validates bad behavior and wastes your resources.
The way I frame any attempt at having a conversation is to think about what it would be like if two people held their conversation in couples therapy. What would a neutral third party think of the symmetry of the exchange and the willingness on each side to participate in a productive conversation?
A good couples therapist would insist on basic ground rules of reality, good-faith interest in learning, and symmetry. A good therapist wouldn't hold a session if those terms weren't met by both sides because it wouldn't be productive nor fair without them. (ask me how I know....)
In that light, Godot, you can see a whole lot of wasted time expecting something that isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately, the world has gotten would up pretty good. And many people are now simply conversational bullies (by inculation.) Where does one begin with the many flavors of Stop the Steal? Or the Pelosi or AOC is the devil carps. These are people who voted for a president without a platform.... As Dostoyevsky says in the House of the Dead, "once a man gets a taste of the power of being a bully, it is almost impossible to change him."
Terrific insights, as usual.
Until... The "listen more to idiots" trope.
No question that everyone has been wound up to 11 these days. But the ole "listen more to understand" is a losing game when it's assymetrical. If the "other side" is unreasonable, either because they will never spend as much effort for you as you do for them, or has an irrational position from ad hominem attacks or plain stupid allegations, then spending any resources on trying to "understand their position" or "meeting them halfway" is a category error of unrequited projection.
Spending time on stupid is stupid. It simply validates bad behavior and wastes your resources.
The way I frame any attempt at having a conversation is to think about what it would be like if two people held their conversation in couples therapy. What would a neutral third party think of the symmetry of the exchange and the willingness on each side to participate in a productive conversation?
A good couples therapist would insist on basic ground rules of reality, good-faith interest in learning, and symmetry. A good therapist wouldn't hold a session if those terms weren't met by both sides because it wouldn't be productive nor fair without them. (ask me how I know....)
In that light, Godot, you can see a whole lot of wasted time expecting something that isn't going to happen.
Unfortunately, the world has gotten would up pretty good. And many people are now simply conversational bullies (by inculation.) Where does one begin with the many flavors of Stop the Steal? Or the Pelosi or AOC is the devil carps. These are people who voted for a president without a platform.... As Dostoyevsky says in the House of the Dead, "once a man gets a taste of the power of being a bully, it is almost impossible to change him."
Kumbaya is aspirational, not rational.