\n So what are you waiting for?\n
\n![\"Do](\"https://media1.tenor.com/m/LoXuYGcyMxgAAAAC/just-do-it-shia-la-beouf.gif\")
Christianity is the religion I'm best acquainted with, seeing as it's the one I was raised into, albeit a fairly unorthodox and liberal take on it. Since my teenhood, I've felt very conflicted about the whole thing.
\nOn the one hand, a large majority of the historical figures I admire most\nwere guided and inspired by one version or another of the Christian faith and the noblest facets of its ethics. When it (seldom) lives up to its own standards, it's perhaps the most awe-inspiring life philosophy. On the other hand, I find many of its tenets, or at least their most commonly agreed upon interpretations, to be highly objectionable and frankly intolerable.
\nWhile Christianity may well have a claim to the most crowded lineage of moral paragons, its history is also marred by the countless atrocities committed in its name, like most other religions. Even now, droves of self-proclaimed Christians spurn the beating heart of Jesus' message to instead obsess on the dregs of the parasitic dogma layered on top of it. The latter is littered with heaps of distasteful and incoherent rubbish it needs to answer for.
\nFurthermore, it seems the minute someone displays an openness to spirituality and the slightest of fondness for Jesus' teachings, they get swarmed by proselytic Christians angling to conscript them into their gang by means fair or foul, which irks me substantively. Why should every person imbued with spiritual inclinations be forced to bend the knee to whatever religion has the most peer pressure backing it up in their culture? It's perfectly fine, and dare I even say commendable, to be a spiritual independent (or whichever other strand of free-thinking heretic you prefer to style yourself as, I don't judge).
\nAs such, I felt impelled to put down my vehement contentions in writing as an unordered series of self-contained posts listing the reasons why I personally will most likely never convert. As an added bonus, once I've externalized them, they'll serve as a publicly accessible reference that I can point people back to in case of need.
\nI am well aware that raising such objections to widespread religious doctrines isn't a novel undertaking and harkens back to a long, old, and abundant tradition. However, none of those I've come across so far have addressed my idiosyncratic pet peeves quite to my satisfaction.\nAs we say where I'm from, "On est jamais mieux servi que par soi-mêmewhich roughly translates as "you're never better served than by yourself"".
\nIn this post I'll be addressing one of the most heinous and damning tenets of Christianity as far as I'm concerned, namely the filtering of souls.
\nBefore anything else, it would probably be helpful to define what I am talking about. The filtering of souls is the metaphysical concept according to which souls survive earthly death to be sorted within different planesHell, Heaven, the Elysian Fields, Hades, Valhalla, Hel, nothing/annihilation, etc. based on their actions during their mortal life and in which they will usually stay trapped for the rest of eternity (or until the end of the world).
\nThis theory has noteworthy implications that are often glossed over. In metaphysical theories where life on earth is only a smaller part of a greater whole, its surrounding narrative context and the superseding structure that birthed it into existence inform what function it was made to serve.
\nIn a filtering of souls model, earthly life dictates a soul's ultimate fate while being the most transient stop along its journey. Consequently, its main purpose is simply to sort you into the right afterlife bucket, usually based on some interpretation of worth (courage, benevolence, etc.). In other words, every human life can be considered as a glorified exam and earthly life itself as a divine instrument of filtering: the Great Sieve.
\nAs such, it's a means to an end rather than an end in itself, in contrast to reincarnation, its main alternative when it comes to metaphysical models for the afterlife. Although we won't be discussing the latter in the scope of this post, in the spirit of fairness I also graced it with its own derisive nickname derived from its implications. Introducing the Great Hamster Wheel. Anyway, let's get back to our original topic.
\nIn all fairness, the filtering of souls isn't a Christian trademark. It is found in several monotheistic and polytheistic religions. That being said, when it comes to Christianity, it makes for a particularly objectionable bedfellow. It seems much more compatible with many of these other religions that preach theological orders of rigid social hierarchies and barefacedly assert "might makes right" as the fundamental spiritual truth, whereas it flies in the face of Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, and universal egalitarianism.
\nIn any case, my criticism for this model will be centered on its Christian version for the rest of this post, even if some of the arguments I'll make, and my overall stance, apply to all of its iterations. If it's any source of relief, I find it highly distasteful overall, regardless of which religion happens to be championing it.
\nTo outline my issues with the Great Sieve, it is a dismal theory both on a logical and an ethical level. Plus, I find its implication on the meaning of life depressingly drab. So without further ado, let's get started with the best opening move to audit these types of overarching narratives, namely asking why.
\nMy first line of questioning concerns the necessity of this system in itself. Why the hell does God even want to filter souls to begin with? What's the point? Don't They have anything better to do with Their eternity?
\nIn the case of Christianity, seeing as one set of souls is rewarded and the other is punished, the filtering implies God is trying to differentiate between desirable souls and undesirable ones. This raises the question of what a desirable soul is in the eyes of God. Based on what we're told, it seems like it is some form of virtue demonstrated through lived choices and actions, or at least compliance with divine guidelines. Questions still remain, however.
\nTo get started, why does God desire worthy souls? Do They simply enjoy obedience for its own sake? One theory I've heard is that God is looking for volunteers to participate in co-Creation. Perhaps that answer is good enough to satisfy you, but it doesn't quite do the trick for me, at least without further elaboration.
\nThe entire idea that all of our earthly actions only amount to a compressed rating on a spectrum from pleasing to offending God doesn't make much sense to me. Why the hell does God need pleasing in the first place? Are They not supposed to be omnipotent? Whatever could They “want” more than that? If something doesn’t suit Their taste, can’t They just immediately modify it to Their satisfaction?
\nFurthermore, if we attempt to infer God's intent based on the reality we have access to, our observations of earthly life don't seem to line up with an uptight and authoritarian Creator/Ruler. If God were so fussy and exacting, wouldn't the world be drastically different from the way we experience it? Based on the boundless diversity of entities and species present in the universe and their proclivity towards the weird, quirky, and disturbing, if I were to surmise the portrait of its potential Creator, what emerges leans much closer to that of an "everything goes" open-minded and undiscriminating anarchist.
\nOutside the natural laws of causality, God seems pretty lax about whatever you choose to do. Go outside, plant your feet in the ground, and vociferate a sustained flow of blasphemy while looking defiantly at the sky: chances are nothing will happen. A few neighbors might give you the stink eye, but you should be able to walk away free from divine chastisement. No righteous smite to be witnessed, be it bolts of lightning, instantaneous combustion, or swarms of locusts. Perhaps the Creator is fuming in the background, holding out for your stay in Hell, barely containing Their fury and bloodlust until then, but that theory doesn't strike me as very serious, nor its God very worthy of respect.
\nLet us move on to our second, and more important, question: why is this convoluted filtering process required in order to produce worthy souls?
\nAgain, isn't God supposed to be omniscient? Can't They just scan each soul and go, "Yep, good one. Nope, bad one."? Didn't They already know when They created them.
\nBetter yet, if God is omnipotent, why can't they create worthy souls from the get go, thus circumventing the need for sorting? It seems like a much faster, easier, and less painful alternative. Under that scenario, no conscious being gets subjected to eternal torture. That seems like a pretty big improvement for a Creator who loves Its creatures and cares about moral righteousness.
\nThe only way to justify this entire setup is to invest great trust in the utmost value and importance of souls choosing to align with God's plan out of their own volition. It needs to be valuable enough to warrant the endless suffering of life on Earth and eternity in Hell.
\nThis is already a pretty big ask, and it isn't helped by the apparent ambivalence and distaste God seems to harbor for free will if you're to believe the standard interpretation of the Bible.
\nIt's worth noting that the Great Sieve doesn't embrace a completely pure implementation of free will. The divine mandate is communicated through the revelations and holy texts to at least a portion of humanity, which serves as a first source of warping influence. It is a necessary requirement for compliance, but that's also a limitation on freedom.
\nMore importantly, the threat of eternal retribution will probably motivate many to alter their behavior out of fear rather than genuine integrity. Some may argue that God will easily see through such deceit with Their omniscience, but why communicate the threat at all if it isn't to try and intimidate humans into obedience?
\nHow valuable and sensible truly is the free will project when it serves as a platform for coercion? If I tell you to follow a set of instructions I have for you or else I will torture you for a very long time, how free of a choice are you truly making?
\nAdditionally, the defining characteristic of free will is the near limitless canvas of possibilities and opportunities it opens up. The multitudes of nuances and shades of decisions it allows. The bountiful diversity of identities to be self-determined and embodied.
\nAnd yet the Great Sieve bears seemingly no interest in this endless range of creativity and expression. It casts aside this cornucopia in its near entirety save for the ultimate binary verdict: pass or fail. Am I the only one shocked by a squandering of such stupendous scale?
\nOn the basis of its extremely conservative requirements in quality of freedom, it seems a mere quiz would have sufficed by way of Great Sieve. Isn't an entire universe grievously overkill?
\nUpon further contemplation, it's not exactly free will in itself that seems to be celebrated, but rather souls choosing compliance in spite of having the option to rebel. Free will comes off as a distasteful necessary evil in the eyes of the Creator, barely tolerated to keep up a steady supply of consenting devotees flowing in.
\nGod only cares for a meager fraction of the broad spectrum of volition and earthly life. The rest is curtly disavowed. Those souls who fail to freely accede are shunned and punished. Their sins are reproved with shame and disgust.
\nEven vast portions of the Creation itself are repudiated in disappointment. It is a broken world, supposedly in need of reordering by a humanity that is broken itself and thus tragicomically doomed to failure. An impotent progeny to an impotent Creator.
\nThis contrast between the alleged subliminality of chosen devotion and the virulent renunciation of the myriad profane and improper enactments of free will is quite perplexing.
\nBe that as it may, the Great Sieve still holds another use for free will. You see, it makes for a very convenient scapegoat.
\n\n\nColonel Ehrhardt: Schultz! What are you trying to get me into now?
\nCaptain Schultz: But, Colonel, it was your own idea.
\nColonel Ehrhardt: Shifting the responsibility on me again? Good night, Schultz!
\n– Ernst Lubitsch, To Be or Not to Be
\n
Free will is often the first line of defense for the ethical qualms raised by theology. It's a handy lightning rod that can redirect the responsibility for a large swath of the abundant evil in life from the Creator towards itself. Free will opens the door for evildoers, and evildoers... well, they do evil things.It is worthwhile to note that this parade doesn't work quite as well when you take a step back from the anthropocentric perspective, seeing as a copious amount of the cruelty and suffering of the world is not a direct consequence of the choices of free-will-imbued human sinners.
\nIn a way, it's as if the Creator is telling us, "Yes, that stuff's really nasty. I don't like any of it either. I had no other choice. My hands were tied. It's not my fault, guys. It's free will's. And yours also, for using it to be big meanies."
\nBut let's not be fooled. Who set up this whole system in the first place? Who has all the control and agency? Let's rewind the story a bit, shall we?
\nGod decides They're into a soul-sorting phase as of late, for some unclear reason. Consequently, They create a large batch of souls and bake imperfection into them as well as an inclination to stray towards sin. Then, God imbues each soul with free will, but with a big catch. "I know you didn't ask for anything. Plus, I designed you to have a pretty big failure rate. Nevertheless, do as I will you to, and you'll be handsomely rewarded; don't, and you'll get horribly punished. By the way, I'll only partially communicate the guidelines to follow and in a very ambiguous manner. Good luck, fam."
\nAnd there you go, plopped screaming and naked into this vast and harsh world, left to fend for yourself. You only get one shot, one opportunity, Mom's spaghetti. So, you'd better hope to run into a preacher of the right religion earlier rather than later, or else you might well be in for a world of pain in the afterlife.
\nSo I ask you, upon whom does the "original" sin truly lie? Who set you up for failure but will punish you more cruelly than any human ever could if you flounder? Who created the near endless ways to disappoint Them and dropped you right in the middle of it all but will fall into apoplexy if you stumble upon a single one? And who could change it all in the blink of an eye if they so desired but would rather keep seething and tormenting instead?
\nIt seems God created the DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) modus operandi along with the universe.
\nIt only takes a little reflection for things to start reflecting poorly on God, so enablers have to go out of their way to come up with additional excuses to exculpate Them. Let's cover a few.
\nOne vector of defense might be to point out that it's not God doing the torturing but Satan. Yet God is omnipotent, aren't They? Therefore, They could stop Satan at any point, but for some reason, They let it happen, unbothered in the slightest. To me, it just looks like They've delegated the dirty work to an underappreciated contractor. Or is God supposed to be some kind of chump pleading in vain for Satan to stop to no avail?
\nAnother option is to slightly diverge from the official interpretation in order to smooth over a few rough edges. I haven't been swayed by the two propositions I've heard up to now.
\nThe first one is to simply swipe that nasty, problematic Hell business under the rug and say, "Actually, everyone goes to Heaven. There, there. God is still chill after all." Well, this sure sands off the brunt of this theory's atrocious moral ramifications. However, it also unfortunately throws the entire spiritual structure of meaning for life in the gutter along with it.
\nIf everyone gets a medal, so to speak, then what the hell is the point of setting up the competition, pray tell? If there's no filtering, then under the typical Christian viewpoint there's no purpose left to life on earth, is there now? Why not skip that toilsome step altogether, send every soul to Heaven directly, and eschew all the unnecessary suffering and bullshit in between?
\nTo me a spiritual theory unable to produce meaning is the equivalent of a Fez dispenser unable to produce Fez; it might look interesting and be fun to examine for a while, but I don’t really have much use for it.
\nThe second one is a bit more niche. It does away with Hell once again, but keeps the filtering. Instead of eternal torture, you're merely Thanos snapped out of existence if caught lacking.
\nShould God vaporizing your sinful consciousness out of existence still be a bit too harsh for your sensibilities, there's a variant where you get to make the decision instead. You must review your life and assess your worthiness for yourself. In other words, if you're a dirty sinner\nGod guilt trips you into admitting how much of an unbecoming piece of trash you are after all, so I dunno, maybe kys uwu 👉👈.
\nAs you might have guessed, I'm not incredibly convinced. It doesn't really exonerate God. It's just a more convoluted and spineless method to achieve the same outcome. If you're gonna ice me, at least own it. Do it yourself and look me in the eye as you press the trigger.
\nMoreover, when you think about it, wouldn't this system be likely to disproportionately cause the soul suicide of decent but neurotically self-conscious people with a tendency to be hard on themselves while enabling the mass self-exoneration of narcissistic and self-serving abusers? Definitely an unconventional approach to justice.
\nAll in all, these jury-rigged workarounds only serve as dodgy pretenses to let God weasel out of answering for Their choices. Speaking of which, if we're to believe in the Great Filtering, what type of God are we truly talking about here?
\n\n\nI see you’ve been schooled well in all the theological constructions that allow you to hold Me as a vengeful God—without making Me responsible for it.
\n– Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations With God - Book 2
\n
The Great Filtering is based on a punitive system of justice. Fail to follow the rules, and you will be chastised. As far as I'm concerned, punitive justice is an irrational and unjustifiable stance. However, it's too meaty of a topic for an in-depth digression in this post, so I'll have to leave it here as an unsubstantiated claim for now.
\nThat being said, what does God stand to gain in causing suffering to all these "failed", unworthy souls? Or in euthanizing them, if we're to adopt the alternative interpretation we just covered? Why create a spark of consciousness and potential only to snuff it out at the first setback? Especially when They were the one to breathe the possibility of failure into them in the first place?
\nThe omniscient and omnipotent Creator has no rehabilitation plan? Is that to be the limit of Their power and imagination?
\nEven if one ascribes to a model of punitive justice, you must admit that any sense of proportionality gets thrown out the window when we're dealing with endless suffering. If God is indeed in possession of perfect judgment, they should have no need for Hell. Logically, no finite amount of sin, quantitatively or qualitatively, can warrant eternal punishment.
\nThe God who would abide in Hell can only be a bitter, angry, and resentful one. The Creator of the Great Sieve seems to bear no love whatsoever for any of its Creation. Only disappointment, venom, and controlling possessiveness.
\nAnd yet we are supposed to simultaneously believe this God champions universal love and forgiveness above all else based on the message of Christ? If that were the case, what the hell are They doing, frantically filtering people and disdainfully throwing out the unworthy?
\nIt makes no sense. God can't be both of these divinities at once.
\nEven if you've somehow managed to elude any hint of cognitive dissonance up to now, I've kept what I believe to be the most damning objection for last. Indeed, we're still left with quite the pickle: why is the Great Sieve so poorly designed for its alleged purpose of filtering souls?
\nMy last line of argumentation draws upon the observation that if the goal of earthly life is to serve as a test and filter for afterlife buckets, it does a very poor job of it. Hence, it seems unlikely that this is indeed its purpose.
\nFor starters, the Great Sieve is incredibly wasteful. For some reason 99.999999999% of the Creation has absolutely no bearing on its actual goal. A simplistic earth with restrained physics would have done the trick. Maybe one galaxy to really cover our bases. But all this space, all this time, all this complexity just for this very constrained use case? It's all for the sake of an infinitesimal sliver of the universe's real estate, one tiny planet, across a duration that's an infinitesimal sliver of the universe's lifespan, just to figure out if a few billion human souls are worthy?
\nDoes God hate optimization? Maybe They're more similar to me than I would've thought, namely highly distractible and very susceptible to bad cases of feature creep. The alternative hypothesis, according to which a universe solely dedicated to humankind is merely the delusions of grandeur of a group of prideful, anthropocentric minds, seems much more parsimonious and plausible.
\nThis is a troubling reflection already, and yet it pales in comparison to what's to follow.
\nIf the universe was designed as a form of exam, it is a very unfair and inefficient one.
\nAlmost everyone will agree that the world we live in is rife with myriad inequalities. That being said, for our current needs, we only need to concern ourselves with those related to the quantity and quality of opportunities to prove our worth for the Great Filtering. Not to worry, though; that still leaves us with plenty.
\nMany Christians believe life starts at conception, and by that they mean the soul has incarnated into the body, hence making it eligible for moral consideration. If so, how is a stillborn soul supposed to demonstrate their virtue or lack thereof? What of a young child who suffered a premature death from a disease or accident?
\nThese examples address lives with a very limited number of meaningful moral choices to make, but what about those whose ability to make them is severely hampered due to factors out of their control?
\nHow is a person born with a severe cognitive disability supposed to compete for the value of their volitional character on an equal playing field with the average Joe? What of Jade, born in squalor, abused throughout her childhood, and funneled towards a life of crime, pitted against Judy, born in a prosperous household, loved and raised by upstanding parents, and scarcely presented with opportunities to cause significant harm? How about Daniel, born without a sense of empathy due to a genetic anomaly, vying against Mark, who showed kindness and generosity from the youngest age?
\nLet's not kid ourselves. We're not plopped into this world from a blank slate. Both innate and social factors strongly nudge us toward varying levels of moral character. Is God really going to punish you because They gave you more proclivity to sin whilst patting those They gave a head start to on the back for cashing in on their handout? Does transcendental worth in the heavens follow the same model as social mobility on Earth?
\nIn the name of exhaustivity and charitability, let's play devil's advocate for the God of the Great Sieve. Once more, the best defense against this vector of criticism is our poor, good old free will, which will naturally and necessarily engender inequalities galore. Indeed, by making the “wrong” choices, some people will screw up the opportunities of other, yet unborn souls, to make their own. It is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect.
\nFair enough, but then why choose life in the universe as the means of filtering? It seems like it’s wasting a large amount of valuable assessment by offering very limited actual choice to many contestants.
\nWhat happens to all these souls who got the short end of the stick? They were robbed of any genuine, meaningful free will of their own. Does God abide by such injustice? That would be quite horrific.
\nAlternatively, there might be some kind of backup plan, albeit it would have to be a vast, convoluted, and intricate one. I can't help but note that it's a curiously designed system that features more exceptions than rules
\nNevertheless, let's explore these potential contingencies. There are two main ways I can think of to patch up these blatant disparities. Unfortunately for the Great Sieve, they are both awkward and inelegant.
\nThe first is to use an edge-case complementary reincarnation system, in which any soul that didn't get enough of a true chance to prove their worth is sent back for another life until enough first-rate data has been accumulated to make a decent judgment call. This first solution goes against the usual Christian canon and comes off a bit arbitrary, but it's still probably the least lacking of the two.
\nThe second answer is that God is capable of running some form of computation that can take extenuating circumstances into account and remove confounding factors to come to a verdict on a soul's worth regardless. This might seem like a clean workaround, but don't be too hasty to embrace it. It's actually quite catastrophic. If there is a computation algorithm good enough for this task, then the entire filtering process of life on earth is completely redundant, and there would be no reason to go through with it.
\nFurthermore, these issues are made all the worse when you consider they could have easily been avoided by simply choosing a different design for the Great Sieve.
