An important first step is as follows.
“Have you ever been in a conflict with someone who thought he was wrong. If you are not wrong, then you will be willing to consider how you might be mistaken.”
― Arbinger Institute, The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict
Good Reads Arbinger Quotes
Arbinger Site
I thought this was a worthwhile note because it seems we all continually fall into our historical position instead of even considering the other possible shades of gray. Then again, maybe each of us knows better than everyone else... To believe that would be normal.
Interesting how us humans can believe so differently and yet we insist adamantly that our truth is the only correct truth. I guess that must mean we are incredibly smart and everyone else must be stupid...
So my challenge to all: try being willing to look for how you may be mistaken... It can provide for an excellent experience.
Thoughts?
Per J's comment, here is more of the quote:
"“Okay, first of all,” Lou began, “I asked whether it makes any difference in a conflict if one side is in the right and the other in the wrong. So I ask again: doesn’t that matter?”
“Yes,” Yusuf replied, “it does matter. But not in the way you think it does.”
“What is that supposed to mean?”
“Well, Lou,” Yusuf responded measuredly, “have you ever been in a conflict with someone who thought he was wrong?”
Lou thought of Cory and the boardroom meeting with his five mutinous executives.
“No,” he answered coolly. “But that doesn’t mean they’re not.”
“True,” Yusuf agreed. “But you see, no conflict can be solved so long as all parties are convinced they are right. Solution is possible only when at least one party begins to consider how he might be wrong.”
“But what if I’m not wrong!” Lou blurted.
“If you are not wrong, then you will be willing to consider how you might be mistaken.”
“What kind of twisted riddle is that?”
Yusuf smiled. “It only seems like a riddle, Lou, because we are so unaccustomed to considering the impact of what is below our words, actions, and our thoughts.”"
18 comments:
“Have you ever been in a conflict with someone who thought he was wrong. If you are not wrong, then you will be willing to consider how you might be mistaken.”
I usually assume sincerity. And as something of a relativist, I don't often think in black or white, right or wrong terms, although I think those qualities do exist. I often am of the opinion that ideas I disagree with or do not favor, can have merit. And my opinions often have limits or can be dependent on context.
--Hiram
I don't even understand the quote; it seems there are one too many negatives in it.
But to me it all resolves down to facts and logic. If, based on the facts you have, you can logically derive your conclusions, then you are right, not wrong. Now in our complex world there may be people who chose a different set of facts from which to reason, reaching a different conclusion, and that is why we have discussions. There will be others who don't have enough facts to begin with, and/or use faulty (or no) logic to reach conclusions, and that is why we have arguments.
"...Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. ..." -- Max Ehrmann
J. Ewing
I agree the quote is not too clear without more context. I'll type some more in later.
The challenge with Max's qoute is that he has apparently already judged the speaker to be dull or ignorant. With that as a state of mind, no real listening can take place.
Most people are thinking about their response when someone with an opposing opinion is speaking, therefore they are not truly listening either.
"Now in our complex world there may be people who chose a different set of facts from which to reason, reaching a different conclusion, and that is why we have discussions."
Sure, among other things, it's known as mining the data. There are enough facts around to justify any conclusion, which is why I am no big fan of logic.
--Hiram
I read this blog it hopes of discovering areas in which my position on an issue is mistaken. Thus far I have not found reason to change my mind on anything :)
I do sometimes gripe about freeloaders, but I did that before I started reading pts. of view expressed here. The odd thing is I gripe more charitable handouts than I do about govt programs. Every year my inner scrooge comes out reading about the families the salvation army has chosen to highlight in their giving program. No need to convince me this is not rational.
I added the additional text right out of the book, except for my 2 fingered typist typos...
Laurie,
Thank heavens that changing people's belief systems is not part of my goal statement, otherwise I would feel quite the failure.
G2A Goal: Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
The question that I would raise is do you know why you believe what you believe? An accident of fate or beliefs based on universal principles. That is the most important question...
