Most people are probably right about most things most of the time, because most people get through their day-to-day lives reasonably well.

However, “most things” and “most people” still leaves a lot for all of us to be wrong about — even on a regular basis. Moreover, I have a hunch that the kinds of things we’re wrong about lean towards one-offs rather than day-to-day things, and possibly tend to be the bigger, more directional things that set the tone for everything else. If we’re wrong about certain fundamental concepts, facts, or principles, our day-to-day behaviors that align with them may be “right” in context — but it’s the context itself that is “off.”

Of course, I could be wrong.

We lost our cable connection today. We have a cable service, through which we get our TV service and our internet. It went out.

I did the usual stuff. I rebooted the router. I rebooted the cable box for the one TV in the house that is on a hard coax connection (the others are on WiFi connections). I verified that there were no service interruptions in the area. I checked all the connections… (more on that later)…

For about an hour, I was on the phone to the cable company, rerouted to 5 different people, until they finally told me that they couldn’t get a technician out until Tuesday (it’s Sunday). This is what they call “24/7/365” care. I was getting more and more upset. Clearly, the problem was on their end. Nothing changed on mine — or so I thought. I was so sure.

So here’s where I should have gotten a clue…

It turns out that, few hours ago, I had gone back into the furnace room to get a fan. The furnace room also happens to be where the cable comes into the house. It’s all up in one upper corner of the room, in the ceiling. It’s rat’s nest of cables, but I went nowhere near it when I got the fan.

However, I did have to move some things around to find the fan. In doing so, it seems I knocked a plug loose from the outlet in the wall — on the other side of the room from the rat’s nest. This plug (wait for it…) happens to be the power for the key splitter for all the cabling into the house. Bingo. Problem solved.

My wife found the problem. Why? because she wasn’t focused on the part of the room where the cables were. I knew the cabling couldn’t be the problem, because I hadn’t been anywhere near it. She had an open mind. I didn’t.

The fact that I had to move boxes around to get to the fan because my wife put a bunch of stuff in this room that shouldn’t have been there in the first place… well, that’s another story. 🙂

I’m a fan of Simon Sinek. Here’s a recent post on LinkedIn, from his perspective.

This is an interesting perspective, as obvious as it might seem. I focus a lot on understanding another person’s point of view, by using techniques like echoing back what we’ve heard. If we can do this — to the speaker’s satisfaction — then we can be more sure that we understand.

This post is the flip side of that. I say something, then I ask you to echo it back to me. If you can do that, then I can be sure you understand, and I have communicated well.

So… did you get all that? 🙂

Oh, come on! Is Scott Adams reading this site?

How many times have you been her? Be honest.

A fascinating story about how motivated reasoning works. When are you being a soldier, and when are you being a scout?

I’ve been using an app called “10 Percent Happier” for a couple of years. It’s created by Dan Harris, an ABC news journalist. The app is a collection of short discussions and guided meditations (almost all under 15 minutes). The discussions are with a variety of prominent meditation teachers, all with Dan’s practical, relaxed, and often humorous approach to meditation for everyday people in everyday life.
I was discussing UnderstandingOnPurpose with my wife, Linda. She’s a Licenced Professional Counselor (LPC), and focuses on somatic approaches to the work she does. I was telling her that, in my pursuit of how people communicate (or don’t), I find myself repeatedly following the trail of various experts in the field of relationship therapies; couples therapy and the like.
So today, as I opened my 10 Percent Happier app for my morning session, I drifted toward the “Relationships” collection, and came across a session by Oren Jay Sofer. One of the first things out of his mouth during the opening discussion was about, during a conversation with another human, how it’s important to continually check in to be sure you’re hearing the other person — understanding what they’re saying.
But he went deeper. He emphasized that it’s important to understand “what really matters about” what the other person is saying — to that person. He made it clear that, in asking questions like “let me see if I get what you’re saying,” it’s important to be genuinely curious. It’s much more important to be genuinely curious than to get the words right. Also, it’s helpful, rather than to ask an open-ended question like “what do you mean by that?” to given an example. It matters less if you got the example right than that you made an honest, sincere attempt. This keeps the conversation going.