\nIf, at the end of the day, the entire point of life on earth is merely to serve as an exam, wouldn't a standardized test work far better than a convoluted universe? Put every single soul through the same simulation. Everyone can get to experience the same set of situations and face the same arborescence of choices. If necessary, there could be several different types of tests and simulations with varying criteria for different archetypes of souls. This would make it a lot easier to compare results and vastly improve the fairness of the system.
\nFurthermore, the test's entire past and cast, i.e. every single other living entity that dwells within it, could be merely simulated and devoid of consciousness — "NPCs" of sorts, if you will — save for the soul being tested. This would drastically reduce the overall amount of actually experienced suffering required to sustain the system and greatly mitigate the problem of evil.
\nIf I can easily come up with a better solution as one guy spitballing for a few minutes, how is an omniscient God supposed to have missed this?
\nIf you embrace the Great Filtering model, I don't see how you can avoid assuming God is an architect imbued with transcendental genius and yet inexplicably incompetent at the same time or, at the very least, deeply confused.
\nEarlier, I claimed this last line of argumentation was the most implacable of the lot. I've come to this conclusion because it is inextricable from the soul-filtering theory. Try as you might to shake off all the other unsavory implications of the Great Sieve with alibis and more family-friendly reinterpretations that feature a moderately less bloodthirsty God, there's no way to escape this one.
\nSo what have we learned?
\nFiltering doesn't offer a satisfying explanation for life on earth in itself. Instead it raises the question of why that is a necessity in the first place.
\nFree will gets done dirty. Not only must it bear all the weight of justification and responsibility for the Great Sieve, but it is also spurned and disregarded. Meanwhile, God gets to avoid any form of accountability for the consequences of a system They had, and still have, full authorship and control over.
\nSpeaking of the God of the Great Filtering, They're quite the demented and spiteful chap, aren't They now? And for some reason, They opted for an incredibly dysfunctional tool to do their bidding in spite of the existence of far superior alternatives.
\nThus, I'm afraid I personally cannot abide the theoretical model of the Great Sieve in the slightest.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/can-we-please-stop-saying-aha-moment/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/can-we-please-stop-saying-aha-moment/", "title": "Can we please stop saying "aha" moment?", "summary": "I am once again asking for your lexical support.", "date_published": "2026-03-21T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "I'd like to petition in favor of pruning the expression "aha" moment from our shared vernacular.
\nIt sounds silly as hell. It seems to be pulled straight out from the traditional Moronese dialect some people like to shift to — for some strange reason — when speaking to young kids, foreigners unfamiliar with their language, and people they perceive as cognitively deficient.
\nDo we refer to injuries as "ouch" moments? To retching as a "burp" moment? To falling from a rooftop as a "splat" moment? To cats and dogs as "meow-meow" and "woof-woof" animals?
\nWhat's wrong with epiphany? It's a beautiful word. Use it. It's an indisputable upgrade.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/petty-wager/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/petty-wager/", "title": "Petty's wager", "summary": "Introducing a spin-off to Pascal's wager about the frivolous, unexpected ramifications of believing in or rejecting the existence of an afterlife.", "date_published": "2026-02-21T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "You're probably already acquainted with Pascal's wager, but here's a new one you likely haven't heard of before. Introducing its sillier cousin: Petty's wager.
\nThis one isn't concerned with belief in God and thus atheism versus theism or deism per se, but rather the belief in the existence of an afterlife and its inherent implications. Although these types of positions generally tend to clump together, this is the only one we really need to consider for the needs of this post.
\nFor the sake of simplicity, I'll split the population into one of two broad groups that I'll refer to as believers and disbelievers, respectively. Of course, pure agnostics represent a valid third group, but we don't need to take them into consideration in this context, given they don't have a horse in this race and consequently aren't affected by this wager either way.
\nThat being said, to avoid ambiguity, let me give you a more detailed example of the typical worldview associated with each group. It's not statistically unreasonable to assume many disbelievers will happen to be atheists and physicalists who surmise consciousness is an emergent property of biological complexity that will thus be annihilated upon death. Conversely, a large portion of the believers will suppose the existence of some transcendental layer of reality or "higher power" (be it a monotheistic God, some polytheistic configuration, or some form of metaphysical monism: pantheism, panpsychism, or whichever other permutation) and the survival of consciousness (or "soul") in spite of death.
\nWith the required quibbling preamble out of the way, let's get to the meat of the topic. In a nutshell, Petty's wager is the observation that believers will experience vindication for their belief if they happen to be right but not embarrassment if they're wrong, whereas the exact opposite is true for disbelievers. For the latter, there can be no vindication, only embarrassment.
\nIndeed, should the disbelievers have the right of it, their consciousness and personality will be annihilated as soon as they die, before they have any chance to decisively confirm their sneaking suspicion. They'll never know they were right. The same applies to their counterparts, who will never get to realize they were mistaken.
\nOn the flip side, if the afterlife happens to exist, both believers and disbelievers should have bountiful opportunities to confirm or infirm their hunch through direct evidence. If they so wish, the believers should even be able to go find or wait for some deceased acquaintances of the disbeliever persuasion and smugly rub it in their face: "I told you so! I was right. You were wrong. Neener, neener!"
\nHence, Petty's wager: you'll only get a chance to gloat if you believe in the afterlife.
\nAdmittedly, you could make the convincing argument that being gifted an afterlife when one expected none far outweighs the temporary displeasure of enduring the antics of some petulant sore winner (as long as said afterlife isn't Hell). Thus, from a broader perspective, such a puny, short-term predicament can reasonably be framed as a worthy tradeoff in exchange for the boon of eternity.
\nWhile we're momentarily back in the realm of quibbles and caveats, it is worth noting that, just like Pascal's wager, Petty's wager requires a few additional presuppositions to work properly. Indeed, Pascal's wager bakes in a few more assumptions into the mere proposition "God exists", namely that said belief and aligned actions will impact one's access to and quality of afterlife. For Petty's wager, "the afterlife exists" doesn't quite cut it, and we also need to inject a few more qualifications about said afterlife.
\nFirst, to satisfy the personal vindication criteria, the awareness and at least temporary memorization of its existence must be possible. So, for instance, an immediate reincarnation system that would skip any recognition or recall of both past lives and the transition process wouldn't do the trick. Second, to satisfy the gloating criteria, we must assume that passing beyond the veil doesn't induce the instant transcendence of such small-minded human pettiness and that it is possible to meet and communicate with other souls.
\nThat being said, the most "empirical" source of information we have about the might-be afterlife, namely NDE testimonials, seems to suggest that, aside from the arguable subsistence of pettiness, these conditions should be met.
\nAt any rate, it is interesting to observe that even if belief in the afterlife is ultimately incorrect, it is a "punishment"-free mistake, while disbelief is a "rewardless" virtue.
\nIf you think about it, in this specific instance disbelief is a thankless stance. It's a position that doesn't bring any particular solace, relief, or joy to hold during life, nor any confirmation or reward of any sort in the end. Meanwhile, the alternative can offer some measure of the former for no added risk, provided it doesn't entail making steep sacrifices in one's current life in the hopes of cashing them out in the afterlife.
\nFollowing this thought led me to question what would motivate someone to embrace this stance. What would be in it for them?
\nThe only form of gratification I could think of was social belonging and validation during life. Getting to feel like you belong to an elite group of enlightened minds that embrace the cold, hard truth of life in contrast to the mindless, foolish sheeple.
\nBut anyone can achieve a false sense of superiority by associating with a clique that'll reinforce their preexisting beliefs. You can just as easily find a circle-jerk of sanctimonious believers who will pat themselves on the shoulder for their obviously superior discernment. And in either case, the brunt of the self-satisfaction garnered from one's sense of communal certainty will be resting upon inbred consensus and a resounding lack of universally conclusive evidence.
\nHowever, I realized pretty quickly this was a misguided way to think about the whole thing. The point of a worldview or cosmology isn't, and shouldn't be, to serve as a cynical means to an end.
\nThe investiture of belief in a perspective or lack thereof is a matter of personal integrity, not convenience. At the end of the day, the ultimate adjudication of whether to endorse or doubt a position ought to be based on your authentic ascertainment of what is most likely true according to your own discernment.
\nThis is a pitfall of the original wager too. There's something that feels off with inciting people to opt for a more "advantageous" belief that doesn't ring true to them. Well, that, as well as some of its glossed-over assumptions. Namely, not only presuming that virtuous behavior and metaphysical beliefs need be intertwined but also that should God exist, it's as an overbearing and shallow bureaucrat who would condemn authentic disbelief with everlasting punishment or annihilation but reward half-hearted, performative bootlicking.
\nIn any case, it should be noted that if we elect authentic, personal discernment as the arbitration standard, it has to cut both ways. Everyone should be free to follow their own integrity of belief alignment, whether they end up leaning towards disbelief, belief, or agnosticism, as long as it's the result of good faith deliberation.
\nAs such, Petty's wager isn't meant to have any persuasive power, nor to change anyone's mind. Like Pascal's wager, it isn't aiming to make any claim as to which theory is more plausible. It's more concerned with the practical implications, rather than the validity, of the belief in question. However, unlike its cousin, it isn't trying to adjudicate which choice between belief or disbelief is more rational either.
\nIt's merely attempting to be an interesting, amusing, and potentially somewhat infuriating realization.
\nWith all that said, and if it's any source of reassurance, in accordance with the flame theory principle of twit for twat, I pledge to save all my posthumous pettiness for people who acted like smug snoots in this life — should I ever get a chance to capitalize on it. Those who demonstrated epistemic open-mindedness, tolerance, humility, and caution have nothing to fear from me.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/befriend-resistance/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/befriend-resistance/", "title": "Befriend resistance", "summary": "What if you tried appeasing inner resistance rather than avoiding, ignoring, or antagonizing it for a change?", "date_published": "2026-01-21T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "It's pretty common for negative feelings and thoughts to get in the way of our goals, for example, making progress on a personal project (e.g. writing a novel), taking action (e.g. moving to another city), or confessing something scary (e.g. asking someone out). As soon as we start considering concrete action, we get flooded with fear, anxiety, doubts, and uncertainty. These unruly thoughts and feelings can also sometimes obstruct relaxation, focus, and sleep.
\nFor many people, the default reaction is to flee this distress and abandon ship. A second and often promoted option is to fight back, resist resistance, feel the fear, and do it anyway. In this post, I would like to suggest a third option that tends to be overlooked: negotiation.
\nLike many others, I've let resistance get the better of me for a long time. When it reared its head, I would retreat. I didn't know how to sort through my doubts, so I would often end up procrastinating, and I didn't make much progress on my projects over time.
\nWith time and the guidance and inspiration of various people, such as Steven Pressfield and his book The War of Art, I started to practice pushing through it. That's in part how I managed to finally start working consistently on my blog when I first started in 2023 after years of stalling.
\nTo an extent, I agree that pushing through resistance is a necessary practice, but it also comes with drawbacks. It requires extending a decent amount of energy. It doesn't feel very good. Furthermore, as long as the inner distress persists, it serves as a parasitic distraction to the work we have to do and makes it more challenging. Although with time ignoring resistance can get easier, by only using this approach, no steps are made to actually defuse or resolve it.
\nI've always been drawn to the ideal of minimizing friction as much as possible and maximizing harmonious coexistence with other people and within ourselves. Through experience, I've noticed that when it comes to communication and negotiation, reacting to antagonism in kind isn't usually a very effective strategy. It just adds fuel to the flames.
\nUnderstanding what's really going on, addressing the other's concerns, and working toward a compromise tends to be more productive and gratifying. Nonviolent communication (NVC) is a very useful framework in this context. If you'd like to learn more about it and interpersonal conflict resolution, check out my posts Why productive conflict resolution is so rare and Resolving conflict through constructive empathic inquiry.
\nWhen I discovered the Internal Family System (IFS) therapeutic model, I began to wonder if the same applied to the inner world. What if instead of fighting a war of attrition, we could understand and communicate with our resistance? Well, I've started trying this approach, and based on my personal experiments, the results seem promising.
\nIn order to know how to interact with it, we first need to refine our understanding of what it is. In the context of this post, I will define resistance as the loose bundle of negative thoughts, unpleasant feelings, and bodily sensations that arise within us in specific contexts.
\nThe subset that's made up of all our undermining self-talk is sometimes dubbed our "inner critic". I find this framing to be pretty imprecise and not very helpful.
\nIndeed, one misconception to dispel is the idea that resistance is a single entity. As IFS points out, the mind is plural. We have several competing needs, concerns, and agendas within us. This explains how we can feel torn between different parts of ourselves and why we sometimes have inconsistent reactions to similar situations at various points in time.
\nAnother important distinction to make is between symptoms and root causes. Feelings of resistance stem from maladaptive subconscious beliefs formed through the conditioning of painful experiences and unmet needs. These go by different names. In Beck's Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, they're referred to as schemas. In IFS, they are called burdens.
\nLet me give a common example to illustrate this process. A person gets bitten by a dog as a child and forms a strong subconscious belief that they are dangerous. Now, even as an adult, whenever they are faced with one, they get flooded with fear, despite being aware that this reaction is probably disproportionate. Some part of them might even want to pet it.
\nThese subconscious beliefs are frozen in the past, usually as a child or young teenager version of ourselves. They have valid concerns that are worth being considered; however, they tend to have a terrible communication style. Instead of making an articulate and cogent argument, they will throw a tantrum to get your attention. This usually takes the form of strong physical sensations and emotions and/or internal criticism.
\nIgnoring or rebuking them doesn't make them go away. They'll either double down or bide their time for the next outburst. Conversely, when they feel acknowledged, heard, and understood, they tend to calm down. Hence, the value in trying to use a friendlier approach.
\nNow that we understand resistance better, we can interact with it more constructively.
\nI've experimented with a few strategies so far. I've found the ones I'm about to share to be pretty effective, but they require more time than gently dismissing resistance. So if you don't have at least ten minutes to spare, give or take, it might be better to save them for another occasion. On the other hand, when you're feeling really strong resistance, I think it's worth the time since investing the energy to push through it on top of whatever task you're tackling will hinder your productivity.
\nJust to be clear, befriending resistance is not a one-and-done. Just like pushing through, it's a repeated practice that becomes easier with time, but it does come with an added benefit. Indeed, with every "rep" your knowledge of yourself grows. You get better at identifying and addressing the sources of your resistance. Furthermore, when your inner concerns feel understood and taken into account, they don't need to be as aggressive to get your attention.
\nOne last disclaimer: I'm still learning and practicing myself. I'm not trying to position myself as some sort of expert. I still fail to follow the advice I'm about to give you more often than not. However, on the rare case where I actually do follow it, it usually works a lot better than whatever other coping strategy I was trying before, and I'm reminded I should make it a more regular habit. So here's to hoping these techniques will come in handy for you too.
\nThey're presented in a sequence, because that's usually what tends to work best most of the time, but feel free to skip to a specific one or mix it up based on what works for you and what feels intuitively right in the moment.
\nThe first useful technique is to do a brain dump. Write down all the thoughts twirling inside your head until the chatter has subsided. Once that's done, you can regroup them by category and discern the central themes.
\nIt's easy to fall victim to tunnel vision when we keep all of our concerns in our heads. We get stuck in a loop because we're always forgetting a few key elements as we're brainstorming solutions, and we're forced to start over again and again. After all, a human mind can only hold about 5 to 7 chunks of information at once.
\nIt's much easier to clear your head and find a good compromise when you can see all the components of your problem laid out visually in front of you.
\nUsing this technique has already helped me get out of ruts when writing posts. Considering all the legitimate preconscious concerns that were vying for my attention empowered me to come up with better organization and processes. Sometimes, it has even sparked renewed inspiration.
\nBrain dumps work well for mental agitation and anxiety, but they're not always enough if your distress is more emotionally charged. For instance, intellectualization isn't the right tool to address burning anger or deep sadness. In this post, I'll focus on understanding the causes behind this unrest, which can help calm it down, but there are other effective and complementary techniques to process emotions (like physical activity, ranting, crying, listening to music, and more).
\nThe best method I know of to understand what our emotions are trying to tell us is to identify our specific feelings and needs. Do your best to list each feeling that is active within you. Then try to associate them with the needs they are being generated by. Satisfied needs can give rise to pleasant emotions, but if you're feeling resistance, then it's most likely caused by unmet needs.
\nThis identification process can be tricky, especially if you lean on the lower end of emotional granularityYou might also want to check out the Wikipedia page on alexithymia/emotional blindness if you're not familiar with the concept. as I do and struggle to quickly and precisely label your feelings. Therefore, I recommend scanning the NVC feelings & needs inventories for support and inspiration. Refer to my aforementioned posts on productive conflict resolution and NVC for additional guidance. The How We Feel app also offers some pretty good support to build the habit of identifying your emotions. It becomes more natural with practice.
\nDemonstrating you got the message by correctly identifying the feelings and, even more importantly, the needs behind your current distress will often be enough to appease your internal resistance.
\nIf being receptive, identifying your feelings and needs, and coming up with the best compromise you can think of still isn't enough to calm you down, then the final step is self-soothing.
\nEmpathize with the parts of yourself that are distressed, address their concerns, reassure them, and explain why you have chosen your current course of action and why, despite being intimidating, it is still necessary. If you're genuine and compassionate, that should usually do the trick. (Yes, I'm afraid you can't bullshit your emotions into submission).
\nRemember what I said about these parts of yourselves being frozen in a childlike state? Well, what's the best way to deal with a young kid who throws a tantrum, in your opinion?
\nShould you mercilessly berate and beat them into submission? Should you cave and meekly let them have whatever they want until they finally let you off the hook?
\nWhether you're dealing with literal in-person children or symbolical internal ones, I think there's a healthier approach. Be considerate of what they're going through. Try to understand what they are upset about. Reassure them and calmly explain why you're doing what you're doing. Then go through with it even if they're still indisposed because you've deemed it to be the responsible course of action as an adult with a broader and longer-term vision.
\nIn doing so, you model the best kind of leadership: receptive, fair, level-headed, foresighted, responsible, and caring yet firm.
\nYou've probably heard the well-known tale of the Two Wolves, which says there are two metaphorical wolves struggling for power within us, one good and the other evil, and that the ultimate victor is the one we feed and nurture over time.
\nI think we can use a similar analogy for the approach we choose to react to inner turmoil. Will you experience your resistance as bloody warfare, a rat race where might makes right, or as a respectful and collaborative process of deliberation? Which type of interaction will you nurture within yourself? What environment will you foster through your actions?
\nJust like when dealing with other people, building trust and goodwill not only helps find better resolutions for the current negotiation but also greases the wheel for future interactions and makes the next ones even smoother.
\nThat is the internal experience I yearn and aim for, irrespective of external factors. Not perpetual struggle but harmony, not strife but cooperation, not mere grudging tolerance but happy coexistence. I want to believe there's more to creative work, authenticity, and growth than a bleak and never-ending callous war of attrition with our fears.
\nI do not find meaning in facing adversity merely for the satisfaction of asserting my domination over it. That's why I aspire to a serene and constructive relationship with endeavoring, exempt from superfluous friction.
\nI don't know if I'll ever reach this ideal, but that's where I'm headed. I'll fight when it's necessary, but only ever with the intended purpose of ensuring future peace.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/stop-saying-get-out-of-your-comfort-zone/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/stop-saying-get-out-of-your-comfort-zone/", "title": "Stop saying "Get out of your comfort zone"", "summary": "I don't like rubbish. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it doesn't get us anywhere. – Anakin Skywalker", "date_published": "2025-12-21T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "The expression "get out of your comfort zone" is silly and annoying. It's far from a meaningful act of thoughtful expression tailored to an interlocutor you care for. Instead, it's a platitude disgorged in fits of verbal incontinence, a conditioned reflex like saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes. To be fair, though, at least "Bless you" is kind and polite. "Get out of your comfort zone" is neither.
\nOn top of being filled with about as much insight as the average mass-manufactured ready-made political slogan or fortune cookie one-liner, it's also highly unhelpful. In this post, I'd like to make the case that it sucks, and it's high time we start dabbling with alternatives.
\nBefore I get started, I'd like to avoid any misunderstandings. I'm strongly in favor of personal development. Growing as a person and improving your life are central topics of my writings. They're also one of the main reasons I publish consistently in the first place since doing so pushes me to become more confident and articulate.
\nSo, to be very clear, I'm not saying that going outside your comfort zone is a bad thing and that you shouldn't do it. I'm saying that you should stop saying "Get out of your comfort zone" because it's a worthless statement.
\nWhy? First off, this injunction is void of justification in itself. It doesn’t give us any reason or objective to explain why following its instructions would benefit us. By omitting any specific ultimate purpose, it turns a trite means into an overblown end. It’s akin to saying to someone, “You need to get stabbed by a scalpel” instead of “You need to get heart surgery”. Is it a required part of the process? Sure. Does it make any sense once it’s been uprooted from its context? Nope.
