Are you able to defend anything?
If you aren’t, you should learn.
We all have opinions and ways of seeing the world. It’s easy to defend those.
Being open minded is not about accepting the other people’s opinions, is about understanding them.
It’s about knowing your “enemy.”
If you can’t put yourself in other people’s shoes, any other people’s shoes, then you will either lose an argument, or an opportunity.
No one is really stupid or crazy. There’s a logical reason for every belief.
Control your emotions and use it to your advantage.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I totally agree Carlos. Mientras más nos abrimos a ESCUCHAR todo lo que dicen los otros, más podemos aprender. Esto es lo que más me gustó:
¨No one is really stupid or crazy. There’s a logical reason for every belief.¨
Definitivamente, aunque no lo entendamos, cada cabeza es un mundo, y tiene sus motivos para pensar y actuar como lo hace. Me di cuenta de eso cuando vi a Heath Ledger haciendo del Joker, el andaba matando como un loco pero cuando hablaba, casi todo lo que decía tenía sentido
O sea, cuando abrimos la mente y escuchamos y nos ponemos en la posición de los demás, abrimos un mundo de posibilidades del cual podemos aprender y así nuestros puntos de vista serán también escuchados y respetados.
Iba a escribir en inglés para que los otros que lean puedan entender, pero me es más fácil opinar en español
Sentite libre para comentar en español siempre! Es mi blog después de todo
El Joker es un gran ejemplo, o Mr. Smith de Matrix, no te parece? La locura es democrática, todo tiene lógica.
Great point Carlos. I know too many people who will argue with you all day long and never actually listen to your side of the argument. Sometimes when I disagree with someone I don’t care if they are convinced I’m right as much as I just want them to be able to understand my point of view.
Openmindedness and willingness. Two of the qualities which make a well-developed person.
Heidegger (German existentialist philosopher) said that in order to maintain a state of authenticity we should always be choosing our choices. What this means to me is that when presented with a new idea, we should weigh it against our present position and determine – without bias – which is the better.
I think Zen Habits had an article about not clinging to our beliefs. People take their ideas so personally, you’d think that they had invented them. Just because we adopt a belief or position, doesn’t mean we can’t constantly re-evaluate it, and let go of beliefs/ideas/positions that no longer work.
And at the very least, you walk away understanding the other person’s point of view, hopefully with a little new knowledge under your belt.
I’ve heard of Heidegger, but l still haven’t picked any book of his. Will do now.
Agreed on your point about people defending their ideas as if they were defending themselves. All this idea sharing fuzz should help us change that.
Let me share a little trick that I’ve learned thanks to my discussions and arguments:
When you put yourself in other people’s shoes, you can see their weakness. The weakness of their argument rarely lies on the argument intself. It lies in the choice of words. As I’ve said, there’s a logical reason behind every belief.
Once we understand this, we can make our argument fit in theirs, jsut by choosing different words. In a way, you’re uniting opinions (which does not mean reaching common ground). The interesting part is that once you do this, it’s really hard for the debate to go on. Mainly because if they keep disagreeing, they are now contradicting themselves.
It’s hard to explain, but you’ll get what I mean, as I’m sure you are already familiar with this tehcnique.
The power of words, probably the most important and underrated of all powers.
I agree with 95% of this (shocking, I know, right?!) The part I disagree with is the idea that EVERY argument has a logical reason behind it. And the part that makes me not necessarily agree is the people who speak with hate and malice and prejudice.
Take for example Jerry Falwell when he made the public statement that the United States “deserved” to be attacked on 9/11 because of it’s “support” of homosexuals. I find so many things wrong with this statement that I cannot even begin to find a logical reason within it. I’m sure something happened at some point to make him THINK there is logic behind it, but while I might be able to follow the train of thought on it, it’s not a train I’m a fan of getting on.