:: 25 03 2007 ::
I read something insightful today:
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
It's a lesson Dale Carnegie learns at a function, debating a moot point with one of the guests. The guest quotes Shakespeare, incorrectly saying it's from the Bible. DC corrects him, the guest sticks to his guns, so the two approach a Shakespearean scholar (also DC's friend) to pass judgement. The friend subtly kicks DC then says: "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."
When quizzed about it later, the friend tells DC: "Why prove a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle."
His friend's, and subsequently Dale Carnegie's, point is this: in pursuing an argument such as this, you are putting yourself in a lose-lose situation. There can be no positive payoff.
If you lose the argument you lose. But suppose you win? What is there to gain? Nothing. And in cases where the argument does not have a black and white answer, the person you are convincing is unlikely to completely change their opinion.
I guess in application this is harder than it sounds. It means putting your ego aside, accepting your counterpart's error, and then moving on- all in one motion! Will you be recognised for your noble gesture? Unlikely.
It's hard for anyone to do; and much more for someone as argumentative as me. And as I write that last sentence I realise this is exactly where we go wrong: thinking of ourselves before others.
A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.
It's a lesson Dale Carnegie learns at a function, debating a moot point with one of the guests. The guest quotes Shakespeare, incorrectly saying it's from the Bible. DC corrects him, the guest sticks to his guns, so the two approach a Shakespearean scholar (also DC's friend) to pass judgement. The friend subtly kicks DC then says: "Dale, you are wrong. The gentleman is right. It is from the Bible."
When quizzed about it later, the friend tells DC: "Why prove a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? Why argue with him? Always avoid the acute angle."
His friend's, and subsequently Dale Carnegie's, point is this: in pursuing an argument such as this, you are putting yourself in a lose-lose situation. There can be no positive payoff.
If you lose the argument you lose. But suppose you win? What is there to gain? Nothing. And in cases where the argument does not have a black and white answer, the person you are convincing is unlikely to completely change their opinion.
I guess in application this is harder than it sounds. It means putting your ego aside, accepting your counterpart's error, and then moving on- all in one motion! Will you be recognised for your noble gesture? Unlikely.
It's hard for anyone to do; and much more for someone as argumentative as me. And as I write that last sentence I realise this is exactly where we go wrong: thinking of ourselves before others.
posted by HORNY at 8:27 PM
3 Comments:
Dayam that is a good quote - reminds me of why you shouldn't try to 'correct' your friends principles especially if they were raised that way - I don't believe that there is any one correct principle in behavourial areas anwyays - just socially accepted and not accepted.
BUT, let's say in the case that you have a gf, and you really don't agree with her principles, and you try anyway - obviously she's not gonna change, but was it worth trying in the first place?
well i think this really only applies to situations where the maximum payoff is nil. e.g. people you don't know very well, points which are moot etc. it's sort of different for people you are going to interact with regularly.
i think every person should respect another's views, but equally, a lot of good always results from a good debate.
e.g. if you approach the issue through discussion rather than an objective to change the other person, then it gives the opportunity for the other person to willingly change themselves; or alternatively you may decide to change your own views.
i guess you also need the other person to not be defensive and participate in your discussion in a healthy way.
i think argument/discussion/debate is an extremely important part of having a relationship, and many of us don't have the tools to do this well.
so anyway, to answer your q: yeah i think so. i think people should always try to have a positive influence on others.
A well constructed post, and one I agree with. I used to pride myself in being *right*, knowing *more*, and feeling *good* about it.
There's no nice way of correcting people, and really, unless you have lives at stake, you can let the other party be happy with where they are.
Besides, you should gain satisfaction from being sure of your own position first.
If only this would apply to religion....
Post a Comment
<< Home