\nSecond, it’s positively brimming with specificity, and on its face, it might not be the best of advice. I’m sure proudly strutting in a rainbow T-shirt with the caption “I’m a Gay Jew” written in bold letters at a neo-Nazi rally would be out of most people’s comfort zone. Does that mean you should do it? Personally, I think that’d be a pretty bad idea. What about sending unsolicited nudes to your boss? Sucker punching a police officer in the nose? Or perhaps driving in the opposite direction of a highway lane?
\nSo, I think we can all safely agree that indiscriminately going out of your comfort zone is completely asinine.
\nThird, it plays into our society’s curious fetish for suffering. We just love the aesthetics of pain, sweat, and blood. All work and no play makes Jack a good boy. Getting constantly blasted in the face with adversity without ever whimpering is proof of strength and valor. Go to the gym, agonize, get shredded. Rip and tear, until it is done.
\nI’m not exactly sure where this distasteful trend comes from. Perhaps it’s part of our Christian cultural legacy, with its fancy for martyrdom and self-flagellation. About anything you can think of doing is a terrible sin, but you can keep on keeping on. Feel free to indulge as long as you feel terrible about what a wretched, dirty little sinner you are afterwards. If you whip yourself hard enough, you can win back eternal salvation without actually having to embrace virtue. Pretty good deal if you’re a sadomasochist.
\nUnfortunately for me — and everybody else who shares this predicament — that’s not my case. If I have a choice between achieving the same goal through means that either A) require discomfort or B) do not, I’m opting for B every single time. I don’t really get the craze around pointless suffering.
\nI’m not saying you should avoid it at every turn, either. If it’s required to do something meaningful and worthwhile, then sure, endure to your heart’s content. I simply don’t think suffering is noble in and of itself, and it’s probably better to avoid it when it serves no purpose.
\nTo get back to the topic at hand, the entire framing behind the saying in question is pretty patronizing. There’s nothing inspiring or compassionate about it. At its core, that sly expression is using shame as its main source of fuel. Come on, get out of your comfort zone! What are you? A sissy? A loser? Real men™ get out of their comfort zone.
\nWell, I don’t believe shame makes for good motivation fuel. It can almost always be substituted for something better, like aspiration.
\nI’m aware different people have different styles of motivation, but this type of “tough love” definitely ain’t mine. In my case, getting lambasted, humiliated, harassed, or bullied is counterproductive at best.
\nLastly, it’s too broadly sweeping, as well as invalidating, and therefore unhelpful. As I already mentioned, this little catchphrase doesn’t take into account any end goal. It doesn’t have any consideration for why tackling this endeavor is difficult for your interlocutor. And it doesn’t help them make any tangible, constructive progress on their specific struggle.
\nPlus, everyone and their mother already knows they need to “get out of their comfort zone”, duh. Sure, some simple truths bear repeating manifold to fully permeate and sink in. The general idea behind this one might belong to that category, but definitely not with that phrasing.
\nAlright, so what can we replace it with then?
\nSeveral years ago, I went to a talk by Oussama Ammar, a well-known French entrepreneurship pundit. Since it’s been a while, I don’t remember much about it, except for this one segment because it was notably spot on. At some point, he shared that — just like me — he had always disliked the expression “Get out of your comfort zone”. He thought that a much better framing was to “expand your comfort zone”.
\nSee, the idea is not to vacate your comfort zone willy-nilly just to suffer like the good little glutton for punishment you are. The goal is to temporarily explore beyond it so you can colonize and domesticate a wild area of discomfort and bring it into the fold of civilized comfort so that it stops standing in the way of your aspirations.
\nYes, this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where I’ll sanction unbridled imperialist expansionism. You want to transform something that was daunting up until now by turning it into a manageable endeavor, if not second nature. Your driving purpose should be to transmute an area of life so that it doesn’t cause discomfort anymore.
\nFor example, say you ardently desire to give rousing speeches but currently find the prospect very scary. In order to get there, you will have to expand your comfort zone by iteratively practicing public speaking until it’s not disproportionately intimidating anymore.
\nWhen you were a toddler, the act of walking was outside your comfort zone. You had to strive and struggle to master it, and now it’s snugly within your comfort zone. That’s the spirit! Toddlers are based. They’re too young to have been worn down by our “conventional wisdom” nonsense yet.
\nMore generally, if you want to offer this type of advice and promote courage, here are a few good rules of thumb to follow. Take into account the goals of the person you’re trying to motivate. Do they even want to do what you’re pushing for in the first place? If not, you’ve got more pressing concerns than finding the perfect one-liner. Take into account the challenges they are encountering and the worthiness of their endeavor. Strive to be specific and encouraging.
\nIf you want to help someone whose life is being hindered by procrastination and avoidance, try something like, “In order to achieve this thing you care about, there’s no alternative but to be courageous and take action in spite of some discomfort, but it’ll get easier in time with practice”.
\nDon’t hesitate to lavishly wax poetic on the benefits to be gained by doing so, in contrast to the downsides of complacency. The process itself should be the thing you focus the least on, except if they’re looking for concrete how-to advice, in which case that’s what you should actually give them instead of platitudes.
\nAlternatively, if you want to encourage someone who’s already engaged in the process but is having a hard time and bitching about it, something like “Keep going, I know it’s scary, but you’re doing the right thing” would be a definite improvement.
\nTo conclude, for the love of all that is good and sensible, please stop saying “Get out of your comfort zone”.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/familiarity-breeds-headway/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/familiarity-breeds-headway/", "title": "Familiarity breeds headway", "summary": "You can't get good as long as you don't feel relatively safe practicing.", "date_published": "2025-11-28T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "Making progress on tasks that feel deeply daunting and repellent is arduous. Most attempts prove to be exercises in futility, protracted bouts of unproductive and agonizing procrastination. Occasionally, however, we manage to find a way to push through and get the momentum rolling.
\nAfter having been repeatedly subjected to this predicament, with the vast majority of results falling in the first category of futile misery, I've come to the belated realization that fostering a sense of familiarity with the context of my task plays a big role in determining which of these two outcomes I get.
\nAs far as I can tell, our sense of familiarity with any given sphere of activity is a crucial yet underestimated factor of how well we will fare within it. It is said in regards to relationships that "familiarity breeds contempt". I'm not sure whether I agree, but when it comes to getting stuff done, familiarity definitely breeds headway. Unfamiliarity stokes up our feelings of overwhelm, which are responsible in large part for procrastination. The good news is that understanding this dynamic can help us address intimidating endeavors more constructively and start making tangible progress.
\nLet's start by illustrating the issue and clarifying its diagnostic.
\nYou probably know someone in your life who is perfectly capable and resourceful in many areas, but for some reason harbors a disproportionate superstitious dread of technology. When they're confronted with a computer or an unintuitive piece of software they start feeling completely helpless, and by buying into this feeling they in effect become completely helpless. I know this because I'm the guy they call for help when it happens.
\nI'm sure you can think of many other examples. For instance, people who end up believing they are unequivocally "terrible at math" after being traumatized by school.
\nThe true problem isn't that they aren't capable of dealing with these tasks, but that engaging with them feels unfamiliar and threatening. So they avoid them as much as possible and, in so doing, never realize it's not as bad as they think it is. Consequently, they never get any better either.
\nIt's easy to see it when it's happening to someone else. The comical excess in their reaction seems glaringly obvious. But when you're in the hot seat, it doesn't feel that way at all.
\nThe dread overwhelms you, and it somehow makes perfect sense to you that although you frequently witness other people doing what's currently petrifying you without breaking a sweat, you're different. You just can't do it. An exception carrying your name has been carved somewhere in the fine print of an appendix to the immovable laws of the Universe. You'll always suck in this area of life. You'll simply have to make do and skirt around this infirmity. And you'll be damned if you ever touch that pit of hell with a ten-foot pole.
\nI chuckle to myself when I see someone’s ingenuity flush down the toilet as soon as they’re faced with a technological device. However, when it’s my turn to start mingling with strangers in the context of a thus far uncharted minefield of unspoken social rules or to begin an archaeological excavation in a legacy codebase written in an undocumented, eldritch, bespoke framework to decipher how some abstruse feature works, I’m not laughing anymore. I’m drenched in cold sweat, and my eyes start darting frantically in the vain hope they’ll chance upon a magical escape hatch.
\nIf you mull it over long enough, I’m sure you can think of some Kryptonite of your own.
\nAlright, so assuming we now agree on the problem, how can we work towards fixing it?
\nI think I should start by defining what I mean by “a sense of familiarity”. In this case, I’m referring to the ability to visualize what the problem at hand is broadly made up of. Having a decent grasp of its interrelated components. Being able to intuitively break it down into smaller sub-tasks and eyeball where and how you should probably get started.
\nFamiliarity is important because it enables confidence, and in turn, confidence enables progress. Confidence has a big influence on proficiency. It acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you feel unfamiliar and inept in an area, you'll avoid it and sabotage your half-hearted attempts by giving up too soon, thus reinforcing your insecurities. In contrast, if you feel safe and confident about a task, you'll experiment and practice fearlessly, which will develop your skills and reinforce your sense of mastery.
\nTherefore, your first order of business should be to warm up to your environment and find your bearings instead of obsessing about getting results instantly. Nurturing familiarity is a prerequisite to nurturing efficiency. Growing familiar with a project is making progress towards its completion.
\nOf course, we all have different strengths and weaknesses. Even dedicated practice isn't enough to turn anyone into a virtuoso. It's also a good idea to set up your life in such a way that you don't have to frequently and substantially rely on your natural shortcomings. With that said, in the cases where you don't have a choice but to engage with them from time to time, you should be able to grapple with at least the basics if you keep this principle in mind.
\nVery well, you might say, this all sounds nice, but it's not very actionable. What am I actually supposed to do?
\nIf you feel really distraught, then start by working on dissolving your panic to a more manageable level. Practice staying in the vicinity of the action. Sit with the discomfort and let your apprehension gradually readjust to reality. Try to get clear on the causes behind your fears and write them down.
\nAs long as you haven't managed to kickstart some momentum, timers can come in very handy. They force you to spend a set amount of time on a task, regardless of perceived productivity. Check out the Pomodoro technique.
\nOnce your distress is bearable, you should move on to step two and strive to understand the problem before trying to solve it. Start mapping out its components. If you have questions, write them down and look for the answers. Write down your hypotheses and test them out. Writing stuff down is important. It helps clarify your thinking, it documents your process and it gives you a tangible proof of progress.
\nSoon enough, you'll start to build an intuitive model of whatever it is you're working with, and some ideas will naturally start popping into your head. You can let go of the training wheels when you don't need them anymore, but don't be too brash either. They're always there if you need to put them back on in the future.
\nRemember to start with small steps. Small enough that you can sustain a frequent practice. To quote Ali Abdaal, lower the bar until you can maintain consistency. Your first objective should be to feel, "Oh! This is starting to make sense. I think I can do this.", not to become a prodigy on the first try.
\nIn conclusion, I think the following lyrics excerpt from Gorillaz sums up the main takeaway from this post.
\n\n\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/the-crux-of-graduating-from-child-to-adult-mentality/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/the-crux-of-graduating-from-child-to-adult-mentality/", "title": "The crux of graduating from child to adult mentality", "summary": "On the elusive mental transition between childhood and adulthood, and incidentally, the savages who lay poopy booby traps on front porches.", "date_published": "2025-11-21T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "Feeling sensations that you thought was dead
\n
\nNo squealing and remember that it's all in your headI ain't happy, I'm feeling glad
\n
\nI got sunshine in a bag
\nI'm useless but not for long
\nThe future is coming on— Gorillaz, "Clint Eastwood"
\n
Somehow evolving into a budding old fart has started to creep up on you. By now, you've lost all your student and young adult discounts, but the bills and taxes keep piling up. You don't look forward to birthdays anymore. After the 25th, you've started reconsidering whether your age really needs to keep incrementing. On second thought, it's fine as it is now.
\nThe list of shits-you're-getting-too-old-for is expanding steadily. Your peers have started quipping and complaining about suffering the emerging consequences of the turpitudes their heretofore lifestyle has inflicted upon their bodies.
\nYou're now pretty thoroughly out of the loop with the latest references, memes, and trends from the young'uns. Hopefully, you don't mind that much, because you're not quite that desperate to deny the inexorable passage of time and evolution of your tastes and prioritiesSpeaking for myself, and to be frank, I've liked slippers, quietude, and minding my own business since I was a kid — and I was never cool to start with.. You've cozily started to settle into has-been infancy. Ain't got the time nor energy to vainly invest in trying to butter up whippersnappers into thinking you're cool.
\nAll the same, you still don't feel "ready" for life. You've comfortably exceeded the age your parents had you at, and yet you don't feel remotely equipped to bring and nurture life into this world any time soon. You don't "feel like an adult". Whatever the hell that's even supposed to mean in the first place. Having all your shit tightly together and knowing the answer to every single question in existence? When's that supposed to happen exactly?
\nOn my end, my first attempt at solving this quandary was to unenthusiastically grab the first, easy, obvious answer. Namely, there's no such thing as adulthood, everyone is just winging it.
\n\n\nI know you're all fighting because you're scared and confused. I confused too. All day, I don't know what the heck is going on. But somehow, this feels like it's all my fault.
\n– Waymond in Everything Everywhere All at Once by the Daniels (2022)
\n
This theory goes as follows: the concept of psychological adulthood is a Santa Claus-type scam. It's a myth born from faulty inferences developed as a gullible kid. To be fair, your parents worked hard in getting you to buy they had a tight grip on what was going on when in reality they were just clueless, hapless goobers like the rest of us. After all, they were terrified the gig would be up once you realized the dismal truth, leaving them strapped with only tenuous justifications as to why they get to lord it over you all the time.
\nThese so-called "adults" sure seemed to be much more descriptively and prescriptively knowledgeable than you were. They left you dazed and confused by slapping you back and forth with delectable aldultisms such as the inept "Because I said so", the blustery "Children should be seen and not heard", or the pernicious "You'll understand when you're older", to only name a few.
\nThis first answer does a sufficient job of resolving this apparent inconsistency between theory and lived experience, but it leaves us fairly dejected and unsatisfied. For a while it tepidly served its job for me, but over time and faced with new life experiences, a new answer started percolating to the surface.
\nIn early 2025, I started working as a night receptionist for hotels. This was my first time experiencing a customer-facing job. Before that I worked in web development, which is quite distinctly different.
\nIn my personal experience, the latter mostly consisted in spending far too much time trying to identify and fix bugs you can't reproduce, in a Kafkaesque application you do not understand, by combing through a antagonistically repulsive codebase you do not understand, under mostly arbitrary deadlines that get repeatedly postponed, in order to carry out a company strategy that cannot be understood — because it makes no sense, during the fleeting fragments of time you can glean in between contemplating the futility of existence and hours-long meetings that barely serve any purpose aside from sometimes trying to forward information between departments that do not understand each other and don't really want to in the first place.
\nI must admit it wasn't near the top of my favorite ways to burn through my lifespan.
\nI got into that line of work because I enjoyed tinkering with fun little code problems, but it turns out that's only a very negligible portion of the actual job. Most of the problems you end up having to deal with happen to be of the protracted and unfun variety when they're not completely inscrutable. That's why I eventually changed career paths.
\nAll that to say, direct customer service comes with many particularities that are new to me when contrasted with desk jobs.
\nFor the most part, there is now a straightforward and graspable rationale behind the presence of most of the tasks assigned to me. You clean up so the premises don't look like trash when customers come in. You audit inconsistencies between the receipts, the cash register, and the software reports to spot potential mistakes. You prepare breakfast so people can eat what they paid for when they wake up in the morning. And so on and so forth. The proportion of things I have no idea why I must carry out has gone down from about 90% to a reasonable 15% or so.
\nYou can mostly understand whatever the fuck it is your colleagues actually do (and conversely). You largely interface in the same reality as them, and so does your direct manager, which helps build solidarity in the team and reduces the number of arbitrary, eldritch directives you must comply with.
\nYour actions produce concrete, tangible feedback. You're not operating in a contextless vacuum where, by the time you suffer the consequence of your choices, you've long forgotten about making them.
\nDeadlines don't merely derive from speculative contractual paperwork and exist beyond the need to fill up Excel sheets and graphs to give off the impression things are progressing along. There are genuinely time-sensitive tasks where failing to finish on time will lead to real, tangible problems. And you're the one who has to deal with the impatient, entitled, indignant, and angry customers for the duration of your shift.
\nEssentially, consequences, urgency, and stakes are all much more concrete and therefore vivid. When shit hits the fan, you can't afford nearly as much procrastination gambling that by waiting long enough this distasteful hassle will decay into obsolescence and take care of itself.
\nTo make things more concrete, here are a few examples of lived experiences to illustrate what I'm talking about:
\nAccordingly, the urge to call a more experienced colleague for help in the hope they'll magically make the problem and its accompanying stress go away by handling it for you only intensifies. Except now, with the smaller teams and asymmetrical shift schedules, doing so requires waking them up in the middle of the night. So, assuming you've got a shred of decency and consideration, you're also forced to become more self-reliant.
\nAnd after a while, with repeated exposure to these types of situations from both points of view, either as the one who starts sinking into panic and perceived helplessness, desperately looking around for an external savior, or the one called to the rescue when training newcomers, that's when it finally hit me.
\n"Feeling like" an adult is indeed mostly a myth. However, being an adult doesn't have to be.
\nNo matter our individual life circumstances, although they may well alleviate or worsen this predicament, we must all face the fact that the universe is basically just a big mortar-like machine, raining unpredictable and distressing complications we initially don't have the foggiest idea how to handle down into our lives. On this basis, we can delineate childhood from adulthood at the level of the outlook we choose to deal with this onslaught.
\nThe child mindset consists in shrugging, "Someone else will know what to do and take care of this". It's declining responsibility and letting others deal with the repercussions of your actions or lack thereof. It's a normal stance to hold for actual kids (within reason), but not great when it comes to overgrown teenagers with real-life responsibilities.
\nIn contrast, the adult mindset says, "Well if no one seems to have this under control, I guess I'd better work on figuring it out". It's doing your best to deal with bullshit when it ineluctably comes your way next and accepting that reality as gracefully as you can.
\nNobody knows everything, and at some point everyone has to start winging it. Adulthood is not possessing all the answers, thus overruling the necessity of winging it. It is accepting and embracing having to wing it and doing the best job of it you can manage with the best attitude you can muster. Not in the hope of gleaning some form of external gratification, although doing so will build up your self-efficacy over time and reduce the proliferation of festering, unresolved problems in your life, but for the beauty of the gesture, in the name of Robert Pirsig’s Quality.
\nThe reward is contentment, being at peace with yourself, knowing you did all you could and letting the rest lay in the hands of the godsA reference to Robert Pirsig and Daniel Quinn within the span of two sentences. I'm proud of myself. where it belongs, rather than pointlessly worrying about it. As the Serenity Prayer goes, "Give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other".
\nThe alternative is to keep shirking back problems down the responsibility chain until someone steps up or the former end up ballooning to catastrophic proportions.
\nIt's easy to think, "Why me? It's not my fault! I didn't do anything to deserve this. This is someone else's problem." Regardless, in truth, whenever the last person of the shirking chain tosses the hot potato down your lap, whether fair or not, it has now also become your problem, and by passing it down the line, you're also contributing to shirking responsibility. In a few specific cases this can be warranted, but it's probably a lot less often the case than you'd like it to be. Life isn't fair.
\nThe more someone steps up, the more they become competent and self-sufficient. The longer you spend in that type of situation, the more you learn and become comfortable figuring stuff out. Conversely, the more others will start leaning on you to bail them out.
\nOf course, it's natural to default to the child mindset at first. After all, unknowns and responsibilities are quite spooky. But, at some point, someone does need to step up. If everyone stays a psychological child forever, it won't end well for anyone.
\nBesides, even as a recidivist burden shirker, if you pay attention to how your savior solves your problems for you, you'll notice pretty quickly that big bro/sis isn't an omniscient superhuman. They just figure shit out on the fly through trial and error, just like you would — and could.
\nIn the vast majority of cases, they only moderately surpass you in knowledge and skill and potentially benefit from a slightly more furnished collection of similar experiences to call upon for problem-solving.
\nCorrespondingly, the more you learn how to deal with new situations through practice, the more tricks you add to your toolbelt for a rainy day. Yet, that can only happen by putting in the effort of figuring out a fix the first time around and refining it upon further occurrences.
\nInitially, when we're put on the spot, trapped inside a panicked "first person" perspective, we're much more likely to start off in child stance. However, we tend to naturally switch to an adult stance when we're helping someone else.
\nAs a bystander, we're less affected by the anxiety and perceived helplessness. Plus, most of us feel a reinvigorated sense of motivation and responsibility when an acquaintance directly asks for our assistance. We don't want to let someone who's personally counting on us down.
