Have you ever met a person that is so adamant in their beliefs that they shut everyone around them down? I have a “friend” like this. I put friend in quotations because I don’t know if I can actually be friends with this person because I can never get past this personality trait. Whenever we stumble upon something she feels strongly about, she broadcasts her opinion in a loud and aggressive manner. This puts me and many of the people off of any further conversation with her just in case we stumble across another landmine. I am not averse to arguing a point with someone, so why is it different with her?
I think it has to do with risk. Every time you converse with someone, you risk the possibility of changing your mind. In small matters, like if you whether you like Crest or Colgate tooth paste, changing your preference is no big deal. However, when we discuss more weighty views, the consequences of changing are more serious. So when we enter in a conversation with someone, we evaluate whether they will share our views, whether they will ridicule our beliefs, and if they might change us. So is change bad? No, but subconsciously, if you change because of something someone said you may feel that you are admitting that you are wrong and that is a difficult thing for most people. Now if you are admitting that you are wrong about the type of toothpaste you like, it does not change who you are and most people won’t even know that you switched. However, if you suddenly realize that Sponge Bob is the anti-Christ, then you have some real soul searching to do. You have to reevaluate previous conversations and thoughts. You have to rewatch every episode from your new anti-sponge viewpoint. You have to tell your friends at some point. Every time someone remembers your previous stand on the issue, you have to explain to them that you have suddenly developed a fear of a sponge that wears pants. Changing is difficult!
So, how about those people that broadcast their opinions so forcefully that they shut everyone around them down. They, who want so much to change everyone around them, instead force a situation of zero change because no one will engage them. Why—because they bring nothing to the table. If a conversation was a poker game and all the players brought “the possibility of changing” as their chips, the loud adamant people are the cheapskates that expect to play for free. They risk nothing and their opponents with chips on the table have no incentive to play against them. It may seem at first glance that these people are risking plenty by the fact that they are bringing up the topic in the first place. However, this is deceptive because while they are shouting their beliefs at the top of their lungs, they are putting out the vibe that they are not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say. They drown out other opinions by yelling, intimidating and pounding the table. They refuse to risk changing their opinion and expect their victim to take all the risk of changing, while they incur none.
So, let’s say that you are one of these loud people and you have alienated everyone that could be your friend. How can you change your ways? Start by realizing that if you want to change someone’s mind, you have to accept the idea that you might also be wrong. You have to allow them a little room to try to change your mind. It has to be an exchange of ideas, not a dictation from one person to another. Why bother to change (besides the fact that you are losing friends faster than the smelly kid in class)? Because one day you will meet someone just like you who shuts you down and will shatter your argument, leaving you to pick up the pieces and fuse your ideas back into a brittle shell. Soften your beliefs. Take a risk. Do not get violent. Learn to be the reed in the wind.
Then there are people like me, who avoid risk by avoiding the topic all together. I have learned to cherish some of my beliefs, like the idea that televangelists are evil. Now I refuse to reexamine these ideas. I scream at the TV whenever the 700 club comes on so that I don’t accidentally hear what they are saying while I fumble to change the channel. I won’t engage my grandmother on the topic of religion or politics. I know that, because I am unsure about what I feel in religion, I don’t want extreme views until I have settled into my own opinion. When it comes to politics, I know what I believe, but I am not well informed and so could not defend what I believe. It is not that I am afraid that someone will be able to change my opinion, but that I will be beaten back and forth like a tetherball, yet still remain attached to my political pole. In other words, I will look foolish for my beliefs. So on these topics, I do not engage unless the person is like me and we might benefit from each other’s opinions without being torn apart. Advice to myself: get educated on politics and figure out what I believe. Since I am too lazy to do the former and too confused to do the latter, perhaps I should just let others persuade me into new beliefs…as long as I don’t develop a love of sponges in pants.
