Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Are you serious?!?
Let me introduce you to my friend Jonathan. Jonathan has been late to most of our RA meetings, and in a couple of the classes i have been in with him he has made a habit of walking in late, on a good day within 15 minutes of the time the class started. Jonathan sometimes gets offended when someone mentions his punctuality problems but for the most part he recognizes that he seems to be late to everything. Recently he has even made jokes himself about it and laughed about the fact that he has been approached about being the "most likely to be late for graduation." Today at the dinner table, i dont even know how it started but he began to verbally assault me about making a comment about his lateness. He said what proof do you have, if you are going to say something you need to back it up. I followed to say that i had a number of occassions in mind, where he was late, and everyone knew he was late to the meetings just about everyweek. I think i remember the comment that set him off was me saying that he doesnt even try to be on time, which looking back, although warranted, was maybe not the most amicably statement i could have made. I started to give him examples, like when after a class we had together got out (a class he was late too) we left at the same time for a meeting and i got there like three minutes ahead of him after running to be on time, where as he slowly walked in late. I was interrupted and he said just don't be a critic and started saying that, that wasn't verifiable. Unlike him, i don't talk over people, and so continued to get pounded into the ground everytime i tried to explain myself in the face of his attacks. What was especially annoying was the fact that he changed his argument from you don't have evidence, which everyone at the table (inappropriate time to condescendingly talk to someone, as if there is an appropriate time) knew there was overwheliming evidence, to him telling me "don't be a critic." Which is foolish indeed when he is a bigger critic than I, constantly hounding me about being too competitive, how i make everything a competition, something i have only fueled by humbling recognizing that sometimes i take games too seriously, but am trying to work on having a less competitve attitude.
The most annoying part of the conversation was that i didn't get a chance to say a thing and he just kept telling me i was in the wrong repetitively. Jon is remarkably good at winning conversations (he's much more competitive with this than I am with sports), everytime you start to say anything that comes close to his stance weakening he changes the subject and doesn't let you speak until you have found something to say about his new stance, if you still do try to comment on any differing point of view he cuts you off before you can speak.
I personally think and have really worked on putting into practice that the goal of any argument is not to win but to grow. Going along with that, I think any good argument should involve a much larger percentage of time thinking and listening then it should involve thinking, and as contrary as it is to any conversation i think i have ever had or heard of it may last over a few days when different parties and point of views have a time to reflect.
One of the things that i think has always blocked good conversation is ego. Most people just really can not admit to having been wrong or even admit to having taken something from the other person's point of view. They don't want to grow, they want to be proven right. Many people in this mad mad world are always in defense. Some of these people, like Jon, have mastered this defense. Another problem with this is that, me trying to open my viewpoint, understand others, and grow have many times asked him what he thought about something, asked for advice, and gone to him with a number of questions. Never in these has he asked me what i thought and i guarantee you he has never even thought about asking me a question or tried to understand my point of view, which i was allways fine with, but apparently my open-book approach has infalted his head and placed me on a level that he feels is much much lower than him.
I want him to know how i feel about all this, but it is "wrong" to bring it up now, and like always i wouldn't be able to get two cents in without being damned to hell for talking. This is what frustrates me the most.
I guess i should try to learn from the experience though and put it behind me. I guess I learned to be careful not to respect certain peoples points of views becuase in their eyes it must be them being the ultimate authority on the topic or winning the argument and inflate their egos to a point where i as the questioner am so much lower i can rightfully be stomped upon.
I also should recognize that i definetely did push it too far by saying that he doesn't even try to come on time, although this is true and he has even verbalized this to me, i should have recognized that it was degrading to him. I also should understand better who and when to stop arguments, even if it means falsely admitting that I was wrong and sorry, and being looked upon as weak.
The most annoying part of the conversation was that i didn't get a chance to say a thing and he just kept telling me i was in the wrong repetitively. Jon is remarkably good at winning conversations (he's much more competitive with this than I am with sports), everytime you start to say anything that comes close to his stance weakening he changes the subject and doesn't let you speak until you have found something to say about his new stance, if you still do try to comment on any differing point of view he cuts you off before you can speak.
I personally think and have really worked on putting into practice that the goal of any argument is not to win but to grow. Going along with that, I think any good argument should involve a much larger percentage of time thinking and listening then it should involve thinking, and as contrary as it is to any conversation i think i have ever had or heard of it may last over a few days when different parties and point of views have a time to reflect.
One of the things that i think has always blocked good conversation is ego. Most people just really can not admit to having been wrong or even admit to having taken something from the other person's point of view. They don't want to grow, they want to be proven right. Many people in this mad mad world are always in defense. Some of these people, like Jon, have mastered this defense. Another problem with this is that, me trying to open my viewpoint, understand others, and grow have many times asked him what he thought about something, asked for advice, and gone to him with a number of questions. Never in these has he asked me what i thought and i guarantee you he has never even thought about asking me a question or tried to understand my point of view, which i was allways fine with, but apparently my open-book approach has infalted his head and placed me on a level that he feels is much much lower than him.
I want him to know how i feel about all this, but it is "wrong" to bring it up now, and like always i wouldn't be able to get two cents in without being damned to hell for talking. This is what frustrates me the most.
I guess i should try to learn from the experience though and put it behind me. I guess I learned to be careful not to respect certain peoples points of views becuase in their eyes it must be them being the ultimate authority on the topic or winning the argument and inflate their egos to a point where i as the questioner am so much lower i can rightfully be stomped upon.
I also should recognize that i definetely did push it too far by saying that he doesn't even try to come on time, although this is true and he has even verbalized this to me, i should have recognized that it was degrading to him. I also should understand better who and when to stop arguments, even if it means falsely admitting that I was wrong and sorry, and being looked upon as weak.