\nHence, even when unsure about how to proceed, we're more likely to start troubleshooting, "Have you tried this? What about that?" instead of frantically looking for the next person to throw the hot potato to.
\nSo on these occasions when you're thrust into the hot seat and at a loss for a solution, imagining what you'd suggest to someone else (e.g. a colleague) who called for your assistance with the situation at hand could help. This might be a decent trick to keep in your bag when you could use a crutch to snap you out of relapsing into childhood and pull you back into a more grounded and capable adult mind space.
\nIn any case, that was a sizeable serving of theory. Let's wrap it up with a story to illustrate what I'm talking about a bit more concretely.
\nThe final spark of inspiration for discharging this post in its finalized written form, the doo-dooI promised the people their poop (in the post's description) and the people shall rightfully get their poop. Rejoice, masses! straw that broke this camel's back, you might say, came from stumbling upon a fresh clump of literal crap adorned atop my apartment building's front porch, not once, but twice within the span of a year or two. The second occurrence brought the first back to mind and served as the conclusive catalyst for this conception of adulthood that had been brewing in my noggin for a while.
\nYou might have assumed that this story would feature me in the role of the heroic exemplar, but not so. Alas, I merely played the part of a very secondary character and definitely did not rise up to this occasion by picking up the mantle of adulthoodWhat? Am I expected to practice what I preach? That's not how internet punditry works. Just model your behavior on this other guy I'm about to describe instead. On a more serious note, I've been practicing and improving over the last few months, but this specific story predates these efforts and doesn't count among my best showings..
\nInstead, upon registering the reality of the situation, I petulantly noped out of there, thinking something along the lines of, "Ugh, I don't have the time nor will to deal with this literal shit".
\nUnsurprisingly, my neighbors also defaulted to childhood in this instance. So, for a couple of days, the nondescript dung heap was left there to fester, untouched and undisturbed but for the occasional oblivious trampling.
\nThus the situation perdured until the day when, upon visiting my apartment, a guest informed me they had run into some dude mopping up soiled footprints in my staircase with a cheerful attitude. I can't remember whether I personally brushed past him shortly after or not, but the man left a bright impression on me regardless. By the time I next crossed the threshold to my abode, the porch and staircase were spick and span.
\nThis anonymous and heretofore unsung hero is one beautiful example of an adult. The lad didn't start bemoaning whichever motherless cur, whether of the human or canine variety, felt comfortable enough pinching a loaf smack in the middle of the symbolical liminal space between this harsh, unforgiving world and my cherished sanctuary. Unlike yours truly, he didn't let the situation inexorably trickle down into somebody else's problem and the crime scene decay and smear with the passage of time (and a few heedless feet). Instead, he just got to fucking work with humble and merry dedication.
\nThis guy probably has a more joyful and fulfilling life than the rest of us. And he's probably great to be around tooHistorical fact check: here the author ventures so far down speculations, driven by childish and quixotic wish-fulfillment fantasies based on some bloke they barely met and secondhand accounts, that this whole section's practically fan fiction.. The chap's got more enlightenment street cred than 90% of renowned spiritual gurus. He ain't got time to lord his wisdom over everybody else. He's too busy enjoying his life and cleaning up other people's shit. That's some Wim Wenders' Perfect Days down-to-earth, unpretentious devotion to Quality, if I've ever seen it. Chop wood, carry water, and you'd better learn to like it, bitch! Cuz it ain't stopping anytime soon.
\nLet's sum up. According to Colin Firth's character in Kingsman, "manners maketh man". Well, according to me, graciously embracing responsibility maketh adult.
\nAdulthood is not automatic. It's not a one-time milestone either. It's a choice, a mindset, a stance, a sustained practice, an art of living. Adulthood is cleaning up the shit left behind by the universe and random motherless curs.
\nRelated readings from other authors:
\nForgiveness is a personal and organic process that varies based on the context and the individual. Although it's often better to eventually let go of old grudges in order to move on, forgiveness is not something that can be demanded from someone.
\nLikewise, processing guilt and regret is a personal journey. Being granted external forgiveness won't magically redeem your self-image and erase all the negative feelings you bear about a past mistake. Conversely, if you've made your own peace with what happened and grown from it, the lack of absolution from the people you've wronged shouldn't bother you that much. Besides, if you truly feel remorse for your actions, you shouldn't be expecting to be granted forgiveness anyway.
\nThis is why you should never ask someone for forgiveness. You may sincerely apologize and convey your remorse, but that's it. It's fine to express your inner emotional landscapeAs long as it's relevant and appropriate, don't further exploit the people you've hurt as improvised psychotherapists., but you can't make demands on someone else's. It's even more indelicate if you've previously hurt them.
\nTo me, requesting forgiveness is a red flag that someone hasn't fully learned from the experience. I have a hard time seeing how penitence and entitlement can intermingle.
\nOf course, depending on the offense's severity, the protracted withholding of forgiveness can become pretty absurd. Nevertheless, if someone were still upset at me for forgetting an item on a grocery list years after the fact, I'd feel much more impetus to part company rather than endlessly beg for a change of mind.
\nI think that two wrongs don't make a right and support restorative justiceAs far as I'm concerned, the only reasonable justification behind what may traditionally be considered as "punishment" is preventing additional harm in the present and future, for example, containment and game theory deterrence.. People should have the opportunity to grow from their mistakes and the right to be rehabilitated by society. However, the forgiveness of specific individuals is a completely different matter.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/epistemic-barter/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/epistemic-barter/", "title": "Facilitate respectful disagreements with epistemic barter", "summary": "How to smoothly navigate divergent opinions and turn arguments into instructive and enjoyable conversations.", "date_published": "2024-07-01T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "Have you grown tired of how debates typically tend to play out? I know I have. There's no love lost between me and protracted, unproductive, unpleasant, and frustrating disputes that don't lead to any changes of mind when they don't further polarize every person involved.
\nAfter several attempts at stubbornly duking it out in my late teens and early twenties, I've concluded that it's mostly a waste of time and peace of mind. Is this truly the only way to navigate dissent? Wouldn't it be nice to enjoy exploring disagreements without angsty defensiveness, and instead see what we can learn in the process?
\nIn my experience, this alternative is possible. It hinges on the framing we decide to approach the conversation with. As such, in this post, I will describe the mindset I would recommend to navigate divergent opinions smoothly and constructively. I've dubbed it epistemic barter.
\nDo note that this approach is tailored for intellectual disagreements. If you're interested in navigating conflicts more generally, you might be better served by my series on productive empathic inquiry.
\n\n\nThe purpose of philosophical argumentation is to find out whether or not a view is really true. A good philosopher would never want to win an argument for the sake of winning.
\n– Sharon Kaye, Philosophy - A Complete Introduction
\n
Epistemic barter stands for a respectful and reciprocal exchange of goods and services within the realm of knowledge. In this context, goods and services correspond to ideas, insights, framings, questions, and so on.
\nAs with all the other communication frameworks I advocate for, it is based on a mindset of collaboration and humility rather than conquest and arrogance. At its core, it's simply about coming to the conversation from a place of curiosity rather than proselytism. In other words, epistemic barter is the antithesis of ideological imperialism.
\nIt's a shift from "How can I control their thoughts and beliefs to my liking?" to "What can I learn from them, and do I have anything to share that could suit their needs and interests?"In this way, it's similar to Jordan Peterson's 9th rule for life: "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't." He's a controversial figure, but regardless of your feelings towards the guy and whether you deem he follows his own rules or not, I think this is a good rule of thumb.
\nYou can think of it as sharing, comparing, and trading items from each other's respective treasure troves of insights gleaned over time in the hopes of finding mutual items of interest. This exchange of perspectives can definitely include challenging our interlocutors' views, as long as it is done in a spirit of clarification and coconstruction, not with the aim to crush and convert.
\nOn top of being the type of discussion most likely to lead to constructive outcomes, it's also the most enjoyable and rewarding to engage with.
\nHowever, if you remain skeptical about whether it's truly worth the bother, I explain what you stand to gain from being receptive to differing views in my post on the unsung perks of diplomatic open-mindedness. Give it a read and come back to this one if it piqued your interest in giving this approach a try.
\nAssuming everyone is on board from this point on, let's proceed with how to go about it in practice.
\nIn order to make this work, you have to be willing to take a bit of distance from your own views. I'm not saying you should drop all your values and beliefs to become a complete blank slate. However, you should be detached enough to be able to appreciate the variety of possible standpoints that can be chosen for any particular topic and some elements of legitimacy in those that differ from yours.
\nYou can't be receptive to what your interlocutor might have to share with you if you're clinging on for dear life to all of your positions. You'll also alienate them if you're hellbent on fighting to the death for each one of them. It's pretty tricky to engage in playful exploration under the constant threat of high-stakes confrontations.
\nListening to an opposing viewpoint should rarely jeopardize positions you feel very confident in, especially if you've thought them through. You can go right back to them once the conversation is over.
\nFurthermore, should one of these beliefs get dismantled in the process, that means you hadn't explored the topic enough, your confidence was overblown, and this outcome was unavoidable with time. I guess you could always try to isolate yourself in an echo chamber, but that's not a very sustainable strategy.
\nOne factor in your confidence level should be how much time and how many objections a position has managed to survive. So, engaging with dissent is a necessary step in pumping that number in the first placeOf course, not all objections belong to the same quality standard. Repeatedly countering the weakest dissenting arguments shouldn't afford all that much confidence. You need to contend with a variety of the best stuff the opposition's got..
\nTo get back to concrete advice: don't get stuck in a stubborn stance of "no, you're wrong, and I'm right." Epistemic barter is predicated on an interest in exploration and potential discovery. So, be willing to temporarily assume a different perspective and engage with hypotheticals to see what it all builds up to. As the Aristotle apocryphal quote goes: "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it."
\nThis cognitive flexibility is necessary in order to get a good grasp of your interlocutor's views, which, as we are about to see, is a prerequisite for constructive discussions.
\nYour first order of business should be to reach a clear mutual understanding. As I argued in my video on the importance of rigorous inquiry, you need to know what you're operating with before you can elaborate upon it. Constructive criticism and improvement cannot grow from a place of ignorance. It's hard to cook a decent meal if you have no idea what ingredients are at your disposal. It's tricky to hit the bullseye if you are blindfolded.
\nThe illusion of knowledge is even worse than utter yet self-aware ignorance. Misunderstandings give a false sense of certainty and increase the likelihood that you'll act on incorrect information and suffer the consequences of whatever blunder ensues. That is why you should ensure you're building an accurate model of your interlocutors' viewpoint and corroborate it by asking for their confirmation frequently.
\nAnother good reason to avoid misunderstandings is that feeling unheard and misrepresented is one of the fastest ways to sour an interaction. You'll be hard-pressed to recover an opportunity for smooth epistemic barter once the conversation devolves into resentful conflict.
\n\n\nYou also notice certain standard failure modes. Discussions predictably break down and turn into shouting matches or stalemates born of baffled confusion. And it’s often totally avoidable if the participants can find the real sources of their disagreement. It seems to me that people don’t get mad when other people disagree with them, they get mad when they’re not being understood.
\n– John Nerst, Origin Story
\n
Assuming you now agree that mutual understanding matters, you might be wondering how to achieve it in the first place. If you would like to facilitate and speed up this process, I recommend trying out Gist triangulation. It's an approach that relies on proactive listening and helping find a common language to express what they're getting at. You can read the post for more details.
\nThe Socratic method is another good and pretty famous technique. It consists in delineating the edges and nuances of their perspective through iterative questioning, including some they might not even have consciously thought through up to this point.
\nThese types of meticulous clarification require a certain level of candor and vulnerability from the person whose beliefs are under scrutiny. So, if we want our interlocutors to open up, we need to lead by example, exemplify good faith, and foster trust throughout the conversation.
\nJumping on the first opportunity to viciously shank a perceived chink in your collocutor's armor after they gallantly opened up is the surest way to annihilate any possibility of mutual trust for that relationship.
\nI know from experience that pettiness can sometimes be an alluring temptress when you glimpse an opening for a smug checkmate on a pretty passionate point of contention. All the same, you must resist this self-satisfied lure, for your choice reveals your true colors.
\nScorching all the goodwill built up to that point for a vainglorious rush betrays an underlying agenda of ideological imperialism rather than epistemic barter, more concerned with dominating than understanding. It's also a misguided long-term strategy if you intend to keep having this type of conversation, as you'll quickly sully your reputation. Conversely, foregoing juicy opportunities to jab a fat finger in a raw nerve is the best and fastest way to demonstrate your trustworthiness.
\nAdditionally, actual argumentative checkmates are much more uncommon than we would naively tend to think. As I like to reiterate, our access to knowledge is limited and certainties are better represented in percentile confidence levels than binaries. And seeing as most of our beliefs are built on an intertwining of several clues and experiences, it's pretty rare to topple the entire network by taking a single one out. All of this means there's a good chance you'll be overestimating how much of a blow you were really going to land, and you'll just end up looking like a presumptuous bozo.
\nIf you want to safeguard epistemic barter, I'm afraid you'll have to leave checkmates at the door. Coming to the conversation with a healthy dose of humility is the best arrangement for everyone. It greases the wheels of interactions and opens up minds to a greater discovery potential. Overall, a mutual feeling of reciprocity, consideration, and respect are important to keep communication constructive and sustainable.
\nIf you want to avoid making the conversation come to a premature end, striving to be charitable is a good idea. I think disagreements should follow the same principle as most sensible justice systems: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they make seemingly shoddy or shady assertions, make sure you've correctly understood what they meant. Give them a chance to clarify and defend themselves before jumping on the offensive. Follow the due process of investigation before presuming.
\nView your interlocutor as an equal, if not in reasoning ability, at least in human worth, deserving fair treatment and entitled to their freedom of thought. Avoid condescension and hasty judgments. After all, contempt is the most toxic and pernicious bane of camaraderie. It's the greatest predictor of divorce, according to some research.
\nAll that being said, I'm not trying to suggest that you can't issue criticism or point out potential flaws in their views. What matters is the way you go about it.
\nAs I mentioned in the previous section and other posts, what you want to prevent is making things personal and coming off as disparaging. That will only lead to defensiveness and resentment. Instead, try to acknowledge the legitimacy of your interlocutor's position as much as you honestly can. Then, raise potential flaws, oversights, and contradictions non-confrontationally.
\nThis can be achieved by keeping your pushback in the realm of ideas, rather than venturing into how perceived inconsistencies reflect on their intellect and moral character. Remember to temper your inquiry with an appropriate level of cautious humility. Avoid assuming they haven't considered an objection and that you've caught them with their pants down. Ask earnest clarifying questions instead of making presumptive judgments, for example: "What about <insert counterpoint>?" or "How do you reconcile X with Y?"
\nPoint out where you see holes, objections, and omissions they don't seem to have contended with yet, and leave it at that. Don't gloat. Don't shove it in their face. And don't assume they'll never be able to come up with any answers. Give them time to think about it. There's a chance they will improve their framework based on your feedback.
\nIssuing a tricky challenge beats professing a dubious zero-sum victory. It also demonstrates respect for two reasons. First, it doesn't take away your interlocutor's agency. They get to choose how they want to go about resolving it. Second, the only way you can come up with a good stumper is by genuinely considering their viewpoint first.
\nIn that vein, the derivable catch-22 is a type of playful criticism I'm quite fond of. I find them fun to turn over in my mind, whether they support or challenge my positions. You can't help but admire the ingenious craftsmanship. Severus Snape might not take kindly to students using his own spells against him, but I personally regard it as a tribute.
\nThrowing a good catch-22 someone's way has nothing to do with ideological imperialism. Instead of trying to shove a stance that might leave them completely indifferent down their throat, you're appealing to them by using their own language, logic, and values. That's a much more compelling case.
\nThe evil God challenge is a good example. It argues that most of the arguments that reconcile the existence of evil with an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God can be just as easily repurposed to justify the opposite. Namely, why an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-malevolent God may tolerate the existence of good in order to ensure the possibility of maximal evil. Hence, to accept these arguments, one must also acknowledge that the belief in a maximally evil God is just as reasonable as the belief in its virtuous counterpart. If you're interested in learning more, this video by Alex O'Connor covers the topic in greater detailYou might also want to check out the Wikipedia pages on the problem of evil and the theodicies..
\nThe evil God challenge is an instance of a catch-22 I enjoy, even if it's inconvenient for my personal set of sneaking suspicions (i.e. God exists and isn't a complete douchebagTechnically, I'm not fully aligned with the traditional monotheistic views on the matter, but I can't completely escape the evil God challenge nonetheless.). The Münchhausen Trilemma is another one I'm keen on. It serves as a foundation for much of my philosophical views. I made a video on the topic.
\nNonetheless, it's important to remember that these catch-22s are not checkmates. They are refined stalemates. And frankly, that's usually as good as it gets in philosophy. You can't use them to force your personal opinions onto others. However, the opposite is also true. It prevents intellectually consistent interlocutors from trying to dominate you in return. At the very least, it should keep them busy for a while. Playful and respectful criticism is the name of the game.
\nNow that I've laid out all these concrete best practices, I'd like to illustrate the approach I'm promoting through a more holistic metaphor that may help drive home what I mean.
\nI think assimilating exploring divergences in opinions to visiting an acquaintance's dwelling and hosting them in yours can serve as a decent parallel for the etiquette of epistemic barter. It exemplifies both the things you stand to gain from such an occasion and the way you'd reasonably be expected to act assuming you're not a rabid troglodyte.
\nAs you peruse your host's abode, there's a good chance you'll come across some decorations or appliances that you aren't familiar with yet. Among these, you'll occasionally find something nifty enough to make a positive impact on your life, and you'll be glad you bothered to take a gander.
\nRecently, I visited my aunt's house, and I was impressed when I noticed her elaborate setup of night lights that automatically turned on based on nearby movement. It's a welcome assistance to avoid shattering your toes in the midst of a brisk nocturnal expedition to the loo. I'm too lazy to bother, but someone wiser and more dedicated might be inspired to replicate this system in their own home.
\nSometimes a discovery won't be a good fit for you despite being interesting. Maybe it's a nice big L-shaped couch that can double as a guest bed but wouldn't fit in your small flat, or some unique antique that you probably won't be able to find anywhere else.
\nHowever, even if that specific appliance or piece of furniture doesn't suit your needs perfectly, simply knowing that this family of items exists can be helpful. You might be amazed by a friend's hybrid standing desk but could do without the garish dark angular hunk of metal and plastic design with gratuitous RGB tinsel that's become the hallmark of gamer-targeted merch. So you'll take a reference and check if any other looks are available once you're back home.
\nPeople's needs and priorities change with time. Sometimes, there can be a significant delay between the initial exposure and its influence on someone's behavior. So, a lack of response in the beginning doesn't mean this new piece of information won't have an impact in the long run.
\nFor instance, I discovered the existence of water carbonators in someone's house years before I finally decided to buy one myself. By that time, I'd stopped consuming soda and would frequently buy heavy 6-bottle packs of bubbly water as a substitute. I realized I'd probably end up saving effort and money by simply getting a machine and making my own.
\nOn the other hand, when you're the one hosting a visitor, you'd probably be delighted if they were to find something new and useful in the process. It feels nice to be of help, even more so when your sense of taste and your garnering skills are vindicated in the process.
\nWith that said, let's now consider how you would go about offering constructive criticism in this type of scenario.
\nLet's say you notice something while touring your host's quarters. If you thought this input could be valuable to them, how would you approach sharing it?
\nPerhaps they confide that they're currently struggling with an issue and, as it so happens, you know just the piece of equipment that could help them with it. In that case, you would probably bring it to their attention and let them consider whether it's a good fit for them on their own time.
\nAlternatively, you might note that they're using a suboptimal tool for a particular task, say a defective third-rate vacuum cleaner. One option would be to give them the reference to a better alternative. Mentioning a trustworthy brand or reviewer could also be a good idea, seeing as their needs and budget might differ from yours.
\nIf you find a leak in their bathroom's ceiling, you'll probably want to point it out to them to make sure they're aware of the issue. It would also probably be useful to share any best practices that come to mind based on your own experience. However, I'd like to stress that you would be doing this as an act of courtesy, not an attack.
\nShould they flatly deny the existence of any leaks as fresh drops regularly sprinkle their hair or seem concerningly laid back about the issue with no apparent intention to tackle fixing it anytime soon, there wouldn't be much more you could do. You might want to emphasize the consequences, just to double-check that they understand the stakes. However, I think most would agree that escalating to the point of clobbering them into submission should they remain unmoved would be taking it too far.
\nIf they have landlords or neighbors that this could end up affecting, you'd be doing your civic duty by warning them, but beyond that, it's out of your hands. At the end of the day, you don't live there. They're the ones who will have to live with the consequences. Life is too short to give that many fucks about things you have no control over nor stakes in. And it'll only get shorter with all that extra chronic stress.