My favorite Covey quote... "People do not see the world as it is; they see it as they are - or as they have been conditioned to be."
For fun, imagine that you were born and raised in a totally different circumstance. Possibly a different country, race, sex, economic circumstance, religion, etc. Then imagine how your belief systems would be different and how they would be similar.
An extreme example is to imagine you were born a male in a poor extremist Taliban family in Afganistan. How would you see things differently?
Sorry, but it's still not making much sense. If you are right and no one can convince you, using facts and logic, that you are mistaken or have taken a "wrong turn" someplace in your reasoning chain, then you are still right. I do not consider it my responsibility to search for ways to convince myself that I may be in error. That is the job of those who, right, wrong or just plain sloppily have arrived at a different conclusion.
Again, we often find that we differ on which facts, out of a multitude of truths about a given subject, we begin reasoning from, and thus reach a different conclusion. We also find that we sometimes start off discussion without agreeing on common definitions of words or common standards for evaluating the goodness of proposed solutions. It's all interesting, but sometimes it isn't very productive.
J. Ewing
John,
about "why you believe what you believe?" I think most credit for this goes to the internet and my ability to choose my sources for news and opinions. I am quite a bit more liberal than my less political family.
Your post has inspired me to try to fit reading 2 favorite somewhat conservative blogs back into my day.
My imagination is not good enough to put me in the the mindset of a poor Taliban guy, but I think people have more ability to shape their own views/values than what you imply. My very liberal church is full of members that were raised in more conservative denominations.
Laurie, I think you may have touched on something important to this discussion. People can and do change their minds and positions and actions all the time, because something or somebody convinces them they were "mistaken" before. Contrary to popular belief around here, I believe I am fully open to being convinced that I am wrong. If you haven't seen it, you need to improve your argument. Or perhaps consider that it is you who are mistaken.
The thing that concerns me here is to characterize a difference of opinion as a "conflict." To me, a difference of opinion is an opportunity for discussion and a shared quest for the truth.
J. Ewing
Short on time so I'll make this quick.
Which of us are the dull and ignorant, and which of us are the sharp and brilliant?
And how does one tell?
And who is willing to see themselves as the dull and ignorant?
Apparently "conflict" can be defined at many different levels or magnitude.Conflict Definitions
I agree that our discussions are primarily exercises in opinion sharing. Yet if we were to be in the same room trying to pass a law regarding one of these sensitive topics, I am pretty sure it would escalate closer to what most people consider conflict before the law got passed. Assuming we are all as passionate about our beliefs as I think we are.
Laurie,
I agree that people's beliefs shift during their lifetime for many reasons. That is why I am fascinated with what the triggers are, and if we are even aware of them?
One of my favorite quotes goes something like this... "All people grow old, but not all old people are wise." My guess is that the unwise folks kept thinking their cup was full and stopped actively trying to challenge themselves and what they believed.Cup Story
I think very highly of you for your continued efforts to read information and opinions from both sides!!! It is rare to find someone like you.
J,
If you are willing, please share with us one example of where you have significantly revised a significant belief based on speaking or blogging with someone. How did they sway you?
After chatting with you for years. I am very curious about this.
As for the Anatomy of Peace quote, I guess you will have to read the books to see if that helps clarify why this quote is so important. You will love Lou Herbert, he is the business owner and Father that the stories both revolve around.
Not sure how this link will work... The point is that the library carries multiple copies of each of them.
Henn Library Anatomy of Peace - Self Deception
Also they are in a fiction story format, so they are easy to read.
John,
Because your link made it so easy to find your recommended books, I am going to read, or at least skim them (also amazon shows them highly recommended by 100+ people)
As I can't really think of any big ways my thinking has changed by considering other points of view, I have considered the converse, which of my opinions have become most strongly set through explaining/attemping to persuade someone with an opposing point of view. For me two things come to mind; the major problem that is global warming/climate change and also the need for/ benefits of (single payer) universal healthcare.