I’ve been using an app called “10 Percent Happier” for a couple of years. It’s created by Dan Harris, an ABC news journalist. The app is a collection of short discussions and guided meditations (almost all under 15 minutes).  The discussions are with a variety of prominent meditation teachers, all with Dan’s practical, relaxed, and often humorous approach to meditation for everyday people in everyday life.  

I was discussing UnderstandingOnPurpose with my wife, Linda Franke. She’s a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), and focuses on somatic approaches to the work she does. I was telling her that, in my pursuit of how people communicate (or don’t), I find myself repeatedly following the trail of various experts in the field of relationship therapies; couples therapy and the like.

So today, as I opened my 10 Percent Happier app for my morning session, I drifted toward the “Relationships” collection, and came across a session by Oren Jay Sofer. One of the first things out of his mouth during the opening discussion was about, during a conversation with another human, how it’s important to continually check in to be sure you’re hearing the other person — understanding what they’re saying. What a great idea! 🙂

But he went deeper. He emphasized that it’s important to understand “what really matters about” what the other person is saying — to that person.  He made it clear that, in asking questions like “let me see if I get what you’re saying,” it’s important to be genuinely curious. It’s much more important to be genuinely curious than to get the words right. Also, it’s helpful, rather than to ask an open-ended question like “what do you mean by that?” to given an example. It matters less if you got the example right than that you made an honest, sincere attempt.  This keeps the conversation going.

Julia Dhar: How to have constructive conversations https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_dhar_how_to_have_constructive_conversations

(Thanks to my friend Wayne for turning me on to this video).

Here are my key takeaways…

Start with where are you agree. The video points are a great example of where Jordan Peterson not only agrees with, but actively expands upon a potential adversaries point, and then takes it just a little bit further to counter the argument. This is a technique that practitioners of Aikido know very well. It’s called blending. In layman’s terms, it is often referred to as “using your opponents energy against themselves.” But I don’t think that sentiment addresses the true nature of the behavior. It’s really about starting by becoming “one” with your opponent, as woo-woo as that may sound. In a true blend, there is, for a moment at least, no difference between the attacker and the attacked.

It is best to speak in terms like these: “it seems like… “, which acknowledges the fact that you cannot truly know what the other person is thinking or feeling. You then go about clarifying the other persons point in a way that they would agree with.“ A-men! This is the “talking stick exercise“ that I’ve discussed in other posts. This is Jedi master stuff.

To (eventually, inevitably) address contentious arguments, start by establishing your good intentions. (4:18) The idea is to defuse the connection between the person with whom you’re speaking, and their ideas. We so easily become identified with our ideas. It makes us hold on. It makes us less likely two let go of an idea, because it means we would be letting go of a piece of ourselves.

BTW, if you approach the whole exercise — especially items in the two paragraphs above — with the agenda of learning “tricks” to defeat you opponent, you’re missing the point entirely.

Separate your own ego from the views that you had when you entered the discussion. Recognize that “your“ views are not really “yours,” and make it clear to the person with whom you’re speaking that you understand this is true for them, as well. Non-identification with your opinions is essential! In Aikido, we train ourselves to enter a confrontation without an agenda. It’s really hard, even in a training scenario. Just keep in mind that you are not attacking (or defending yourself from) a person. You are merely taking issue with a particular argument (or technique) — the attack, not the person who delivered the attack. Don’t think or say “The problem I have with your argument.” This addresses the fundamental need for people to be right; or, conversely, the fundamental fear people have of being wrong. It’s not “your” (or “my”) argument. It’s “the” argument. Do not identify with “your perspective.“

7:45 in the video — if you remember nothing else in this post, memorize this 17 seconds.

I’ve long thought that there’s a lot of wisdom in the Comics. Here’s one that needs no words from me.  Happy Memorial Day.