\nYou might argue that this analogy starts tearing at the seams here, seeing as some toxic ideas usher their believers to actively harm others, and a lackadaisical "live and let live" attitude can't be justified in that context. If the leak somehowYeah, it's a philosophical thought experiment. Don't ask logistical questions. It's a world where yeeting an obese guy on its tracks can completely negate the kinetic energy of a moving trolley and several people spend their whole life sitting on their ass watching the same shadow puppet show in some damp cave. So don't start splitting hairs about my Strega Nona level leak. threatens to flood the entire city, you can't just go about your day whistling carelessly.
\nI'll cover this legitimate strain of objections in greater depth in an upcoming post. To make a long story short, either our hypothetical zealot is a direct threat, and self-defense is probably a more appropriate reaction than "well actually... ☝️🤓", or their views represent a latent threat, and you're not going to debate them out of their violent ideology in one argument bout, anyway. If anything is to be done, I'm afraid that frog will have to be boiled. Refer back to my post on the unsung perks of diplomatic open-mindedness if you need a refresher as to why that is.
\nWith that parenthesis out of the way, I'd like to point out that the same general approach applies when the situation is reversed. Your guests would be doing you a favor by warning you of leaks and suggesting the best workarounds they've come across up to this point. You should remain open to their feedback and do your best to appreciate what you may learn from it. Albeit, when all is said and done, it's your call to decide what to make of said feedback and how you deal with the situation.
\nHaving said that, there's one last problem we must contend with. Indeed, the astute reader might yet raise another objection. What I'm describing is all nice and well, as long as everyone involved roughly plays by the same rules. This entire section started on the assumption that the people we were interacting with were endowed with a modicum of respect and decorum. But what should we do if they aren't?
\nHow are you supposed to engage in cordial epistemic barter\nand give a tour of your philosophical house to ideological imperialists when, all the while, they're attempting to plant their flag in your living room and urinate on the rug to claim the territory? That's a good question, especially considering that there seem to be a great many more ideological imperialism devotees than epistemic barter enthusiasts out there. Well, the long and short of it is you don't.
\nTechnically, you can still partake in visits to their households. Although, after doing it once, the discovery potential will slump for other members of the same ideology since they follow stringent layout and decoration standardization. You'll also have to redouble your diplomatic efforts if you intend to suggest constructive criticism, lest you commit blasphemy and incur the wrath of the parish. Receiving, on the other hand, definitely gets dicier if you're not a fan of guests taking it upon themselves to overhaul your residence without asking for your opinion.
\nA constructive exchange isn't impossible when only one interlocutor demonstrates a spirit of receptiveness and collaboration, but it's definitely a lot more challenging. So here's to hoping this post might help make epistemic barter a bit more prevalent out there.
\nOn a more practical level, you have no duty to debate people who have no regards for your agency and wellbeing. It probably won't achieve much anyway and there are a lot of other contenders who will happily take them up on that challenge in your stead. Demonstrating better alternatives through actions rather than invectives is the best way to convince people over time.
\nJust to be clear I'm not advising you to take shelter in an epistemic bubble. Rhetorical posturing isn't the only way to engage with differing views. If you enjoy live conversations you can still watch others mud fight from enough distance to avoid getting splattered. You can also limit yourself to asking questions tactfully and in so doing avoid triggering your interlocutor's competition instinct. Another option is to research summaries of all the best arguments and objections for any given position in books or online.
\nYou can't control other people, but you have a decent level of influence on who you decide to mingle with. Boundaries are healthy. Not only do they help protect your well-being, but they also foster more considerate behavior from people who would like to keep connecting with you. If domination is the only mode of interaction a specific interlocutor knows, then just don't engage with them if you can afford to.
\n\n\nThe man shouted at him, but he didn't want to have anything to do with such an uncouth person, so he ignored him.
\n– The Gods Must Be Crazy
\n
I don't know about you, but personally, I have no interest in letting boorish ruffians inside my apartment. The type who will barge in with dirty shoes, leaving smears of gunk all over the floor, start rearranging the furniture without asking for my permission, breaking fine porcelain tableware in the process, and touch the artwork on display with their greasy fingers when they don't occasionally forget to flush. I'd rather exchange pictures to get an idea of their recommendations and choose whether to use those as inspiration or dismiss them from a safe distance.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/the-unsung-perks-of-diplomatic-open-mindedness/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/the-unsung-perks-of-diplomatic-open-mindedness/", "title": "The unsung perks of diplomatic open-mindedness", "summary": "What you stand to gain from giving differing views a fair shot and approaching disagreements with a spirit of curiosity and collaboration.", "date_published": "2024-06-05T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "About half the posts I've published so far advocate for a more empathetic approach to human interactions. Most of them assume that your goals already align with achieving "productive" conversations, which could broadly be defined as those that don't end up with each party fuming in frustration and vying for mutually assured destruction. Well... and ideally conclude with some form of progress and closure, meaning having the exact same exchange over and over won't be necessary.
\nHowever, everyone doesn't share my starry-eyed ideals. Some don't have too many qualms crushing intellectually inferior miscreants. More generally, a lot of people just don't care that much about the emotional well-being of their interlocutors, especially when the latter have got the gall of being wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings, loser. It's survival of the fittest out there. As such, they'll probably sneer at what they'll consider my attempts to get people to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya."I must note I take offense to this grievous misrepresentation by the way. I don't want to touch anybody's hand if I don't have to, and don't count on me to sing either.
\nSo this time around, I'd like to make my case by appealing to your cold, pragmatic self-interestAnother perk of offloading this argumentation into its own post is that I don't have to reinject it partially in each subsequent publication covering a similar topic. Instead, I can just refer back to it and avoid needless redundancy.. What's in it for you? What's the incentive for choosing collaboration over domination? Why bother showing some level of respect for other people's right to their own views? What could compel you to forgo the thrill of holy crusades for bland, humble open-mindedness?
\nWell, you'd be surprised how often callous rationality ends up converging around morality, as long as it's mindful of long-term sustainability that is. Frankly, I think I'm more frustrated by people claiming to strive toward specific goals (e.g. changing people's minds) and going at it in the most dysfunctional and counter-productive way possible than the fact that they're being jerks in the process. If you want to opt for the antisocial playthrough just be efficient and consistent at least, you know.
\nAs human beings, it doesn't take very long to be faced with our limits. Our sway on the world and people is no exception. Most of us have only haphazard control over ourselves at best, and the influence we can exert on others is even more fleeting, punier, and overall unreliable.
\nIn reaction to this observation many doctrines, all the way back from Stoicism to Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) more recently, have advocated for coming to terms with what's not within your power and instead focus your efforts and concerns on what's left, chiefly your mindset, actions and character. After all, the alternative can only lead to wasted struggle and suffering.
\nThe same applies to the pursuit of truth and wisdom. Striving to micromanage other people's opinions is a fool's errand. One is better served by prioritizing the expansion of their own understanding of the universe, others, and themselves. If you happen to help someone's beliefs evolve incidentally along the way, all the better.
\nI hope you'll forgive me for taking the liberty to assume you haven't reached perfect omniscience yet, which would mean your knowledge is still incomplete. As far as I can tell, the main avenues to work on mending these gaps consist of reflection, exploration, experimentation, and interaction. A decent portion of this includes engaging with differing views.
\nSo don't think of disagreements as fights for supremacy, but rather as exchanges of viewpoints that can help strengthen both sides. Furthermore, invest the lion's share of your energy and intent in strengthening your own and avoid burdening yourself with too many expectations, seeing as they're mostly counter-productive.
\nYou might object that many people have nothing to teach you, but I'd chalk that up to a lack of imagination and ingenuity on your part. The content of a person's belief isn't the only source of knowledge they can offer you. Their subjective relationship with them is another lush wellspring. There's whether their views make sense, and then there's how they make them make sense. Many insights lay dormant, waiting to be revealed through the latter's inquiry.
\nIf you peer beyond the face value of your average bog-standard claim, there's plenty of originality to be found for the same idea in an individual's personal history and reasons to subscribe to it, but also the subtle varieties of subjective interpretations it allows for.
\nIt's also perfectly possible to glean new information in spite of—rather than thanks to—someone's intentions. There are many lessons that I've learned from people who were under the impression they were teaching me something completely different.
\nAdmittedly, you can reach diminishing results with some types of interlocutors, especially people who have decided to forsake their individuality to become the representative of an ideology and greatly resist straying from endlessly parroting their in-group's holy or secular scriptures for more than a few seconds no matter what you answer. Once you've become familiarized with said scriptures, they'll have a hard time astonishing you with innovation.
\nNot everyone shows an equal propensity for original thought, to be sure, but you never know. You'd be surprised what can happen if you stay open to the possibility.
\nI mean, you can still learn things in spite of arrogance, so spurn the average mind from the height of your mighty brain folds if you so desire. It just means that when you make an oversight, life will have to manhandle you more ferociously before you start listening.
\nPersonally, based on experience, I prefer my karmic Dunning-Kruger sucker punch on the lighter end of the spectrum. The type that doesn't leave me hobbling to reassemble the shattered pieces of my overinflated ego for weeks after the first impact.
\nIn any case, assuming you're sold on the benefits of engaging with different views to refine your knowledge, the question shifts to what is the best approach to pick in order to maximize the odds of learning things from others. We can roughly simplify the options into two main polarities: all-out conflict and receptive exploration.
\nSome people enjoy partaking in conflict, whether rhetorical or physical, for the thrill of challenge and as a means to assert their power and mastery by dominating the competition. If your goal is knowledge acquisition, however, it makes for a suboptimal strategy.
\nI'm not saying you can't learn anything from conflict, but the range will be much more limited. Combative defensiveness greatly narrows down the available stream of information. If you're perceived as a potential threat, your interlocutor will raise their guard and be a lot more selective in how and what they're willing to share. So it's in your best interest to avoid triggering this shift of stance if you can help it.
\nHumans are biased to let negative data disproportionately affect their overall assessments. Conversations are no exceptions. As soon as any perceived disagreement pops up, it will hog our attention, while previously established consensus will be relegated to the background.
\nSince most people are conditioned to interpret conflicts as zero-sum gamesSee my post on constructive empathic inquiry for more details. You'll find the link in the conclusion below. and tend to overidentify with their positions, it's unfortunately easy for discussions to devolve into fights for survival as soon as they get stuck a bit too long or too antagonistically on a disagreement.
\nWhen we take a step back, let go of the urge to impose our views on everyone elseI expand on this topic in my post Ideological imperialism. You can also find the link in the conclusion below., and take our interlocutor's opinions less personally, it's a lot easier to let these contentions slide with little friction and avoid getting trapped in this death spiral. We're also able to analyze the crux of disagreements level-headedly and realize that they aren't usually as polarized as we first thought.
\nThe severity of dissent is often overblown. People who agree on 90% of their worldview will murder each other over the remaining cosmetic 10%. It's important to see beyond superficial divides. There's plenty of variety to be found in aesthetic preferences for how to frame the same core concept. People tend to get stuck on perceived incompatibilities, but more often than not, it's possible to reconcile differing views with a few shifts in interpretation.
\n\n\nBut what we ought to aim at is less the ascertainment of resemblances and differences than the recognition of likenesses hidden under apparent divergences.
\n– Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
\n
Don't get me wrong, exploring divergences in favorite framings can be fascinating. It can help us flesh out our understanding of why other peoples' primary modes of making sense of the world differ from ours and how it relates to their values and personalities. A better apprehension of this diversity is also beneficial to delineate our own functioning and quirks more clearly.
\nAs our skills grow with practice, it becomes easier to perceive what is underlying these surface differences, which improves our ability to have productive conversations. Our communication is more efficient since we can use language better attuned to our interlocutors. We naturally shift toward a more analytical stance focused on understanding what they are saying and more detached from ourselves.
\nAs such, we're more concerned with what their discourse might teach us about who they are and what they believe precisely rather than how it might be an indictment of who we are. It allows us to be more relaxed and curious. When disagreements arise, we're less likely to become upset and intransigent, which fosters a virtuous cycle.
\nWe might also come to appreciate that there are countless ways to look at and interpret things and that most hold some value, even if they can sometimes be inadequate depending on context.
\nTo get back to my main point though, as long as people roughly agree with our core values and worldview—enough for peaceful coexistence at the very least—then the stakes of the conversation are pretty low. Is it really worth dedicating decades of your life to rhetorical crusades in hopes of reforming someone's favorite aesthetic wrapping over the same general principle?
\nShould you want to influence and nudge people's views nevertheless, I believe that a respectful and collaborative approach is still the most likely to bear fruits.
\n\n\nI don't need a stranger to tell me how to live my life
\n
\nI don't need a stranger to help me to the light
\nI don't need a stranger to tell me how to live my life
\nI don't need a stranger to drag me to the light– FM Attack feat. Mecha Maiko, "Stranger"
\n
As I mentioned previously, defensiveness completely derails receptiveness. Once you've discounted someone's feelings and needs a bit too hard, the conversation isn't about whatever initiated it anymore. It's now a savage contest of who can twist the other's arm into bending the knee and acknowledging them as the god-emperor of being right (and therefore heard and valid).
\nOf course, this strategy is completely counter-productive. Just like a Chinese finger trap: the more you force your way out, the more you get stuck. Consequently, everyone is left unsatisfied and miserable in the end. I expanded on the underlying mechanisms of this process in my post on empathy bottlenecks and feedback loops.
\nPushing people too hard also significantly boosts their natural stubbornness and pettiness levels. This tendency even has its own official little name in social psychology. It's called the boomerang effect. Argumentatively brutalizing someone has the habit of further polarizing them in the opposite direction of whatever point you were trying to make.
\nOn a similar topic, you might be interested in John Nerst's In Defence of Evidence Resistance post, which unravels\nwhy it might not always be all that unreasonable to maintain a modicum of skepticism in the face of your local facts and logic warlord's onslaught of "indisputable" evidence-based postulations.
\nAll that to say, bullying people isn't an effective method to make them see the light. They might pretend to go with it to make it stop, but they'll only be bidding their time, fantasizing about rebellion and revenge. By contrast, it's an excellent way to build resentment and incentivize people to do concerningly foolish things just to get one up on youHave you taken a look at the world's political landscape lately? (ŏ_ŏ˘).
\nIt's true your interlocutors will sometimesOkay, fine... "Often" is probably more realistic. assert dodgy conclusions based on poor epistemological grounding, yet condescension rarely makes for good persuasion.
\nIf you'd like them to reconsider, your best bet is to strive to understand how they came to form these beliefs and gently point out a few flaws. It's even better if you can suggest a few alternatives that can fill in for the same purpose.
\nMake sure to leave a few escape routes open to give them room to save face, as schmoozing icon Dale Carnegie would tell you. Then, let them mull it over on their own time. It takes a while to change one's mind.
\nPolitely pushing back over several discussions while walking them through your thought process is the best you can do. There's no guarantee it will work, but you can find satisfaction in being a freedom-lovingYes, I'm subtly trying to appeal the American demographic's purported values. As far as I can tell freedom of thought is a tenet of democracy, innit? and courteous conversationalist. The awareness that they're most likely not plotting your demise behind your back is a nice plus too.
\nIn closing, approaching disagreements with more flexibility allows you to keep refining your conclusions, sidestep needless drama and hassle, and improve your odds of actually convincing recusants. Assuming you're now convinced, you might be wondering where you can find more tangible and concrete practices to ensure these outcomes.
\nWell, you're in luck. As previously stated, I've been waxing poetic on the topic for about a year, now. After all, the main message of this blog is that dissent doesn't have to be an obstacle but, instead, can be a pillar of sustainable harmonious coexistence. And it turns out interpersonal interactions make up a pretty substantial slice of the dissent pieBut not all of it, either. There's also the matter of internal dissent..
\nIn my post on Epistemic barter, I delve deeper into the best practices to make navigating divergences of opinions enjoyable and constructive. You can also check out the one on Gist triangulation. It's a trick that helps reach mutual understanding faster.
\nYou might be interested in my post on what to consider when evaluating conceptual frameworks: What it can spark isn't bound by what it is, or perhaps my deeper dive on shunning Ideological imperialism, the compulsion to convert others forcefully.
\nI've also published two posts on understanding and dealing with conflict more broadly. In Why productive conflict resolution is so rare, I explain what gets in the way of resolution. I then give tips on using Nonviolent Communication to avoid these pitfalls in Resolving conflict through constructive empathic inquiry.
\nLastly, to qualify my usual nonviolent stance, the next post on my shortlist will address the limits of pacifism, the paradox of tolerance, and at what point I think force becomes warranted. I'll also add a link to it once it's done.
\n\n\nListening is the first step in making people feel valued. Mindful listening allows us to do more than take in peoples words; it helps us better understand the how and why of their views.
\n– Rebecca Z Shafir, The Zen of Listening
\n
Gist triangulation is a best practice for fruitful discussions. It's a modality of engaging in good faith. As the name implies, it consists in actively doing your best to understand what your interlocutor is trying to get at, even when they are struggling to communicate it, by making informed guesses based on what they've said so far. You can try to triangulate the core of their message by scanning the constellation of data points they've shared up to nowThis could even include non-verbal cues. and infer what ties them all together.
\nIf your goal in a conversation is to understand and share information with every person involved optimally, then avoiding misunderstandings and ambiguity is in your best interest. Furthermore, the faster you reach the point of mutual comprehension, the more time you will have to elaborate upon it, whether you agree or disagree with each other's positions.
\nThe practical process of gist triangulation might still seem a bit elusive, but it should actually be pretty familiar, since everyone has already done it multiple times in their lives.
\nGist triangulation is what you do when someone you're talking to forgets their train of thought or has a word stuck on the tip of their tongue. In the first case, you start prompting them with the last things they were saying before they blanked out. In the second, you begin suggesting potential matches and synonyms. In both cases, you either hit the nail on the head directly or help them with the triangulation process by providing additional peripheral data points until there's enough to zero in on the answer.
\nA few popular games also rely on this technique, such as Twenty Questions or Time's Up and other variations on the same concept. The general goal is to find a specific answer (an everyday appliance, an animal, a celebrity, etc.) through indirect questions and/or clues under a time limit.
\nAll of that is to say that regardless of personal proficiency, anyone is able to engage in gist triangulation when it's in their best interest, and they're not being pigheaded.
\nJust like the analogous Socratic method, gist triangulation requires a collaborative mindset to work properly. It's about actively listening and assimilating your interlocutor's message, instead of intentionally or negligently missing their underlying point.
\nGist triangulation is a win-win for all parties involved. It keeps you engaged when you're on the assisting end, and it can be helpful when you're the one being assisted. Sometimes the issue isn't that a person isn't clear on the message they're trying to convey, but that they're having a hard time communicating it in a way their interlocutor can grok.
\nIf both parties try to meet in the middle, they improve their odds of reaching mutual understanding. Ideally, that should be the goal of most discussions.
\n\n\nTruth be told, most people just aren’t big enough nerds to disagree about complicated things effectively. You need to be much more literal, much bigger sticklers with semantics (because semantics are important) and much more eager to spend time pinning down exactly what the other person thinks — even if this is boring, pedantic and doesn’t lend itself to monologuing the way both of them spent too much time doing during their talk.
\n— John Nerst, A Deep Dive Into the Harris-Klein Controversy
\n
Considering different perspectives broadens your horizons and helps further refine your own opinions. Furthermore, even if the other party's arguments aren't very good, you might yet glean something interesting by learning how and why they were convinced by them in the first place.
\nUnfortunately, this serves as a stark contrast to the antagonistic mindset of ideologic imperialism that largely underlies disagreements. The purpose of most debates isn't the pursuit of truth, but asserting one's dogmatical and rhetorical's supremacy.
\nUnder this paradigm, there's nothing to be gained from accurately representing an interlocutor's position. The strategy shifts from elaboration to sleight of hand. It's better to derail the conversation by getting stuck on trivial details, evading clarifying questions, and pouncing on any rhetorical fumble to shred your opponent's perceived credibility rather than engage their actual argument.
\nEven as a simple spectator, it can be quite frustrating to witness people intentionally or cluelessly miss the forest for the trees, or in this case the point for the phrasing.
\nAlthough some may argue that combativeness is sometimes necessary to fight back bad faith actors and dangerous ideas, I think that the presumption of innocence is a good rule of thumb most of the time. Start by extending charitability and cooperation as long as they don't break the rules of fair engagement or until you're very clear on their thesis and strongly disagree with it.
\nYou might object that public debates require a different strategy because they differ substantially from private conversations. In the former, the goal is usually to convince the audience rather than your interlocutor, since everyone's brand is too bought into their positions to ever give an inch, whether they have a leg to stand on or not.