I think it has to do with risk. Every time you converse with someone, you risk the possibility of changing your mind. In small matters, like if you whether you like Crest or Colgate tooth paste, changing your preference is no big deal. However, when we discuss more weighty views, the consequences of changing are more serious. So when we enter in a conversation with someone, we evaluate whether they will share our views, whether they will ridicule our beliefs, and if they might change us. So is change bad? No, but subconsciously, if you change because of something someone said you may feel that you are admitting that you are wrong and that is a difficult thing for most people. Now if you are admitting that you are wrong about the type of toothpaste you like, it does not change who you are and most people won’t even know that you switched. However, if you suddenly realize that Sponge Bob is the anti-Christ, then you have some real soul searching to do. You have to reevaluate previous conversations and thoughts. You have to rewatch every episode from your new anti-sponge viewpoint. You have to tell your friends at some point. Every time someone remembers your previous stand on the issue, you have to explain to them that you have suddenly developed a fear of a sponge that wears pants. Changing is difficult!
So, how about those people that broadcast their opinions so forcefully that they shut everyone around them down. They, who want so much to change everyone around them, instead force a situation of zero change because no one will engage them. Why—because they bring nothing to the table. If a conversation was a poker game and all the players brought “the possibility of changing” as their chips, the loud adamant people are the cheapskates that expect to play for free. They risk nothing and their opponents with chips on the table have no incentive to play against them. It may seem at first glance that these people are risking plenty by the fact that they are bringing up the topic in the first place. However, this is deceptive because while they are shouting their beliefs at the top of their lungs, they are putting out the vibe that they are not going to listen to anything anyone else has to say. They drown out other opinions by yelling, intimidating and pounding the table. They refuse to risk changing their opinion and expect their victim to take all the risk of changing, while they incur none.
So, let’s say that you are one of these loud people and you have alienated everyone that could be your friend. How can you change your ways? Start by realizing that if you want to change someone’s mind, you have to accept the idea that you might also be wrong. You have to allow them a little room to try to change your mind. It has to be an exchange of ideas, not a dictation from one person to another. Why bother to change (besides the fact that you are losing friends faster than the smelly kid in class)? Because one day you will meet someone just like you who shuts you down and will shatter your argument, leaving you to pick up the pieces and fuse your ideas back into a brittle shell. Soften your beliefs. Take a risk. Do not get violent. Learn to be the reed in the wind.
Then there are people like me, who avoid risk by avoiding the topic all together. I have learned to cherish some of my beliefs, like the idea that televangelists are evil. Now I refuse to reexamine these ideas. I scream at the TV whenever the 700 club comes on so that I don’t accidentally hear what they are saying while I fumble to change the channel. I won’t engage my grandmother on the topic of religion or politics. I know that, because I am unsure about what I feel in religion, I don’t want extreme views until I have settled into my own opinion. When it comes to politics, I know what I believe, but I am not well informed and so could not defend what I believe. It is not that I am afraid that someone will be able to change my opinion, but that I will be beaten back and forth like a tetherball, yet still remain attached to my political pole. In other words, I will look foolish for my beliefs. So on these topics, I do not engage unless the person is like me and we might benefit from each other’s opinions without being torn apart. Advice to myself: get educated on politics and figure out what I believe. Since I am too lazy to do the former and too confused to do the latter, perhaps I should just let others persuade me into new beliefs…as long as I don’t develop a love of sponges in pants.
Posts
I think people like that get theirs, in a different way than you might expect. I certainly did. It's very comforting to live on the moral high ground with all of your arguments and philosophies, but the longer you stay there, the harder it is to return to reality, and harder it is to relate to people. If someone disagrees with you, they're either discarded or proselytized. If they agree with you, all you do is pat each other on the back and talk about how stupid everyone else is.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good policy to not interact with people who are not interested in an even exchange. That's why nobody likes those Christians who are trying to save souls on the corner. They're only interested in a one-way flow of information.
And I hate persuasion. If an idea or a philosophy is compelling it should stand on its own without a need for spinning or coercion.
My $0.02.