A few months ago, various people, presumably in response to Jordan Peterson’s book, came up with their 12 rules for living. I could do the same, but instead my co-author Charley Hooper and I wrote a whole book on it: Making Great Decisions in Business and Life.
So rather than give some of the main points from that book, I’ll give a rule that I see frequently broken. It’s one that if people followed, they would often do better. In a way, it’s a version of one of the rules we talk about in the book. In the book we say that for any choice, you should ask yourself “What is your objective?”
Here’s the new version:
In any conflict or controversy, always keep in mind what you are trying to achieve.
In other words, remember your goal.
This seems obvious. No, this IS obvious. And yet I see it broken all the time and I find myself often tempted to break it.
I’ve been in conflicts where I start to think that it’s important for the other person to realize that he is wrong. And this is often when he has already agreed to give me what I want or he seems close to that agreement. Am I more likely to get what I want by having him admit that he was wrong? Not in my experience.
READER COMMENTS
John Smith
May 24 2018 at 11:23pm
There is a lot of research that humans are inherently interested in revenge / justice, due to evolutionary reasons.
While it is true that sometimes the other party is not wrong (merely an honest dispute), sometimes the other party is in fact clearly in the wrong.
Either way, the revenge instinct is triggered.
Alan Goldhammer
May 25 2018 at 4:14am
A simple but often unobvious rule. Classes in conflict resolution should start here.
jc
May 25 2018 at 9:56am
Less W.E.I.R.D. cultures (i.e., most of humanity) may be a bit better at adhering to this rule. For example, while it may have costs, going out of your way to allow the other party to “save face” also has benefits, e.g., you’re more likely to get what you want, you may be allowed to save face when the shoe is on the other foot, society may be more harmonious in general, etc.
Our species was designed to care very much about status, its attainment and preservation (especially in public, but also in private). It’s one of the top rules in our Human Nature Users Manual. Cultures where group harmony is prioritized over individual outcomes (something that doesn’t have to be in conflict w/ classically liberal ideals, btw), seem to make different accommodations for this mandate.
Wherever one is, attempting folks you don’t have formal power over to “bend the knee” to you, by admitting they were wrong in addition to giving you what you want (something that may be counterproductive even if you do have formal power)? The appropriate Decision Tree in the Users Manual predicts that this is a wonderful way to ensure you never get what you want (unless a boundary condition is in play that either allows one to admit being wrong without losing face and then turning into an emotional warrior mule, or is powerful enough to override the cost of losing face, e.g., death of someone you care about – like yourself – or some other catastrophic outcome).
jc
May 25 2018 at 10:01am
Flip side to these arguments?
Maybe the benefit and sheer emotional satisfaction of seeing the other fellow submit to you and admit they were wrong is larger than the benefit of getting what you originally wanted…
You don’t always have to keep your eye on the same ball…maybe another ball is juicier. So check your swing until you get the sweetest ball of all: the submission of a rival.
Some (maybe lots) of folks are wired like that, no? So it’s really about weighting potential benefits. You can pick one item on the menu…make your pick.
robc
May 25 2018 at 11:39am
jc,
Revealed preferences would suggest lots of people are wired like that.
Hazel Meade
May 25 2018 at 2:27pm
I agree. This is a great rule.
Similarly, it’s more important that policy objectives be achieved than that the right people get the credit for them. I don’t care if the person who passes a free trade agreement has a D or an R next to their name.
However, sometimes it’s hard to tell when victory has been achieved. There’s that whole “first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win” dynamic. How do you know when you’ve transitioned from the fighting phase to the winning phase?
Is it when people stop arguing, or is it when they are still arguing, when you still seem to be the minority, but your opponents arguments seem increasingly weak?
EB
May 26 2018 at 5:51am
In life, we don’t have a single goal. In some experiences, we may have a single goal. Perhaps in many conflicts, we may have a single goal. But even when we have a single goal –meaning a well-defined one– we know we care about other goals (starting with no wasting time in achieving our “single” goal which might turn into the goal of ending up the conflict immediately at any cost –yes, ex post we can say that our original “single” goal was not good enough to waste time).
Since the 1960s, I’ve been arguing that Jan Tinbergen’s idea that for each goal we should have one instrument is wrong because even in clear-cut situations we cannot ignore side effects, meaning other goals. Yes, you can argue that he got half of the first Nobel Prize in 1969.
My second rule still is “in all your decisions, keep in mind your multiple goals” and my first one “at all times, be sure to have a good idea of what your multiple goals in life are”.
David R Henderson
May 26 2018 at 9:40am
@EB,
Good points. And they’re completely consistent with the point I made. I said “Remember your goal.” Your goal can be to achieve multiple objectives.
John Fembup
May 27 2018 at 2:14pm
“Remember your goalâ€
An excellent corollary from Winston Churchill:
“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.’
John Fembup
May 27 2018 at 2:15pm
“Remember your goalâ€
An excellent corollary from Winston Churchill:
“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.’
nyc lingerie
Jun 4 2018 at 4:09pm
Wow, great post.Really thank you! Really Great.
seo vancouver
Jun 4 2018 at 7:59pm
This can be a set of words, not an essay. you might be incompetent
Comments are closed.