It's funny that I do faily frequently find my self agreeing with conservatives, as there are a fair amount who criticize our modern GOP leaders (Davie Frum, Bruce Bartlett, OTB bloggers come to mind)
"If you are willing, please share with us one example of where you have significantly revised a significant belief based on speaking or blogging with someone. How did they sway you?" -- John
It has happened on numerous occasions. One of the most recent occurred on a local conservative blog deriding Herman Cain and promoting Newt Gingrich as the preferred nominee. I started out defending Mr. Cain, dismissing Mr. Gingrich for having too much "baggage," and generally wanting to continue the Republican presidential contest, with as many candidates as possible, all the way to the Republican National Convention in August. My theory was that by forcing the mainstream media and the Obama campaign (although that is redundant) to focus fire on multiple targets until very late in the campaign, they would exhaust their huge money advantage and have little time to target the eventual nominee. I am now more or less convinced that I was mistaken on all counts.
It was pointed out to me that Mr. Cain obviously lacks serious knowledge about rather fundamental issues, particularly in foreign policy. He should have known that was his weakness and been prepared better, indicating a lack of judgment or perhaps seriousness that cannot be defended. Charges of sexual impropriety can be defended, challenged or ignored (except by the mainstream media, of course) but serious deficiencies on important policy matters cannot.
It was pointed out to me that Mr. Gingrich's "baggage" has been thoroughly exposed for a long, long time now, that he has proved adept at handling the media when they drift away from serious policy and into salacious nonsense, and that he has good solutions to the problems of this country. I knew all of these things, so all it required to change my mind was to reason from those known facts to a different conclusion.
Lastly, it was pointed out that it doesn't matter who the eventual nominee is or when they are selected, the media and the Obama campaign will launch the most massive, negative, "politics of personal destruction" campaign in history, and that's just the way it is. Again, reasoning differently, but effectively, from known facts to arrive at a different conclusion. Go ahead, try it!
J. Ewing
Hi J,
Thanks for the example, though I am not sure that picking between 2 Conservative candidates qualifies as a significant belief system change. It seems kind of like discussing which shade of blue the kitchen should be painted. But it is definitely directionally correct.
All,
I've been pondering how my challenge applied to my own views. Here are some of the significant changes and how I got there:
I used to believe most Teachers are paid an adequate to somewhat high compensation. Now I believe most Teachers are paid a low to adequate compensation. Especially the younger highly qualified Teachers, they are getting severely taken advantage of. This change occured over years of studying their compensation and discussing the topic with many Teachers.
I used to believe that depression, anxiety, addiction, etc were simply signs of a weak person with no self control. Now I understand that they are serious physical conditions with far reaching consequences that are very difficult to overcome without a significant support system. My bout of anxiety and depression ~5 yrs back opened my eyes in a very experiential and acute way. Then I began listening more closely regarding the topics and to all the "normal" people I knew that had gone through it.
Finally, I used to see the world as very simple and I believed I had it all figured out. Then I figured out that I was a dillusional idiot and that the world is very complicated. This occured because I was open to truly listening to coaches, reading books, listening, posing lots of questions, etc.
The journey to wisdom is pretty interesting.... Thanks to all of you for helping me along the way...
J-
Here is the take of another conservative on Gingrich which rings true to me. What are your thoughts on pts raised by B. Bartlett?
Gingrich and the Destruction of Congressional Expertise
John,
I keep reading your blog because you impressed me early on as an intelligent guy. From your last comment I now know you are also wise (and could accused of empathy or compassion.) I especially appreciated the part related to mental health. As a person with bipolar disorder my recurring battle with depression has returned and it is still hard for me not to think of it as a personal weakness or failing. Reading blogs rather than doing my spec ed. paper work is one not-too-smart way that I cope. Now that I am facing an immediate deadline I am going to get something done before I go home.