\nIndeed, seeing as these exchanges are geared towards the pursuit of power and influence rather than truth, gist triangulation is probably a suboptimal approach. However, I'm not convinced that this is an indictment against it rather than the average public debate.
\nAlright, you might say, gist triangulation is a nice idea in theory, but is it really worthy of pontification and consideration? Isn't it just extraneous window dressing for the well-established concept of steelmanning?
\nAs it so happens, just like Ozy Brennan, I'm not a big fan of "steelmanning". Check out his post, Against Steelmanning, to read his thoughts on the topic.
\nOn my end, I find the general idea of phrasing someone else's arguments better than they can highly dubious. Get your priorities straight. Start by representing their views accurately and truthfully before trying to give them a glow-up. To be honest, you should also probably be more concerned with understanding your own arguments before turning your gaze to others.
\nIs it truly surprising that, in practice, "steelmanning" is used far more often as a condescension tool for intellectual prigs and sanctimonious wannabes than a constructive and courteous conversational maneuver? It is rooted in a mindset of smug presumptuousness from the outset, after all.
\nUnfortunately, best practices for discussions can be corrupted into treacherous tactics. The Dunning-Kruger effect turns most attempts at steelmanning into self-satisfied strawmanning. The Socratic method can be used to funnel someone into a trap viciously for a quick gotcha. And gist triangulation can be twisted to ascribe inaccurate and disparaging positions to your interlocutor by injecting fake data points in their message and drawing spurious connections from them.
\nWith all that being said, seeing as the practice of steelmanning lives up to its noble theoretical goal only about 1% of the time, I'm not sure that it's the most judicious choice for your conversational go-to move.
\nIn contrast, gist triangulation is a more specific and actionable alternative. It also comes from a place of humility and collaboration rather than arrogance. It does not consist in putting words in someone's mouth or schooling them on their own perspective.
\nProper gist triangulation deals with suggestions rather than assertions. You politely submit your conjectures for evaluation. You don't proclaim irrevocable judgments. It's not "so what you're saying is X" but "do you mean X?"
\nYou always make sure they assent to your interpretation before running with it. It's a back-and-forth iterative process of clarification. The goal is to be helpful and save time reaching mutual understanding, not to speedrun misrepresenting them. As such, it's very reminiscent of the empathetic communication frameworks I covered in my post on constructive empathic inquiry.
\nSeeing as everyone already has the basics down, it's a pretty straightforward method. Plus, it's based on trial and error. Even mistakes are helpful since they reveal misunderstandings quicker and help clarify each other's thought processes. As long as they're genuinely trying, the vast majority of people should be able to use this techniqueSure, it'll probably be easier for some, but a skill gap should only result in a faster process. The end result should be the same regardless., which is far more approachable than both intuiting and upgrading your interlocutor's position in one fell swoop by channeling the might of your 500 IQ brain folds.
\nIn short, gist triangulation is an accessible approach to conversation that makes disagreements more productive and pleasant. As such, it should be much more prevalent in everyday interactions.
\n
\n\nYou and whose army?
\n
\nYou and your cronies
\nCome on, come on
\nHoly Roman Empire
\nCome on if you think
\nYou can take us on— Radiohead, "You and Whose Army?"
\n
The term imperialism describes a faction's attempts at extending its power and influence over the rest of the world. It is typically conducted through militaristic subjugation and cultural overwriting. In addition to the war casualties, the conquered population is often discriminated against and exploited, their resources are plundered and their previous cultural legacy is mutilated. These unsavory corollaries have led most current democratic societies to frown upon it.
\nAccordingly, there aren't many novel insights to be found in criticizing this political stance and pointing out its many sins. Instead, in this post, I would like to bring attention to the underlying paradigm that fuels it, which still seems to be flying under the radar by and large.
\nOf course, there is usually an ideological component to imperialism that serves as a justification for expansionism and is often part of the cultural package being spread. "Extending the territory of the superior race," "propagating the word of God," "spreading civilization," "disseminating human rights," and so on. However, these specificities are mostly cosmetic changes on top of the same mindset.
\nConquest starts in the realm of conception and narratives before it cascades down into physical conflict. I'm using the term ideological imperialism to refer to the ambition for philosophical subjugation.
\nIt is characterized by the following attitudes:
\nAt its core, it's a process of dehumanization, whether explicit or implicit. It's the internal shift that happens when you stop seeing the other as a human being, with their own agency and worthy of consideration, but instead as a roadblock standing between you and your goals. Dispatching an obstacle affords much more ethical leeway than dispatching a person.
\nIdeological imperialism will always lead to violence eventually. It doesn't matter whether the specific message being promoted explicitly calls for it. The natural human compulsion for despotism may be great, but so is the urge to rebel against it. The stronger you push, the stronger people will resist. If you believe you carry the sovereign truth leading to the Promised Land, and it is therefore your vindicated duty to get every single heathen converted and/or subdued, willingly or not, then the only way to carve a path forward is through force.
\nSadly, imperialism isn't deadRussia's current invasion of Ukraine, to give only one example. and ideological imperialism is very much alive and kicking.
\n\n\nYou've got your orders better shoot on sight,
\n
\nYour finger's on the trigger but it don't seem right
\nYou're in the army now,
\nOh-oo-oh you're in the army now— Status Quo, "In the Army Now"
\n
Tyrants and aristocrats don't have a monopoly on ideological imperialism. Everybody loves indulging in it, except when they're on the receiving end, of course. Ordinary people have simply less power at their disposal to implement the ineluctable consequences of their idle fantasies. Any form of aggressive proselytism is ideological imperialism.
\nThere are many convenient ways to sweep exploiting scummy tactics under the rug. After all, everything is justified. It's for "the greater good"! When they're the ones doing it? It's vicious. But for us, it's different. We're the "good guys". We're saving the world. And we've definitely identified the true evil scapegoat to right all wrongs this time.
\nReligions are probably the first example that will pop to mind for most. And, indeed, they hold no shortage of good exemplifications. Be it your fundamentalist Christians trying their all to somehow un-gay people, Jehovah's witnesses knocking at your door, Islamists muzzling dissenters through fear of violent reprisals, the list goes on.
\nHowever, they are far from being the only culprits. There are quite a number of counter-intuitive constituents in said list. Take the example of religion's supposed antithesis. A good number of atheists, and especially anti-theists, are staunch ideological imperialists. They have no qualms about using humiliation and bullying as weapons in the name of holy secularism. They also tend to be pretty open about their expansionistic ambitions in the realm of ideology.
\nAnother specimen of choice when it comes to irony is a certain battalion of outspoken anti-imperialist far-left activists, who take pride in deploying harassment campaigns and coordinating efforts to dox, deplatform and go after the jobs of dissenters. And that's when they're not just outright fine with actual imperialism when it targets "settlers" and other such hegemonic devil-spawns, or it's being conducted by a nation which has a soft spot for the color red and/or contains "People's Republic" in its name.
\nUnfortunately, a sizeable chunk of most ideological groups tends to match this profile. Crusaders more concerned with vilifying the oppresser and indulging in the gratification of self-righteous depredation, than actually helping the oppressed and following through on their purported values.
\nThis wry hypocrisy is what inspired me the term "ideological imperialism" in the first place, as I felt it brought this commonplace cognitive dissonance to light.
\nAlthough politics and religion are certainly rife with this propensity for aggressive expansionism, they're not the only types of ideology affected. Any subject you can have an opinion about is prone to it. The content being pushed is secondary, what matters is how it is being pushed. Your ideological imperialistic ambitions could be focused on the best way to organize your workplace.
\nOverall, the general mindset of "debate" has been largely co-opted.\nMost of these types of interactions quickly devolve into performative and fruitless shouting contests where the end goal isn't to improve each other's understanding of the world, but utter domination, be it logistical or rhetorical.
\nThese observations may lead us to wonder what makes this mindset so ubiquitous. Why does it seem to be our default, ingrained recourse?
\nI don't claim I've got it pegged down perfectly, but here are my best guesses at the moment.
\nLife can be hard. There's no lack of confusion, fleetingness, insecurity, and suffering to be found. It's not too hard to imagine how dealing with this experience on a regular basis can induce desperate and foolhardy cravings for control and stability.
\nOne might be tempted to find transient relief by means of self-delusion and reach for salvation through alluring, unwavering certainties. Unfortunately, outsiders threaten our frail little belief cocoons with their pesky differences and questioning. If only we could steamroll over the entire world and instill our gospel into everyone else, then our peace of mind would be safe from harm for good.
\nA gentler and more sustainable alternative would be to humbly come to terms with the limits of our human experience and go from there. Endeavor to reconnect with our most reliable inner source of truth, i.e. our personal values, and negotiate with reality and others to find the best compromise we can. Unfortunately, this is a pretty counterintuitive approach for most of us, so we usually fall back on the first option.
\nIf you can't make peace from within, might as well wage war on the outside world.
\nIndependently of any self-proclaimed heights of "civilized enlightenment," most of our cultures are still built atop a paradigm of domination. A zero-sum game of eat or be eaten, or in the realm of beliefs: brainwash or be indoctrinated. Sure, we'll try to be nice-ish as long as you behave, and it's not too costly, but you'd better not stray out of line too much, or you'll get a taste of the monopoly on violence.
\nI've already written on this topic in my post on constructive empathic inquiry. Give it a read if you'd like to learn more.
\nViolence doesn't start at the point of physical assault, but once you start considering the other as a means to an end. I'll get what I want from you, or else...
\nAnd that's the way we've been taught from birth. It's a deeply entrenched conditioning that's hard to shake off.
\nSo, if you don't want to be the chump who'll end up eaten, you'd better start unearthing and sharpening that hatchet. The victors write history, and can you really trust your neighbors? The early bird gets the worm. Might as well strike preemptively.
\nThis vicious cycle breeds fear and intolerance. Diversity becomes perceived as a slippery slope towards skirmishes.
\nThus, many of us are led to believe that coexistence is predicated on complete homogeneity when all we'd need to coexist peacefully is to agree to treat each other with basic decency and forsake maligning and abusing one another over petty disagreements.
\nThere's no requirement to appreciate everyone else or even enjoy their company. There's nothing wrong with sorting ourselves into subcommunities of like-minded individuals with aligned values. The only values we need to share in common, as a whole, are the tolerance of difference on principle, a willingness to communicate, and a commitment to non-violent conflict resolution.
\n\n\nListen to me, Thorfinn. You have no enemies. No one has any enemies. There is no one that you should hurt.
\n— Makoto Yukimura, Vinland Saga Omnibus, Vol. 1
\n
Try to do your best to come from a place of respect for your interlocutor's individuality. Muster genuine interest in understanding where they're coming from. Extend consideration and listen actively. If you'd like to learn more about the best practices to make navigating disagreements enjoyable and constructive you can read my post on Epistemic barter.
\nThere is nothing wrong with trying to persuade other people over to your point of view, especially if you think it would lead to a better world. But when you start getting certain that you know better than any dissenter, to the point you'd be willing to thoroughly and forcefully overwrite their thoughts and beliefs, that's when you're veering off the deep end.
\nThe means influence the end. These suppressive tactics aren't the path toward utopia. They only serve to sustain the cycle of violence, whether it's physical or psychological. You won't unshackle respect for basic human dignity in this callous world through the process of continuously denigrating it.
\nJesus wasn't out there waterboarding Roman soldiers in the hope of edifying them to the worth of every human soul and the magnificence of universal Love.
\nEngage in good faith. If you want to break free from the domination paradigm, start by showing a modicum of deference to the self-sovereignty of your peers.
\n\n\nThe best and only thing that one artist can do for another is to serve as an example and an inspiration.
\n— Steven Pressfield, The War of Art
\n
Wisdom and compassion cannot be manufactured artificially. No one can force another to grow earnestly. It must be a personal choice. And the best way to awaken someone to new possibilities is through your own example. The wellspring of true aspiration are ethos and praxis.
\nEnforcing violence in the name of "the good" is the laziest, most complacent, self-righteous shit ever. It is the polar opposite of virtue. Do you want to put money where your mouth is? If you've got the better answers, prove it. Embody them. Walk the walk. Initiate being the bigger person.
\n\n\nAll models are wrong, some are useful.
\n– Aphorism popularized by the statistician George Box
\n
Sometimes the value of something lies more in the insight that can be gleaned from what it causes you to reflect on rather than its literal content. In other words, the capacity to spark inspiration is the crux of its worth, independently of the first-degree appraisal of its source material in and of itself.
\nThis particularity is usually acknowledged overall when it comes to art, if not always respected. Many abstruse artworks chock-full of heterogeneous symbolism, concepts and contrivances which technically don't make much sense are still lauded. Enthusiasts will spend hours analyzing them and crafting theories regarding how they should be interpretedThis can apparently be a source of joy and stimulation for some, although I couldn't give you a personal testimony. The only thing they tend to inspire in me ranges from mild annoyance to ardent frustration. I enjoy my disjointed schizoid ramblings like any other, yet I prefer to insulate them within my conceptual intake, and keep focused and cohesive content for my artistic intake. But to each their own.. This is particularly frequent in the contemporary, experimental and esoteric genres.
\nIn this post, however, we'll focus on more purely conceptual tools and frameworks. Seeing as their purpose is centered on dispensing knowledge rather than subjective experiences, their ability to describe and explain reality accurately is under much more scrutiny, whereas their inspirational potential tends to be overlooked. As such, those who struggle in the former but stand out in the latter often become a hotbed for controversy and altercation.
\nThis is usually the case for fields of studies that have formally been branded or must frequently contend with the anathema of pseudoscience. Examples include astrology, psychoanalysis, personality typology systems, and grand sweeping theories of almost everything (e.g. Spiral Dynamics) which all suffer to varying extents from poor predictive power, unfalsifiable claims, and convoluted explanations for phenomena they've failed to prove in the first place, but can make for good introspective fuel depending on the individual and the circumstances.
\nNow, some might think, "Why should we even give them the time of day? If a conceptual framework can't stand up to the standard of the scientific method and its rigorous criteria, then to the academic gallows." Well, allow me to elaborate on why dismissing them wholesale might not always be the wisest option.
\nA flawed or limited theory may yet give rise to profound revelations. Its main perk might simply be to give us a new lens to look at things through. This can help us consider familiar things with a different perspective and come to realizations that wouldn't have been possible with our usual standpoint. Sometimes a fresh perspective or a new puzzle piece is all it takes to break free from being stuck.
\nPattern detection is one of the main functions of the human brain, and it can sometimes get a bit overzealous. Our tendency to perceive patterns independently of their relationship to reality is called apophenia. Seeing an animal in the clouds or a face inside an electrical socket, are both instances of pareidolia, one of its subsets.
\nApophenia is often labeled as a cognitive bias which might drive some to hastily forsake it with a shuddering secular sign of the cross. A disproportionate reaction, in my humble opinion. I agree with Peter Baumann's perspective on the topic of biases. They're heuristics that have proven useful for our survival over thousands of years. However, they're quick shortcuts which means, although they tend to do the trick, they can also often lead us astray, especially as the world we interact with becomes increasingly intricate and nuanced. They shouldn't be completely shunned, although it's a good idea to keep them in mind as part of our self-calibration processes to ensure they aren't covertly warping our conclusions.
\nIn the case of apophenia, despite its potential for paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories, it's also one of the chief engines of human creativity with its ability to connect the dots between disjointed pieces of data. Being showered under new concepts and outlooks sends it into overdrive which helps us come up with new associations, think outside the box, and pull our minds out of their complacent habits. Granted, there's no guarantee of the quality of these new ideas, but we can sift through and stress test them with time.
\nIn light of this potential, concepts and devices that could only boast highly dubious predictive powers at best can instead make for excellent apophenia catalysts, which can come in handy to circumvent creative ruts. The oracles and random tables found in many tabletop role-playing games rules and supplements aim precisely to provide the benefits of the latter, yet even tools whose main claim to fame is more questionable, such as tarot divination decks, can also be repurposed to that end.
\nBut let's get back to our main topic at hand, i.e. conceptual framework, with a brief case study.
\nIn addition to psychoanalysis' bickering with numerous other dogmas, its scientific status is also hotly contested. Despite this criticism, which I consider largely legitimate, it cannot be denied that Freud's work played a massive role in jumpstarting the field we now know as psychologyWhich admittedly trails a history fraught with prejudice, absurdity, and dreadful errors. and popularized the important concept of the subconscious mind.
\nFurthermore, when it comes to therapy, it still proves helpful for many even now. The Dodo bird verdict, a famous conundrum in clinical psychology, seems to indicate that there isn't much disparity in outcomes between different psychotherapies, based on comparative studies. This conclusion is pretty controversial and it has been nuanced with the passage of time, the proliferation of new therapy frameworks, and the compilation of research. Indeed, some therapeutic models work better for specific symptoms, while others can be shown to be net negatives. Nevertheless, these results suggest that all major clinical branches of psychotherapy, including psychoanalysis, are at least fairly efficient despite a somewhat uneven playing field.
\nAccording to its proponents, the Dodo bird verdict transpires because therapeutic models' commonalities outweigh their specificities. They usually cite the relationship between the therapist and their patient/client as the chief parallel among them all. Independently of the degree of accuracy of said hypothesis, it's hard to deny that therapy is a discipline where sparks and subjectivity play an important role. As such, it doesn't seem inconceivable that an imperfect theory of the psyche could still bear fruits if both patient and therapist find a way to connect through it. After all, people have a wild palette of varying affinities and it stands to reason that psychoanalysis will be a better match for some than more scientifically battle-tested frameworks like cognitive behavioral therapies.
\nAs we can see with this example, it's important to be pretty explicit about the criteria we chose in order to make a meaningful evaluation.
\nThe primary purpose of appraisals is to be informative. Accordingly, any review worth its salt ought to be thorough. It should explore and weigh in on the different aspects of its target of inquiry before reducing its entire analysis—assuming there was one—into a single-sentence verdict. How do the components of its quarry hold up on their own, how do they fit together as a whole, and to what end?
\nIf you were in the market for a laptop, you'd have many variables to consider. Some more objective, like its processing and graphical power, its memory and storage capacity, its size and weight, the resolution and color range of its screen, its compatibility with different software, its cost, etc. Some more subjective, like its looks, its ergonomics, its speed of use, its quality-to-cost ratio, etc.
\nYou'd expect laptop reviews to cover most of these facets prior to giving a general impression and recommendation (or lack thereof). It would be completely within reason for the reviewer to give an accurate accounting of a model's poor quality in one regard whilst acknowledging its potential value in another area.
\nAfter all, worth depends on one's intended purpose and thus context. Why and how do you plan to make use of it? Without this background information, it's impossible to tell whether anything is a good fit. The same computer that would make a terrible choice for one use case (e.g. intensive gaming) could yet be a great option for another (e.g. office work on the move).
\nIf I were to assert "this laptop is utter trash" without further qualifying the reasons behind my conclusion, I'd be baking in my personal subjective criteria into my verdict as if they were the only acceptable ones. Moreover, this statement would be useless for anyone else trying to make up their own mind on the topic.
\nGiven this observation, let's circle back to our original topic, seeing as the evaluation of theories often tends to be tainted by obscured criteria and smuggled-in assumptions.
\nMany seem to assume that the only point of theories is to model reality as precisely as possible, and thus judge them solely on that basis. However, that supposition is unsubstantiated. Of course, one could make the case that this should be their main aim, but that's not the only perspective on the matter. In fact, some would strongly disagree. Take this quote from Deleuze and Guattari, for instance.
\n\n\nPhilosophy does not consist of knowing, and is not inspired by truth. Rather, it is categories like Interesting, Remarkable, and Important that determine its success or failure.
\n– Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, What is Philosophy? (1994)
\n
Besides, these criteria don't have to be mutually exclusive. One could value both truthfulness and insightfulness to varying extents in different contexts. I'm not making a case for one's supremacy over another. Rather, I'd like to stress that both of them matter.
\nIn any case, when we're making a case for our opinion regarding a conceptual framework, it's essential to be transparent about the process through which it came about. Our preferences are often less universal and self-evident than we might think.
\nThis standard of transparency should apply to advocates just as much as critics, if not more. It's perfectly legitimate to point out the discrepancies of a theory that claims to excel in a field it fails to deliver in. Yet the theory itself is not necessarily responsible for the way some of its proponents market it. Furthermore, something being inadequate in one regard doesn't entail its inadequacy in all regards. Say someone tried to sell you soap as a cure for cancer—which it isn't—that wouldn't mean that soap is useless in all contexts and should be scrubbed off the face of the earth.
\nConsidering this potentially counterintuitive diversity in our standards of judgment, we can find an added benefit to favoring fair assessments that acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of philosophical systems in relation to specific stated goals. Namely, they empower us to better understand what others see in them and make a more persuasive case for our perspective.
