Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share You Can be Right, Or You Change The World. (EP.92)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
You Can be Right, Or You Change The World. (EP.92)
Summary:
You can be right, or you can change the world--but not both.
For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).
Transcript:
You can be right, or you can change the world--but not both.
For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).
From a very personal perspective, I have lost a lot of love in my life by insisting on being right. I lost the love after the argument when I was proved wrong. And I lost the love after the argument even (especially?) when I am proved right.
If you want to avoid those type of hurtful losses, challenge yourself: What is the result you are seeking in any debate or simple discussion where there may be disagreement? If the result you seek is to somehow make yourself feel good by trying to make the other person look bad, then repeating clichés, slogans and insults might work for you. Or backing them into a corner. Interrupting and not listening. Doggedly hanging onto your argument despite how reasonable and fact-driven the other person might be. Or appeal to others who agree with you who are observing the discussion by saying things—on topic or not—that will trigger their support for you and incite them to jump in on your side. Playing to the audience, in other words. All of these tactics will allow you to feel good about “your side”.
What would happen if you--if we--changed the definition of “your side” away from defending our position at all costs, to being open to the possibility of gaining an even better view of the issues under discussion? Then “our side” would have been improved, yes? And by handling the discussion this way, the other person is far more likely to do the same with us. (That person started with a “side” as well.) What can happen here is that the two sides come closer to becoming one side. Let’s use this possibility to have some fun with arithmetic. If two people are arguing, not listening and insisting on being right, it can be represented arithmetically: 1 – 1 = 0. One minus one equals zero. Each participant detracts from everything the other has said, with zero learning or progress. The other person had a “side”, too. And they are just as convicted as we are.
Similarly, two people in a discussion with the idea of listening, learning and possibly improving their viewpoint can be represented by: 1 + 1 = 3. One plus one equals three. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Both sides have learned, and, who knows, may team up rather than remain opposed.
Imagine a world if we sought first to find common ground. Among men and women of goodwill, there is always common ground, if you make an honest and patient search for it. For example, could anyone disagree with the common ground in pre-K-12 education being the best possible education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? Yet discussion rages in this area with all sides assuming that the other sides have some sort of self-serving goal. At Revolution 2.0™ we work to create that world,, not just imagine it.
To discuss/argue in the productive way recommended at Revolution 2.0, we’ll have to let go of defending our egos as the desired result, and substitute making things better as the goal. In other words, we would change the desired result from being right to finding and implementing what’s right.
Know your desired result, e.g.,
View all episodes
By Will LudenSummary:
You can be right, or you can change the world--but not both.
For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).
Transcript:
You can be right, or you can change the world--but not both.
For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).
From a very personal perspective, I have lost a lot of love in my life by insisting on being right. I lost the love after the argument when I was proved wrong. And I lost the love after the argument even (especially?) when I am proved right.
If you want to avoid those type of hurtful losses, challenge yourself: What is the result you are seeking in any debate or simple discussion where there may be disagreement? If the result you seek is to somehow make yourself feel good by trying to make the other person look bad, then repeating clichés, slogans and insults might work for you. Or backing them into a corner. Interrupting and not listening. Doggedly hanging onto your argument despite how reasonable and fact-driven the other person might be. Or appeal to others who agree with you who are observing the discussion by saying things—on topic or not—that will trigger their support for you and incite them to jump in on your side. Playing to the audience, in other words. All of these tactics will allow you to feel good about “your side”.
What would happen if you--if we--changed the definition of “your side” away from defending our position at all costs, to being open to the possibility of gaining an even better view of the issues under discussion? Then “our side” would have been improved, yes? And by handling the discussion this way, the other person is far more likely to do the same with us. (That person started with a “side” as well.) What can happen here is that the two sides come closer to becoming one side. Let’s use this possibility to have some fun with arithmetic. If two people are arguing, not listening and insisting on being right, it can be represented arithmetically: 1 – 1 = 0. One minus one equals zero. Each participant detracts from everything the other has said, with zero learning or progress. The other person had a “side”, too. And they are just as convicted as we are.
Similarly, two people in a discussion with the idea of listening, learning and possibly improving their viewpoint can be represented by: 1 + 1 = 3. One plus one equals three. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Both sides have learned, and, who knows, may team up rather than remain opposed.
Imagine a world if we sought first to find common ground. Among men and women of goodwill, there is always common ground, if you make an honest and patient search for it. For example, could anyone disagree with the common ground in pre-K-12 education being the best possible education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? Yet discussion rages in this area with all sides assuming that the other sides have some sort of self-serving goal. At Revolution 2.0™ we work to create that world,, not just imagine it.
To discuss/argue in the productive way recommended at Revolution 2.0, we’ll have to let go of defending our egos as the desired result, and substitute making things better as the goal. In other words, we would change the desired result from being right to finding and implementing what’s right.
Know your desired result, e.g.,