"What are your thoughts on pts raised by B. Bartlett?" -- Laurie
I have learned over the years that the best thing to do when reading news items is to treat them like opinion items, which is to separate out the facts first and then, if you have the time and interest, see what the writer's opinion is, and if it matches the conclusion you would draw from the same facts. Even if the opinion does not match the facts as you see them, or your preconceived opinion (always open to change), or if there simply aren't enough facts from which to draw a solid conclusion, you still have some new facts to toss into your thinking.
In this case, we will assume that the quote from Mr. Gingrich is accurate, though it is not above some journalists to simply make stuff up. Mr. Gingrich obviously engaged in a certain amount of hyperbolic venting, but knowing how hard he worked with Jack Kemp on government economic reforms, it may be understandable. Knowing that the CBO then, as now, insists upon "static scoring" of legislation tells me the other half of what I need to know, which is that Mr. Gingrich would have a deep aversion to calling the CBO any kind of "expert." The plain truth is that federal legislation does not operate as legislators intend but rather follows the "law of unintended consequences" where new taxes lead to new tax avoidance schemes, and new taxes and regulations lead to dampers on business. People adapt their behavior to legislation, backspace; they don't simply keep on doing what they were doing, as assumed in the static scoring model. Here is another example: the CBO said that Obamacare would pay for itself. Congress had written into the law that there would be 10 years of taxes collected but only four years of benefits paid. Of COURSE it pays for itself, but what about the following 10 years? Not only that, but they counted $500 million of Medicare cuts TWICE – once as a cut and once again when that money was spent on Obamacare benefits!
Mr. Bartlett probably has his facts straight, but when anybody tries to tell me what somebody's motivations are for a certain action, I dismiss their statement as non-factual because they cannot possibly know somebody's motivations unless they are stated outright by the person acting. Besides, the goodness or badness of the action doesn't depend upon the motivation of the actor. In other words, "just the facts, ma'am" and I will form my own opinions, thank you.
J. Ewing
"I am not sure that picking between 2 Conservative candidates qualifies as a significant belief system change. " – John
I am not sure what you would consider "significant," either, but let me offer another example. For a long time, I believed it was heartless and unreasonable to deport illegal aliens. I have worked with some of these people and they are nice people. The majority of them come here for job opportunities, and I assumed that most of them had nothing to go back to in their home countries, so sending them back could be a death sentence. The law had to be obeyed and a penalty exacted for breaking it, but what I favored was some sort of guest worker program with a heavy fine attached. But when I suggested such a compassionate conservative course to my Congressman, he informed me in no uncertain terms that this was a form of amnesty, that the penalty for illegal entry was deportation not a fine, and that most illegal aliens, even the "nice" ones, were guilty of numerous crimes just to maintain their presence here, and that there should be no reward for that additional lawbreaking even if one wished to overlook the illegal entry. I had to agree. It wasn't a realistic solution (you can't deport them all, heck, you can't even find them), nor did it seem a compassionate one.
Then some states passed laws to, essentially, enforce federal immigration law and to my surprise huge numbers of illegal aliens "self deported"! Certainly many of them went to other states, but many of them also went back across the southern border, telling me that it wasn't the death sentence I thought it was. That leads me to the solution I now prefer, which is to order federal immigration law to be enforced nationwide, including strict prohibition on the employment of illegals. Once they all leave because there is no work, we seal the border and open a wide gate where anybody who has a standing job offer and a place to live and a "sponsor" (employer) can come back in as a legal guest worker with no path to citizenship and a limited time here (no questions asked, wink-wink but the law was followed). They can get in line, at the back of the line, to become legal citizens and must meet all of the qualifications thereof. This solution is entirely my opinion, based on the facts as I now see them. "When the facts change, I change my mind." – Paul Samuelson
J. Ewing
Post a Comment