\nThere is a staggering amount of diversity within humanity. People are different, they care about different things, and they flourish in different circumstances. Western culture tends to favor a one-size-fits-all mindset based on aggregates and averages. The latter is often too reductive to properly represent the intricacies of each individual's situation. When it comes to theories and beliefs, this has at least two consequences.
\nFirst, the same conceptual tool won't apply in the same way to everyone. What's a great fit for one person might be completely deficient for another, and conversely. Furthermore, inspiration is a pretty mysterious process. The same medium can spark very different things depending on who's interacting with it. What we consider a worse option might reap better results than a superior one in some cases.
\nThis loops back to the example I mentioned earlier regarding the effectiveness of different psychotherapeutic models. The best exercise workout is the one you'll actually doIf you haven't found yours yet, you might be interested in this post I wrote about setting one up. and the best combination of psychotherapist and approach is the one you'll sufficiently vibe with to keep up long enough to reap some results. This affinity between belief systems and individuals should be taken into account.
\nSecond, what someone else might be looking for in a conceptual system could vary greatly from us. Therefore, the reasons that underpin our verdicts may be largely irrelevant to them. What we view as an objectively dysfunctional toaster could flawlessly suit their needs if they're using it as a funky paperweight.
\nSince both what we consider to be a theory's purpose and level of proficiency may differ from our interlocutors, there's a good chance our rationale will fall flat by default. If we'd like to prompt them to reconsider their current assessment, we need to check whether our views share any overlap and make arguments geared to what they actually care about.
\nThere's a famous quote from Maya Angelou that goes "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." The same often applies to conceptual frameworks. A person's loyalty to a set of beliefs can have many different origins, including what it helped spark for them. It wouldn't be shocking for someone to have a soft spot for psychoanalysis after it helped them reach some significant breakthroughs and turn their life over, for instance.
\nAdditionally, they might be exploiting a theory to fulfill some personal needs. There is a wide spectrum when it comes to the specific implementation of this use case, ranging from oblivious to self-aware, as well as from toxic to balanced. Regardless, we're missing out on important information if we ignore this subjective component of the equation.
\nIn fact, we should pay extra attention to factoring in this data if we happen to be concerned about someone harboring harmful beliefs and we would like to broaden their perspective. If we can see both the valuable and the questionable, we will have an easier time acknowledging the former and disentangling it from the latter. It will make them less defensive and more likely to listen to our concerns.
\nWe'll also improve our odds of success if we can suggest some more tenable and grounded alternatives to serve these previously mentioned needs rather than only offering to leave them out in the cold to fend for themselves once we've finished dismantling the best crutch they could find so far.
\n\n\nHow, like I’ve said before, it’s essential to productive disagreement to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other party’s views before criticizing them.
\nThe difference between judging conclusions by their arguments and judging arguments by their conclusions.
\n– John Nerst, A Deep Dive Into the Harris-Klein Controversy
\n
Now that I've made a lengthy case for being more tolerant of ragged theories and eccentric views, let's address a couple of legitimate objections and caveats.
\nAn endowment for generating tasty sparks shouldn't serve as a catch-all Get Out of Jail Free card for doctrines. As was briefly covered previously, one such case is when it is supplemented with a rivaled flair for false advertising. In my opinion, a knack for insights is but a knick-knackI'll assume no responsibility for any earworm inducement or cravings for a Knacki snack. And I'm not sorry. in comparison to a backbone of integrity in bad nick. Consequently, it warrants little indulgence. As the Sagan standard goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so if the best you've got is middling on a good day, have some respect for your audience as well as yourself and keep those claims reasonable.
\nAnother important aspect to consider is whether believing the conceptual framework under scrutiny and/or putting it into application is also conducive to adverse consequences and side effects.
\nUnfortunately, most belief systems are prone to slip into sectarianism over the years, especially as they rise in popularity. As time goes on, groupthink pullulates, minds become complacent and critical thinking is gradually corroded into dogmatism. This process often coincides with a surge in intolerance, othering, and polarization between the in-group and out-group.
\nHowever, some philosophies are particularly liable to fall into the latter due to their content. For instance, this is the case when they divide people into a set of categories, each associated with specific traits, that tend to be easy to distort into simplistic and essentialistic discrimination fuel.
\nAstrology is pretty proficient when it comes to this. Everyone knows Cancers and Scorpios are assholes. Who would even consider July or November for their birth date? I mean the lack of taste, the absolute audacity... Appalling and outrageous, that's all there is to say on the matter.
\nThis is also a common drawback of personality typology systems, whose less discerning aficionados can often let their inquiry into the wonders of human diversity quickly devolve into thought-terminating clichés and dumbed-down stereotypesType racism... Not even once. Very, very naughty. No dessert for you. Typical low in "Openness to experience" behavior :P. Didn't see that one coming, did you now?.
\nI don't believe that the presence of such a pitfall is in and of itself grounds to invalidate a theory, but it is something to keep both in mind and at bay.
\nA more severe instance of a conceptual framework's concerning consequences and side effects is when they have the potential to cause harm to people's physical and/or psychological integrity.
\nThere are a few different ways a belief system can engender harm. The most obvious among them is the practice and promotion of destructive behaviors. Many variants are possible, such as:
\nDiverting resources (i.e. time, money & energy) from more beneficial and efficient solutions is another less obvious potential fallback. Examples could include:
\nThese types of consequences should overrule good spark material, particularly so in the case of high-stakes situations with a strong emphasis on accurately describing factual reality such as health and medicine or the impact of political policies. What we're looking for in these situations isn't soaring inspiration, but meticulous descriptions. Furthermore, acting on an off-kilter diagnosis can incur grievous costs.
\nUltimately, the true leverage point isn't to establish a questionable hierarchy of theories in a vacuum, but to use each one within its appropriate context.
\n\n\nThere are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.
\n– Thomas Sowell
\n
If we want to get optimal results, carefully considering trade-offs is essential. This requires being clear on our goals and drawing up a fine-tuned analysis of the pros and cons of the different tools at our disposal.
\nWhen it comes to conceptual frameworks, the current hegemonic assumption considers describing and predicting reality as their sole purpose. Accordingly, they are only judged on their capabilities in this regard, which we could call their truth valueAssuming The Truth™ can even truly (;P) be achieved in the first place. But that baby of a topic is far too chubby to fit in this already ballooning post, so it'll have to wait for another day. If you're in a rush, check out Scientific realism, Anti-realism, Instrumentalism, and even Pyrrhonism & the Münchhausen trilemma while you're at it.. In many cases, this is a judicious criterion, although it's sometimes applied a bit too reductively.
\nNevertheless, in this post, I made the case that other purposes, and thus criteria, could be used. To do so, I focused on an alternative avenue for conceptual frameworks to be valuable and impart knowledge: not by means of direct description, but through the connections and new outlooks sparked by wrestling with their ideas. We could refer to this ability of a theory to inspire as its apophenia value.
\nCome to think about it, there are probably additional methods and properties that we could conceive through which a philosophy can prove useful.
\nIt's worth noting that just like theories can have variable levels of truth value, ranging from exceptional to lousy, the same is true for apophenia value. Not all sparks are created equal. However, it's a trickier evaluation to make for the latter, seeing as its benefits lean much more into the subjective realm, which means utility may significantly vary depending on the individual.
\nBy taking the different features I've laid up to this point into consideration, we can make a more refined assessment of a conceptual framework's relevance for different types of assignments. The scientific method and objective factors will play a large role in determining truth value, whereas apophenia quality will be weighted more subjectively. Some theories are very good in one focused area, others are mixed bags. Sometimes it's possible to decouple the bad from the good by only keeping certain chunks and narrowing their field of application. Other times that's not really possible, or another framework does it better anyway.
\nLet's go through a few case studies to give you some tangible examples of what I mean.
\nAs a quick disclaimer, this post is already quite long, so I'll have to give pretty broad non-exhaustive summaries. Furthermore, as previously stated, apophenia value and personal utility are quite subjective and therefore opinion-based. You're perfectly in your right to disagree with my assessments. I'm not trying to persuade, but simply to illustrate my point.
\nWhile I'm at it, let me add a few more wagons to my shirking-responsibility train.
\nI'm aware that this post is somewhat redundant, as some points are echoed in multiple sections. I'm a little torn on the matter. Customarily, I try to avoid redundancy as much as I can, but on the other hand, I'm not sure how to cleanly disentangle this bundle of arguments which feels pretty tightly interrelated. Furthermore, tackling them from a few different angles has a chance to make my overall message less ambiguous and more apprehensible. If you have an opinion one way or the other regarding this post, I'd be interested in your feedback.
\nYou'll also notice that I've made liberal use of Wikipedia article links to expand on and/or support many of my claims. Some might fairly question the extent of their exhaustivity and authority, but I do think they make for respectable topic overviews. They can also be used as springboards to delve into subject matters further through their sources.
\nLet's start with astrology. In the name of transparency, I'll start by disclosing my background with it. I'm no expert on the topic, and I never got very personally involved. I did frequent a couple of engrossed adherents in my early twenties. Incidentally, I even got my horoscope done once (as in the full "official" thing with the convoluted constellation charts computed through software).
\nWhen it comes to perks, its main publicized use cases are making predictions and deepening our understanding of ourselves, as far as I can tell at least. Both of these have been largely discredited by scientific experiments. Apart from the influence of the seasons, which is far more diffuse than your pretty specific horoscope predictions, no patterns have been found between the date and location of birth and significant life events. As for psychological profiling, astrology doesn't seem to offer keener insights to its adepts based on study results.
\nOn a more subjective note, I find the personality system too simplistic and rigid for my taste. There's no compelling evidence or argument behind its lock-in based on birth date. Psychological theories and personality typology seem like superior alternatives to me.
\nSparks-wise, I haven't personally gleaned much insight from it, though I can conceive others' mileage may vary. The best I can remember was to pay more attention to my throat—which is indeed sensitive, as it so happens—on account of being TaurusTaurus. So that's something I guess, but I must admit I don't find myself struggling too hard to contain my exhilaration. Finally, the esthetics and symbolism leave me mostly indifferent, but that's just me.
\nTime to delve into the downsides and risks. We already addressed the potential pitfall of dogmatism and prejudice. It's also suffering from dishonesty/denial, seeing as it lays it pretty thick on the truth claims without anything to back it up, quite the opposite. This leads to the next snag, namely getting scammed by spending a decent amount of money for celestial peanuts or, even worse, getting misled into making some pretty untoward decisions.
\nTo give an example, during my horoscope session, I was told that my sister was bringing me down, or something to that effect. I got the feeling the astrologist was strongly insinuating I'd be better off distancing myself from her, in spite of the flimsy rationalization provided.
\nThankfully, my loyalty isn't quite so brittle that I'd take such drastic, unwarranted action based on the luminary guidance of some stellar schmuck. Neither are my natural paranoid contrarian instincts, for that matter. When some random jackboot, be it human, star constellation, or god, tries to coerce me into following an arbitrary order, I flip 'em the finger on principle. Well, in my head at least. I'm a rebel of the coward variety.
\nStill, I'd feel pretty appalled and saddened if some people were bewitched into severing their most important relationships based on some astral graph gobbledygook.
\nSo overall, not a great tally. Some inspiration and esthetics may be salvaged, but not much more as far as I'm concerned.
\nAlright, let's jump right into our next controversial pseudoscience poster child. Like with astrology, I was never a fervent believer myself, nor am I an expert. However, it's still pretty popular in France, so I was given homeopathic granules now and then to help with common colds and the like as a kid. Growing up, I was also exposed to quite a few people deep into the "counter-culture science" crowd who were staunch supporters of water memory, among other things.
\nThe promoted application of homeopathy is medicinal. It's supposed to heal by exposing patients to diluted (as in very diluted) solutions of what caused the symptoms in the first place. It also lays it thick with the truth claims, selling "cures" and guaranteeing results, to the point of being a pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, here again, these claims have been thoroughly debunked. It's basically an elaborately mass-manufactured brand of placebo. Now don't get me wrong, placebo's pretty nifty and all, but that's not what's sold. (Technically, if you sell it as such its effectiveness drops, finicky thing innit.)
\nApophenia-wise, since it's a bunch of convoluted descriptions to explain a phenomenon that doesn't seem to exist in the first place, I don't see much to harvest, except perhaps for some fantasy world-building. As I previously stated, hard-science-type topics are all about accurate descriptions and as such aren't usually best suited for inspiration fuel.
\nAs for risks and downsides, we've got a few of the usual suspects. It suffers from a lot of dishonesty in promising results that have been disproven. People can waste a decent amount of money on it, as well as forgo alternatives that have proven curative effects in cases with significant stakes.
\nIn conclusion, it's not looking good. I don't see much to save. It might be a good placebo source. Although, you could probably save money by setting up a Secret Santa type of racket where a couple of friends secretly hoodwink each other into drinking a bit of sugar in a glass of water, under the guise of battle-tested grandmother's remedies.
\nIn contrast to the two previous examples, I'm favorably biased with regard to typology and have spent a decent amount of time learning about its different systems.
\nTheir main claim to fame is to help us understand ourselves and others better. In turn, these insights can be used to optimize some of our life decisions accordingly, for instance by pointing out which areas to focus on for personal development or the best fits in types of careers and romantic partners. They often come with some explanation of the psyche and its processes, but it's usually in service of self-knowledge and personal growth.
\nSo, how well do they fare on these points? It depends on the system. Although many can be pretty good at making us notice some of our own patterns better and thus spark insight, they usually aren't great at making accurate job and relationship affinity predictionsSince I'm covering a group of theories, it's a bit dicier to point out specifics. If you're curious, here are a few well-known examples. The MBTI is criticized among other things for its disputable namesake test and its poor predictive powers. Similar reproaches are levied at the Enneagram. The Big Five has a better track record in terms of psychometrics, yet it still faces objections regarding its premise and overall relevance.. However, there are a few exceptions when the system is laser-focused on one specific topic rather than all-encompassing (e.g. the RIASEC). Many systems will also offer tests (sometimes called type indicators) to help assess an individual's type. These tend to be pretty questionable and rarely meet the required psychometric standards of validity and reliability.
\nOn the risks and downsides front, as mentioned earlier, typology is also prone to potential dogmatism and prejudice based on personality type. Its theories can suffer from some dishonesty when they oversell their descriptive and predictive ability as well as their scientificity. Lastly, they could influence some people into making rash life choices if they uncritically act on their advice.
\nAll in all, I think personality typology systems can be pretty valuable as long you can exploit their benefits while remaining cognizant of, and avoiding, their biggest pitfalls. Of course, you'll be hard-pressed to find the end-all be-all explanation of human personality. Nevertheless, typology has definitely helped me improve my understanding of myself and others despite its limitations, if only by interpreting affinities and behaviors through the lens of different archetypes I hadn't really considered up to that point.
\nIn closing, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and strive to be thorough when qualifying your criticism. Describing the truth isn't the only conceivable purpose of conceptual frameworks. There are plenty of other scenarios in which they could prove valuable.
\nA theory that's poor at describing reality might yet be salvaged for insight generation. That's why it's fine to play around with them, as long as you're not self-deluded, keep a certain level of critical thinking about it, and use the adequate tools for the task at hand.
\nUltimately, we can't ignore all unscientificI'd mostly be using Popper's criterion of falsifiability to make that distinction. I prefer unscientific, to pseudoscientific because the latter seems to imply there's some deceit going on when it's possible for theories to be completely candid about their lack of scientificity. questions, because, well... that includes some pretty important shit, you know. Such not-so-trivial subject matters as morality, beauty, meaning, or more generally where value lies, to name a couple. That's right, philosophy isn't ever going away, bitches! Science will always be confined as one of its subsets. I'm afraid ungratefully overturning its progenitor is not within its purview. I mean, to be fair, Science isn't attempting any coups. It is a faithful and scrupulous tool that doesn't experience any personal grievances about operating within the bounds of its intrinsic limits. No, the imperialistic fervor comes from a reductionistic section of its fandom.
\nPlease, Lord, Save Me From Your Followers.
\nAnd Please, Science, Exonerate Me From Your Simps.
\nA couple years ago, I was sharing how transformative the Conversations With GodI mean, you know, with a name like that, you just gotta read the damn book. Either you're about to get your ass enlightened or you'll be treated to the top-notch entertainment of witnessing the magnitude of the author's balls and how well and long he'll manage to upkeep the scam. That's a win-win if there ever was one. trilogy by Neale Donald WalschWell ...and God, presumably, or at least allegedly. had been in my life with a fellow overthinker. During the course of discussing them, the latter informed me that, as it happens, he had read it too (at least the first book if memory serves me right). Having said that, "he didn't believe it because [he] was too skeptical." Something about that sentence didn't sit quite right with me. My schizoid crackpot sense was tingling.
\nSo I did what any other well-adjusted individual would have done and kept quiet on the moment, but proceeded to mull it over petulantly, and came up with a peeved alternate perspective as a comeback which I scribbled in my PKM system. I'd mostly forgotten the whole thing until now, about two dozen moons later, when I decided to publish this pontificated version, 'cuz it seemed à propos if you'll pardon my French.
\nSee the thing is I've got a fearful avoidant attachment style, bundled with a long-in-the-tooth hypersensitivity about being misunderstood or mischaracterized, and to top it off I'm an INTPAnd yes, the other guy was an INTJ. The best way I've found to spot them in the wild so far is when despite a 90% agreement with someone, we still end up spending 90% of our time bickering on every other sentence uttered. (well it's probably all correlated to start with). If you have no idea what all these fancy gibberish words mean, basically I'm more on edge than an antsy battle-scarred drug detection dog when it comes to sniffing out the potential underlying ramifications and implications of any simple surface statement. At the first whiff of mental trojan I spit back the whole thing outright at epistemic daggers drawn. I may have no patience for bureaucratic red tape, but I'll enthusiastically get lost in endless framing fuss-pottery. Ask me any basic yet non-trivial yes/no question and I might be able to churn you out a halfway decent answer if you give me about three hours to square out definitionsGot a bad habit of getting sidetracked in loosely related rabbit holes too. and elaborate on all the background concepts we're gonna be needing.
\nSo let's unravel today's hair-splitting galore.
\nHad he said "I was too skeptical about the whole thing to believe in any of it" that'd've been different. That'd've been fine.
\nThere's a difference between being skeptical about something and being skeptical full stop. Some of the former depends on personal proclivities as well as the times' zeitgeist. Like most people nowadays, I'm not all that sold that Zeus is dicking around in the flesh on Mount Olympus, preparing his next convoluted scheme to get laid that'll ruin the life of some poor woman and her close ones, for the sole crime of being too alluring for her own good. Regardless, literally every single human being is skeptical about at least a couple of things. Even the most gullible chump out there's got a few bog-standard limits.
\nWould you play ball in your heart of hearts if a coworker tells you they outrun Usain Bolt in a casual 100-meter race last weekend? Or that they can personally lay golden eggs and all they require to prove it would be for you to grant them this one opportunity to showcase this secret talent of theirs by following them in the janitor's closet? Do you think most people would? And yet, you've got the same people—who'd slowly start backing off and stealthily dial the HR department—believing all kinds of other crazy whacky shit.
\nThey believe:
\nThe list goes on and on.
\nNow being skeptical full stop on the other hand, that's a completely different pair of shoes. It's a personality trait. A recurrent pattern of behavior. A way of life. For some, a philosophical stance. For others, a committed methodical practice. Sometimes both.
\nThus, if one is so skeptical full stop that it prevents them from believing specific claims independently of their own volition, it seems to indicate that humans can be spread out on a single scale ranging from mellow naivety to hardcore skepticism. Whether you'll fall prey to bullshit depends on your skepticism level and the treachery level of the claim, like some kind of epistemic JRPG. If you're a level 42 skeptic, you'll easily slay a level 34 "new age minerals" fishy belief with the Mithril Hitchen's razor you looted from the last map's televangelist boss, but get helplessly indoctrinated by its level 69 "unhinged political ideology" drinking buddy.
\nUnder this framing, we can easily understand the divergence in my aforementioned interlocutor and yours truly's reactions to said book. My skepticism score was just too damn low. Tough luck being a rational scrub. I wasn't tall enough to ride on the big boys' epistemic roller coaster. Had it been over 9000, like an actual OG™, I'd have reached the Pearly Gates of wisdom and seen the truth of the matter in this instance, namely disbelief or at the very least stern circumspect agnosticism.
\nBut does it really work like that? I'm not sure it's so simple, that it can truly be reduced to a one dimension scale. Like many other things in life, it's probably more of a battlefield of different preferences, fears, temperamental biases, defining moments, and social allegiancesJust to be clear, I think my conversational partner of the time would most likely assent with this second framing over the first (and probably add a fresh and thick layer of nuancing squabbles of their own). I'd be loath to besmirch their views, irrespective of anonymity. Still, I've sensed the general assumption carried by the first framing lurking under the surface of otherwise fairly thoughtful individuals' discourse, and thought I'd use this opportunity to bring attention to this item of my well-endowed pet peeve collection..
