Before we lay out a logical argument, it’s worth considering whether that’s what’s required.
Is the person you’re engaging with coming from a place of logic, or from an identity?
If it’s an identity then logic won’t win the argument, because they aren’t looking for logic, they are looking for information that supports their identity.
The other day I wrote a blog saying we are all bigoted. I had a response from someone saying they weren’t bigoted, they were from the ‘school or Informed Enlightenment’.
The fact that the ‘school or Informed Enlightenment’ is actually a form of bigotry meant that I knew I was dealing with an identity, not logic, so no conversation was entered into.
Is there any point entering an argument that can’t be resolved?
There’s a tendency to gather information, and more information, and more information, indefinitely if a decision is important.
Your next 40 years will be determined by your next ten years.
A mantra I live by in business is, ‘tolerance is the enemy of excellence.’
Functional fixes are not solutions for existential misalignments.
If you’re buying your lunch from someone, what happens if he’s 20cms shorter than you?
It’s almost certain that what’s being agreed isn’t fully understood.
Don’t be a dick.
Five hundred years ago, Michel de Montaigne said: “My life has been filled with terrible misfortune; most of which never happened.”
In tennis, the majority of the game is spent volleying.