Standing against big government and for the people!
Many years ago, my now deceased father showed me a cartoon from the side of his file-cabinet in his home basement office. It was a yellowed Pogo cartoon drawn by a political cartoonist of a bygone day. It pictured two people at opposite ends of a full-length double mirror shouting at each other with angry expressions on their faces. Dad showed me the cartoon and asked me what I thought it meant.
I knew that this was a teaching moment, so I avoided the typical teenager response. I said, “Dad, it looks like an argument. Neither person is listening to the other. They are only listening to themselves.” He approved of my observation and asked me another question. “Ok son, let us add a judge and an audience. Now what do you see?” I answered. “That looks like a heated debate. They are listening enough to grab onto something to attack with. They are playing to the Judge and the audience to win approval.” He approved, and added a third question. “Now let us remove the mirror, the judge and the audience. Now what do you see?” I answered, “I see the start of a conversation. If they would just calm down and really listen to each other, they might learn something from each other.” My father responded, “Well said son . . . Very well said.” He then used another piece of Scotch ® tape to replace the cartoon to its honored place on his file cabinet. Judging from the layers of tape, I was not the first one to receive the lesson.
I was appointed Chair of the Day at my KIWANIS Club luncheon during Holy Week. The guest speaker was the Archbishop and was well known. I said, “They all know what you do, but they do not know who you are as a person. That is how I would like to introduce you.” He thought for a moment, and then said. “You must have been to a Jesuit retreat to come up with such a profound question. I am first and foremost a minister to everyone I meet. I start with where they are and invite them to walk with me to a better understanding of who they would like to become and help them get there.” That is how I introduced him. It was the shortest introduction the club members could remember. It also had one unanticipated consequence. They made me Chair of the Religious Aims Committee.
Following the lesson from my father and the sage advice of the Archbishop, I adopted this technique. First, I check to see if they are disposed to listen. I also wait for them to engage me. If they are children or adolescents still living with their parents, I do not want to by-pass their parents without their permission.
Sometimes I start with loaded questions. I remain misinformed until they get smart. This way, truth becomes their discovery, not acceptance of my own views. If they are sincere, I will say, "Here is what I have learned from others. Would you like to walk around the fence with me and explore this issue from all sides? Maybe we can figure this out together." This approach encourages "buy-in" to a solution different from their original belief. If they ask for my opinion, I will answer, "I have studied this a bit with help from others. Here is my take on this issue given what I know about it." Again, I am not talking down to them or preaching to the enemy. I am just running some ideas up the flag pole to see who salutes.
In summary, I start with where they are, walk with them to a place of better discernment, and do so in a non-combative manner. I do not interrupt them, especially if they are angry. I let them vent and ask if they are finished. If they interrupt me with another rant, I stop until they finish. I remind them that I did not interrupt them and they sought my opinion. Perhaps they should hear me out.
So how do you talk to people you disagree with and win them over to a different point of view?
Comment
Comment by Patrick Jones on June 6, 2012 at 1:17am WOOOO HOOOO Walker won big time!!!!!!!
Comment by bill coleman on June 5, 2012 at 8:24pm
Comment by Dr M.J.Smart on June 5, 2012 at 6:37pm Recent research indicates that our political and philosophical attitudes are largely hardwired into our brains: we either favor feelings over logic, or logic over feelings. They are polar opposites, a yin & yang, which when balanced properly offer us tremendous survival versatility. However, when the emotional people lie, cheat, and violate every ethical and social more, just to "win", then there is no basis for conversation, and it's time to open up the can of whoopass.
It is the only way that works. Don't always be interest in your own opinion and hearing yourself say it. Listen. You might learn, and even if you are settled in your own opinion (assuming it is based in fact), you will learn where you need to approach the disagreeing passionate person.
I have witnessed about having a relationship with Jesus Christ in just this manner.
Excellent illustration of how to work out problems with others.
Comment by bill coleman on June 4, 2012 at 2:31pm This is taken from the O'Daniel philosophy, also known as "O'Daniel's Words for the Birds." We keep it tucked behind the Book of Revelations.
"The greatest handicap a human being can have is a rebellious spirit. Rebels reject anyone who does not agree with them. They choose their friends from other rebels. Their goals are negative. As a result, they are unable to use their bodies for any useful purpose. They insist on learning from their own experience, so they do not benefit from the lessons of history. Some of these lessons are learned at great price. That price could be their death, or the lives of innocent people who just happen to get in the rebel's way."
Remember that the key prerequisite to a fruitful conversation is DISPOSITION. If the other person is not disposed to listen, you are wasting your time.
Comment by Michael Brennan on June 4, 2012 at 10:58am There are reasons why politics and religion are taboo topics at work, social places and school, too much heated debate for most people to be able to converse without major issues cropping up. Especially now that the Democrats have divided this country yet again, almost like in the days of physical slavery, those who follow such ideologies are trying to do everything they can to prohibit any conversation that would end with more people disagreeing with their point of view. Sometimes it is just best if certain people are not involved in political conversations, they do not know how to separate rhetoric from fact and when we try to engage them, they are incapable of handling it. It is a heartache when you know they need to learn the reality but they are so deep they can only see their side, best not to engage them in conversation.
It finally occurred to me that the disagreement over politics is much larger. It's really a world view disagreement. I have given up on my relationship with a man because of this and more…world views are extremely important and cannot be compromised on or politely keep to yourself. And I really tried.
Comment by Gail Steelhammer-Cohen on June 2, 2012 at 9:03pm Useful information
Posted by Jerry Todd on June 18, 2013 at 5:30pm — 1 Comment
Posted by MOTUS on June 18, 2013 at 10:15am — 82 Comments
Posted by Lloyd Marcus on June 18, 2013 at 8:56am — 25 Comments
Posted by Kathryn McEwen on June 18, 2013 at 5:15am — 2 Comments
© 2013 Created by Grassfire Nation.
You need to be a member of Patriot Action Network to add comments!
Join Patriot Action Network