I am a fan of Ravi Zacharias. His lessons are full of pearls of wisdom. Consider what he says on materialism:
"The lust of the eyes is greed. It basically takes that which is material and defines it as essentially spiritual."
"I do not believe any man should feel guilty about making money or possessing money, but we need to feel guilty if we are possessed by it and if that makes us."
Friday, January 18, 2013
Sunday, January 06, 2013
A Winning Argument
This a quick exploration into winning, primarily winning arguments. Perhaps this exercise is obvious once stated. In winning an argument there are two general outcomes:
1. You overpower someone into defeat/ submission/ giving up.
2. The opponent joins you or, in the least, gains an understanding.
"Respect" could be had either way but I propose that the second outcome is more desired.
In the first, an adversarial relationship persists. In the second you gain ground and a potential ally.
Approach
The desired outcome dictates the focus of the approach. The first outcome is driven by sheer will, persistence, force, skill or luck. The second is driven by reasoning and persuasion. Certainly one employs will and skill in reasoning, but to reiterate, the focus of the approach is different.
Outcome
In the first, the confrontation ends with the opponent choosing against his/her will. In the second the opponent chooses to realign their will. Which is more satisfying to you? Perhaps defeating another provides a temporary ego boost, but consider the greater gain of winning heart and mind. Consider when an opponent gives up, you technically win but it may not feel like a win. Do they give up because they've given up on you? In the first you may have won, but you have not won the person over. You may have even lost them for good. There is a higher likelihood in the first outcome for one or both to be worse off because of the confrontation (Lose-Lose, Win-Lose, Lose-Win). The second outcome provides a chance for both to be better off (Win-Win). If the intent of an argument is not to convince someone then what is the point of arguing in the first place unless one wants to be a troll and argue for the sake of arguing.
1. You overpower someone into defeat/ submission/ giving up.
2. The opponent joins you or, in the least, gains an understanding.
"Respect" could be had either way but I propose that the second outcome is more desired.
In the first, an adversarial relationship persists. In the second you gain ground and a potential ally.
Approach
The desired outcome dictates the focus of the approach. The first outcome is driven by sheer will, persistence, force, skill or luck. The second is driven by reasoning and persuasion. Certainly one employs will and skill in reasoning, but to reiterate, the focus of the approach is different.
Outcome
In the first, the confrontation ends with the opponent choosing against his/her will. In the second the opponent chooses to realign their will. Which is more satisfying to you? Perhaps defeating another provides a temporary ego boost, but consider the greater gain of winning heart and mind. Consider when an opponent gives up, you technically win but it may not feel like a win. Do they give up because they've given up on you? In the first you may have won, but you have not won the person over. You may have even lost them for good. There is a higher likelihood in the first outcome for one or both to be worse off because of the confrontation (Lose-Lose, Win-Lose, Lose-Win). The second outcome provides a chance for both to be better off (Win-Win). If the intent of an argument is not to convince someone then what is the point of arguing in the first place unless one wants to be a troll and argue for the sake of arguing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)