Tag Archives: arguments

Not going to win

Leave a reply

We are always told to look for the win-win. How can you help both sides of an argument feel like they are getting what they want? The flaw in this is when one side just doesn’t want anything that the other side would consider acceptable. When one side is fixated on a specific outcome, it’s not about working to ‘a’ solution, it’s about working towards ‘their’ solution… the one pre-set and pre-loaded as the only perceivable resolution.

I recently had to deal with a conflict that seemed like it was at a complete impasse. I heard both sides of the argument and was able to negotiate a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It worked because I suggested a much longer timeline. On one side, the person would get what they wanted, but on a slower timeline. On the other side, more work had to be done but in a much more realistic timeline. Easy enough to do, and both sides agreed. In all honesty, I didn’t think it would go as well as it did, and it wouldn’t have if both sides weren’t willing to compromise.

But sometimes one side will be a complete ‘stick in the mud’. Negotiations are halted before they even start because one side refuses to make any concessions. The term “stick to your guns” comes to mind. The thing is, that often ends up feeling like a lose-lose situation.

I’m not saying that people always need to meet in the middle. In fact the middle is seldom the best place to land. But holding a hard line to make a point, or expecting concessions with no compromise seldom leaves anyone feeling that they’ve won.

The Ego and the Way

There is a saying that we are our own worst enemy, and this is especially true when our egos get the best of us. I know that I’m not at my best when I get my back up. I know that making my point a second time in an argument doesn’t help even if… especially if… I’m right. And yet sometimes in the moment of an argument I’ll still poke my point in, like a finger into a wound. Being right becomes more important than coming to an agreement.

Ego clouds the way. Hammering out past transgressions becomes more important than finding a good path forward. Being right trumps being kind, considerate, humble, compromising, or forgiving. Ego destroys apologies, by inserting justifications and explanations. “I’m sorry but…” is not an apology. “What I meant to say…” only adds to the harm. “The reason why…” is a way to justify not a way to heal.

It’s especially hard when the other person doesn’t make it easy. It takes an inner strength to take the good path when being met with frustration or even anger. That’s when the ego wakes and stands it’s ground; When the tone and tenor switches from coming to a settlement to winning an argument; When the ego becomes the way. But when you succumb to ego, you surrender a good outcome. When you meet another’s ego with ego the way forward is lost.

Do you or your ego rise up to a challenge? What is the desired outcome, to be right or to move forward? When the ego clouds the way pack your umbrella because the destination is not bright. Tuck the ego away and a clearer horizon is possible… and you just might arrive somewhere you want to be.

Strong Opinions, Weakly Held

Stanford University professor Paul Saffo is a futurist and future forecaster who coined the phrase, “Strong opinions, weakly held.”

I love this idea. One of the biggest problems today is that too many people have strong opinions that are strongly held. Well, maybe the biggest problem is that too many people have incorrect, unsubstantiated, or uninformed strong opinions that are strongly held. And these poorly formulated strong opinions are exactly the kind of thing that gets magnified on social media… they incite interaction that is more likely to become viral by attracting both opposing views, and the attention of equally like minded, strongly held opinions. Strong opinions, weakly held don’t pull as much social media attention, mainly because these aren’t opinions that people need to shout about online.

The power of strong opinions, weakly held is that ‘strong opinions’ allow you to ‘see’ and be passionate about your perspective, while being ‘loosely held’ allows you to take newly found information and adjust or change your strong opinions.

Case in point: Flat Earthers are the perfect example of strong opinions strongly held. Any evidence given to them doesn’t matter, it’s immediately cast as false or contrived by people conspiring against them. And so no matter the proof given to them, their strong opinion of a flat earth stay unchanged.

Imagine if doctors and scientists held such strong opinions? We’d probably still be blood letting with leaches to treat a fever, and not washing our hands before dealing with open wounds, surgery, and childbirth. Progress comes from being able to let go of conventions and norms that keep us stuck in our current frame of thinking.

Nothing wrong with strong opinions, they are just better off loosely held.

Bad arguments

First of all, let me get a couple things out in the open.

1. Yes, I’m getting the vaccine. Vaccines are a proven technology that saves lives.

2. And yes, I’m pro-choice. Women have a right to choose if they want to bring a life into the world or not, and religious beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on others that do not have those beliefs. (Ie, if your religion tells you differently, you can choose to follow those beliefs.)

Given these points, I think there are people that agree with me, who are choosing bad arguments to justify these points.

Bad argument #1: “I don’t care what’s in that vaccine, I’d do anything to get out of these lockdowns.”

This argument takes all the science and care people have done to study the vaccine and ensure it is safe and lumps it into a category of, “Anything is better than this.” With the word ‘anything’ including all kinds of fear and misinformation about what could happen after taking the vaccine. This argument says nothing of the efficacy of this vaccine, or any vaccine. This doesn’t focus on how many millions of flu vaccines have been taken yearly for decades, and the lack of any statistically harmful effects, juxtaposed to how many people die from flus each year… or how many people have already died, and will continue to die, or have lifelong adverse effects from covid-19.

Bad argument #2: “If you really are pro-life, then why are you against social programs that would support single moms, and why aren’t you willing to adopt a child that a mother isn’t ready or able to raise?”

This argument suggests there could be a perfect world, where every expectant mother could have choices to have the baby, and thus not need the choice to not have it. Absolutely, there should be better social programs to give expectant mothers more choice when faced with an unwanted child. But the idea that if those external choices are all there, the mother will then no longer have a choice to not have the child… this is no longer a pro-choice argument.

Both of these arguments are examples of taking positions unhelpful towards making a valid intended point or choice. Both do not convince anyone with opposing views that they should change their minds. They are bad arguments that do not help support the very points they are making.

Want to argue with someone that disagrees with you? Start with a valid argument that actually supports what you are saying.

3 sides to every story

It was my sister many years ago who said this to me the first time, but I’ve heard it many times since. There are 3 sides to every story: The first person’s perspective, the second person’s perspective, and somewhere in between there is the Truth.

We all want to feel that our experience is the Truth, but in reality we can’t always see where the other person is coming from. Relationships often have perceived truths that limit us from seeing the full Truth that lies in the middle. Our bias doesn’t have to come from malice, it can come from innocent ignorance. But when we see the bigger Truth, when we are reflecting back on a conversation, we can sometimes see our own flaws in perspective if we are honest with ourselves.

When this happens, we need to decide if it is more important to come back with the new Truth (or at least our perspective of it), or is it more important to concede that our truth was wrong, and think about how holding on to that truth affected the other person? Because even at this new juncture there might still be 3 sides to the story. Pause and reflect again. Maybe the relationship is more important than the Truth?