\nOn my end, I have a very hard time having strong convictions and I incessantly second-guess and question them, yet I do harbor a couple "unskeptical" beliefs clandestinely in my philosophical attic. Perhaps the fact that I have a hard time believing, in general, is what motivates me to trust easily, because the constant uncertainty pushes me to desire having beliefs, in a quixotic quest for some modicum of comforting foothold.
\nTherefore, in a way, you could say that I believe because I'm too skeptical.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/everything-serves-a-purpose-in-hindsight/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/everything-serves-a-purpose-in-hindsight/", "title": "Everything serves a purpose in hindsight", "summary": "A short reflection on providence, abstruse universe magic, post-hoc rationalizations, Catch-22s and coping with life's bullshit.", "date_published": "2023-12-16T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "\n\nLife can only be understood by looking backward; but it must be lived looking forward.
\n– Søren Kierkegaard
\n
Most of the things happening to us right now that don't seem to make any sense will ultimately become meaningful.
\nThat's because :
\nAnother way to look at it is that depending on your mindset, and with a bit of ingenuity, everything can be an opportunity for growth whether it was "designed" to be or not. Indeed, even if "providence" is actually completely incoherent, you can intentionally learn from all your experiences and in that sense, they will end up amounting to a fairly cohesive "story of your life" in hindsight.
\nSo, cryptic universe magic or wishful post-hoc rationalization doesn't really matter. In the end, the result is the same.
\nConsequently, if you're currently feeling distraught and lost due to a chaotic situation that seems completely arbitrary, you can take some reassurance knowing that independently of the fact of the matter, you'll perceive what happened as serving a purpose eventually one way or the other. You may not be able to trust the universe/providence/causality/God, but you can trust your future self to make it make sense.
\nAnd at the end of the day, that's the only thing that really matters. Meaning is always generated by humans, not cold hard facts in and of themselves (nor deities for that matter). Whether the two are superimposed is secondary in this case.
\nNo sense spitting in the face of a Catch-22 when it's doing the Lord's work ;) and helping you sleep at night.
\n" } , { "id": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/empathic-inquiry/2/conflict-resolution-for-beginners-with-nonviolent-communication/", "url": "https://www.thoughtfulinquiry.com/blog/empathic-inquiry/2/conflict-resolution-for-beginners-with-nonviolent-communication/", "title": "Resolving conflict through constructive empathic inquiry", "summary": "Conflict resolution is still an underrated and underdeveloped skill for most. Let's understand why that is and how to fix it with Nonviolent Communication.", "date_published": "2023-10-28T00:00:00Z", "date_modified": "2024-10-08T00:00:00Z", "content_html": "In the first post of this series, I argued that most conflicts suffer from inadequate resolutions and tend to spiral into vicious cycles of increasingly antagonistic defensiveness that can end up having drastic consequences on a large scale. I identified poor internal and external understanding and deficient communication as its main causes. In this second and final post, we'll delve deeper into the specifics and explore concrete procedures we can follow to work on solving these issues through the lens of Nonviolent Communication (NVC), a framework for empathic inquiry.
\nThis post will answer many of the questions raised in the previous one. It will expand on what makes our default mode of communication unhelpful and the bad habits we need to overcome to untangle empathy bottlenecks. It will also lay out some practical steps we can start taking to practice and improve constructive communication.
\nLet's start with a brief presentation of NVC.
\nNonviolent Communication was developed in the 1970s by Marshall Rosenberg, an American psychologist. It takes inspiration from Carl Rogers' person-centered approach to therapy and the philosophy of nonviolence, which strongly promotes refraining from causing harm to other living beingsIn thoughts, words, and deeds, regardless of circumstance. This can even apply to self-defense in many cases. It's mostly derived from the spiritual Indian concept of ahimsa promoted by Gandhi, though one can find echoes of it in many different traditions, such as Christian martyrs, for example. and has been embodied by several movements of civil resistance such as those spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
\nBefore we get started, I'd like to disclaim that I don't have any official certification and am by no means an expert when it comes to NVC. I still have much to learn and improve upon when it comes to its implementation and I am writing these posts as much for myself as for the readers. However, I do find it very inspiring and have been incorporating it into the way I communicate increasingly for a few years now.
\nIf you would like to learn more, you can read the book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life and watch recordings of Rosenberg's teachings, which I quote a few times in the following paragraphs. I think that an important aspect of NVC's philosophy eludes written explanation, so I particularly recommend the latter. It only really clicks when it can both be understood on an intellectual and emotional level, which is much more likely to happen when you see it in action.
\nWith all that said, what can we learn from this framework? One of NVC's main concepts is the distinction it makes between two different communication paradigms: Jackal and Giraffe languages. Jackal is the language we're taught by default in our current societies and it is intrinsically woven with violent undertones. Giraffe language, named after the land animal with the biggest heart, is the alternative laid out by the framework, although it's presented as the more natural, if less habitual, of the two.
\nIn the previous post, I claimed that breaking free from our vicious loops of fruitless and bitter conflicts would require dropping some bad habits. It's time to describe them and understand where they come from by delving into Jackal language.
\n\n\nWhose fault?
\nLet's play the blame game, I love you more
\n
\nLet's play the blame game for sure
\nLet's call out names, names, I hate you more
\nLet's call out names, names, for sureI'll call you bitch for short
\n
\nAs a last resort and my first resort
\nYou call me motherfucker for long
\nAt the end of it, you know we both were wrong— Kanye West, "Blame Game"
\n
Jackal language is predicated on a zero-sum game of domination. As such, it's optimized for competition rather than collaboration and delineates winners from losers. It arbitrates this classification on the basis of mutually exclusive "rightness" and "wrongness", with all contestants vying for the monopoly on the former, which necessitates pigeonholing the competition in the latter. Through the lens of this framing, interlocutors become adversaries.
\nThe weapons of choice to wage this war are moralistic and inflexible judgments. In cases of conflict, both direct and indirect, we'll often resort to the labels they provide in an attempt to indelibly taint our competitors' very essence with wrongness. We'll brand them as selfish, dumb, greedy, incompetent, lazy, evil, and so on. Whatever sticks.
\nThis serves two major purposes. The first is to win the race—to beat them to the punch at being right. If we can't outshine them from the heights of our virtue, the next best thing is to push them lower than where we stand. The second is to make them feel bad about themselves in the hopes it'll make them more amenable.
\nOperant conditioning, i.e. modulating behavior with rewards and punishments, is a cornerstone of Jackal language. It's how you get people to do what you want them to. Guilt and shame make for easy and versatile punishment tools, and as such, are a staple of this mode of communication. You can also use them as rewards by slightly alleviating their weight once the victim has complied with your requirements.
\nAccording to Rosenberg, "sorry" is one of the most important Jackal words. It's indeed a good illustration of this process. Someone does something we don't like, so we cast aspersions upon them until they feel bad enough to be ripe for subjugation, at which point we can exact an apology from them. This is the only token we're willing to trade to redeem some of their human worth. In doing so, they must officially capitulate and acknowledge that we were right whereas they were wrong. Obviously, it doesn't work as well with every type of situation and person, but it's quite effective in familial settings and with close ones who already have a substantial emotional investment in us.
\nThis is the pernicious violence that Nonviolent Communication shuns. Within the parameters of Jackal language, we threaten to make the other suffer and are more than willing to follow through in order to secure getting our way. Physical aggression isn't the only way to play this game. It's simply the next step in the escalation cycle if the previous strategies didn't do the trick.
\nAs you can imagine, this type of interaction is neither conducive to tenderness and merriment on both ends nor sustainable and harmonious relationships. Actually, its frequent and acute usage strongly correlates with estrangement. John Gottman, one of the leading researchers on marriage, identified that one of the highest predictors of divorce is the presence of criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and/or stonewalling in a couple's communication. All of these fall neatly within the scope of Jackal languageI acknowledge stonewalling isn't always used as an intentional punishment. However, in that specific case, it's a coping mechanism caused by emotional overwhelm and underdeveloped self-regulation, which can both be alleviated by following NVC..
\nIf the entire process is undesirable for all parties involved, then why do we keep enforcing it? As stated in the previous post, part of it is due to feedback loops. It's easier to snap back and resort to aggression when we're feeling hurt and defensive. However, it's also a reflex because that's what we were taught through example as we grew up. We even use Jackal language when we castigate ourselves for our own perceived failings.
\nIn his recorded San Francisco workshop, Rosenberg shares a disquieting insight from Walter Wink's book, The Powers That Be. In order to sustain themselves, domination cultures must instill an enjoyment of violence in their populations. According to him, we've done a good job of that and I'd have to concur.
\nHe points out that we're taught violence as a pillar of problem and conflict resolution starting at a very early age, not only from the interactions with adults and older kids we witness and endure but also from our fictional role models. Watching most heroes solve their quarrels through beatings or murders and emulating them represents a generous portion of our recreational activities.
\nThe Romans cheered at the sight of gladiators gutting each other in the arena. Since then, moral standards have evolved and we're a touch more subtle in our approach. Nowadays, I get my kicks out of witnessing troubled people berating each other online, watching action movies where the protagonist single-handedly causes demographic declines, when I'm not the one improvising facial terraforming on unsuspecting foes by means of sawed-off shotguns in video games, or indulging in meat-based products predicated on industrialized violence on a monstrously large scale. All of it can be very pleasurableI might be reaching diminishing returns on the first. It takes a decent amount of skill and care to make a good invective. I find run-of-the-mill slanderous insults depressing for the most part.. My name is Arthur, and I'm a violenceaholic. I'm part of the problem.
\nIf I'm feeling mighty reluctant to give up on most of these pastimes despite a natural aspiration towards nonviolence, what does that say for the world at large? It ain't looking good...
\nTo be clear, I'm neither trying to cast moral aspersions on the act of partaking in these activities nor demanding people cut them from their lives. I'm simply pointing out that violence permeates a substantial amount of our daily gratifications, and if we truly are committed to worldwide harm reduction, that's probably an important factor to take into account. It suddenly makes more sense that progress on curtailing violence is so sluggish despite everyone loudly claiming it's what they want if we're all unwittingly heavily incentivized to maintain the status quo to varying degrees.
\nSocial justice theory has an interesting concept of internalized oppressionGranted, it's not always brought up in the most thoughtful manner. (such as racism, homophobia, or sexism). I think if we dig a layer deeper, we'll find that we're all united in suffering from an epidemic of internalized violence.
\nIn a similar vein of leftist analysis, Mark Fisher popularized the concept of capitalist realism to describe the social resignation to view capitalism as the only system to organize society around, to the point of struggling to even conceptualize alternatives. Again, substituting capitalism with violence works just as well, if not better, I'd argue. The resignation is even stronger on that one. A concerning number of communists drool at the fantasy of slaughtering their landlord when striketh the time of the proletarian revolution (whilst not being proletarians themselves, mind you).
\nWe tend to cherry-pick a couple of causes and a few effects to focus on and are quick to condemn those who resort to a bit more violence than our personal threshold of comfort, but it is far more pervasive than we'd like to admit. It's not just internalized but also institutionalized, our entire societies are steeped in it. Even most of our proposed solutions to violence are completely reliant on it. If we kill all the "bad guys," let them stew in a forsaken hole in atonement long enough, or revile and beat the compassion back into them, we'll fix the world. In the end, we're only perpetuating the cycle. Wick referred to this as the "myth of redemptive violence."
\nSo what is the solution, then? Is fully abstaining from violence even possible? Should we bury our pipe dreams of earnest, joyful, and consensual coexistence? Based on the example of a few outstanding individuals, we can note that it takes courage, effort, time, and a lot of unlearning, but it can be done. One of them even laid out a how-to guide for our everyday interactions. He called it Giraffe language.
\nAs you might have guessed, Giraffe language avoids the good guy, bad guy routine altogether without sacrificing honesty in the process. Actually, it makes communication clearer and more genuine because it addresses the heart of the issue instead of wrapping it in insults and judgments.
\nIt's made of four elements: observations, feelings, needs and requests.
\n\n\nNonviolent communication shows us both how to make these four components clear to people and [they] basically answer two questions: what's alive in us—you see when we say what is contributing to our well-being, how we feel, and what needs are behind our feelings, that answers the question of what's alive in us at a given moment—and a second question that nonviolent communication directs itself to is what would make life more wonderful? And that's where our requests come in.
\n— Marshall Rosenberg (source)
\n
Observations are specific, factual, and neutral descriptions of what triggered an emotional reaction, which can either be pleasant or unpleasant. For example, "We agreed you would clean the dishes on weekdays, but when I came back from work Monday and Tuesday, it was still in the sink" rather than "You never do the dishes" or "You're such a lazy ass." On a more positive note, it could also be "when you brought me a snack after my long work session."
\nNotice that specificity is important both when you're satisfied and unsatisfied with the situation. NVC shuns punishments and rewards alike, which include pretty vague compliments (i.e. positive judgments) like "you're so sweet" or "you're really smart". Use these four components instead.
\nThe next part is expressing the feelings sparked by what was described in the observations. Feelings and thoughts are two distinct types of entities. As a rule of thumb, a feeling can usually be described with one or two words. For example, in an unpleasant situation, you may feel "worried", "frustrated", "lonely" or "baffled". On the other hand, in a pleasant situation, you may feel "warm", "touched", "serene" or "delighted".
\nThey should be centered on you, not on your interlocutor's perceived behavior. Refrain from sneaking in some half-judgments in disguise, such as feeling "betrayed", "rejected", "judged" or "insulted".
\nIf you struggle with identifying and/or expressing your feelings, you can find online inventories to help you triangulate what's going on inside. There used to be a set of them directly accessible on the official NVC website, but they've now been transformed into a PDF. You can get it for free, but you need to fill out a form first. The inventories are also a available on this website with no requirements for access.
\nAs we covered in Part 1, feelings are spawned from needs. Pleasant feelings arise when our needs are met, and unpleasant feelings when our needs aren't being met. They may well be the most important element to identify and communicate. Like feelings, they're usually described in one or two words. They are also mostly interchangeable with values.
\nExamples include "intimacy", "to understand and be understood", "authenticity", "joy", "harmony", "independence" and "learning". The aforementioned inventories also contain a list of needs and can help you unearth them. Do note that no inventory is fully exhaustive and it's perfectly possible to have needs that don't figure in it.
\nThe previous three elements help convey what's going on clearly and empathically. A request helps "make life more wonderful", to quote Rosenberg, by opening up negotiations with an initial suggestion serving as an example. Note the emphasis on suggestion. It isn't a requirement, and our interlocutors are free to refuse. The goal is for all people involved to get their needs met, so counter-offers are welcome.
\nA request should be a clear, explicit, and optional proposition for a strategy to better fulfill a need.
\nSo let's take it from the top by illustrating what the four elements might look like when put together. What would the following unhelpful Jackal statement: "I can't believe you're so selfish and rude! You always leave me hanging!" look like in Giraffe? Here's an example: "When I send you a pretty long text message and you don't respond for several days, I feel anxious because my need for visibility isn't being met. Would you be willing to send me a short message to let me know that you've read it but are currently unavailable and give me a rough estimate of when to expect an answer?".
\nThe exact order in which you mention these four elements doesn't really matter. They serve more as guidelines than strict rules. Occasionally, you can skip some of them, depending on the context. The most important part is establishing an empathic connection and maintaining it from this point forward.
\nNow that we've covered the basics, let's mention a few additional things to keep in mind.
\nWhen you try to apply this model in your life, try to do your best to avoid slipping in some sneaky judgments and/or passive-aggressiveness, as it'll make your interlocutor more defensive and harm the empathic connection. This is surprisingly harder than you might imagine. One general tip is to always stay focused on yourself and avoid making statements about your interlocutors. If you must, favor mentioning specific behaviors ("when you did X") rather than stapling cagey labels on the person ("you are X").
\nThis advice will sometimes be formulated as making "I feel" statements in pop psychology circles, but it's far too easy for those to go completely off the rails. Most often, they actually convey a thought rather than a feeling and only serve as a milquetoast disclaimer of subjective interpretation before laying it thick with the judgments. They're basically the same as an "in my opinion" or a "but I could be wrong," if not worse, due to their deceptive framing. "I feel that you're being abusive." "I feel that you're hiding things from me." "I feel that you don't care about me." Well, I feel that "I feel" statements are pretty aggravating rhetorical sleight of hand.
\nIf you're anything like me, you'll most likely fail to heed this advice on the regular. Try not to be too hard on yourself. Reinforcing your inner Jackal doesn't help temper its external counterpart. Notice where and how you floundered, and try your best to do better next time.
\nSo far, most of what I've described is heavily focused on expressing ourselves. However, Giraffe language goes both ways and also applies when we're on the receiving end.
\nUnfortunately, even if you start striving to communicate in a nonviolent fashion, the people around you aren't suddenly going to change their ways in sync with you. You may slowly influence them with time, but in the beginning and with most new people you encounter, you'll have to deal with both struggling to overcome your interactional conditioning and withstanding their Jackal onslaughts. The latter don't help make the former easier, as retaliation tends to have been pretty deeply ingrained into us, and keeping a patient and compassionate composure under a shower of pernicious jibes takes practice.
\nThat's where Giraffe ears come in. They mostly consist of shifting our interpretations of the criticism we're subjected to. Instead of focusing on ourselves and endangering our sense of self-worth, we focus on our interlocutors and try to decipher what they are actually trying to say behind the Jackal adulteration. Indeed, through the lens of the NVC framework, they are emotionally reacting to a specific situation because one or more of their needs aren't being met, just like you. They're simply suffering from a partial lack of awareness and a very unhelpful means of communication. That's what Rosenberg meant when he said that "every criticism, judgment, diagnosis, and expression of anger is the tragic expression of an unmet need."
\n\n\nWith [Giraffe ears] all you can hear is the only thing human beings are ever saying: "Please" and "Thank you." That's all. We're going to show you today, that what used to sound like criticism, judgments, blame are simply tragic suicidal expressions of please.
\n— Marshall Rosenberg (source)
\n
This can be more or less challenging depending on the situation. When you're unfazed by the criticism coming your way, it's easy to take a step back and kick-start the inquiry process. However, when they hit square into a chink in your armor, a long-neglected, recurrently misunderstood part of yourself forgotten in arid loneliness and beseeching for a smidge of genuine empathy, it's easy to get overpowered by your inner Jekyll JackalYes, I know, the monster alter-ego is Mr. Hyde, not Dr. Jekyll. Stop ruining my snazzy puns, you meanie. and only remember your pledge to nonviolence once you've quenched your thirst for rampage with reckless abandon. As Ram Dass put it, "If you think you’re spiritually enlightened, try spending time with your parents."
\nThis is why developing a good understanding of yourself is an important part of transitioning to this new communication paradigm.
\nThe first step to letting go of hostility in your interactions with others is to start by nurturing a compassionate, empathic connection with yourself.
\nIf you want to use the four components of NVC, you'll have to identify your inner feelings and needs before you can convey them. By default, most of our reactions will come to us encoded in Jackal ("I can't believe the gall of this boorish mumpsimus") rather than the more helpful alternative of a neatly sorted pile of situations, feelings, and needs ("When this gentleman repeatedly interrupts the other speakers, it makes me feel indignant and frustrated because my needs for respect and consideration aren't being met").
\nBuilding a habit of empathizing with yourself, especially when strong inner reactions emerge, will help you become more aware of your own needs and how they influence the types of situations that soothe or aggravate you.
\nThe better you get at self-understanding and regulation, the less susceptible you'll be to outbursts. As mentioned in the last post, feedback loops play an important role in determining whether the level of antagonism in an interaction escalates or deescalates. If you're able to remain even-tempered on your end, it will help dampen the vicious cycle.
\nFurthermore, since most people will suck at providing you with first-rate empathy—assuming they're even trying to in the first place—if you'd like some, your best bet is to start learning some self-sufficiency.
\nSo, how do we go about that?
\nAs stated above, the first step is to identify the specific triggering event and the feelings and needs involved. Each of these can be pretty tricky, depending on the situation and your natural proclivities, or lack thereof. It helps to pull out the aforementioned inventory, whittle it down to a category, and find the best matches within.
\nIn the beginning, it's easier to practice by yourself or in the presence of friendly interlocutors without the added challenge of external antagonism. As such, ideally, you want to find strong emotional triggers from a remote source and sort things out from the comfort of your home.\nFor example, this could come in the form of artwork like songs, movies, and books or online content like videos, essays, and comments. Mulling over the memory of an unresolved situation that still stirs up feelings can also work.
\nAs you keep up this practice, you'll start to notice some recurrent needs that seem to carry more weight than others for you. These are good indications of strong personal values and you should take note of them. This makes NVC-powered introspection an effective strategy to improve your self-knowledge, especially in times when you're particularly impassioned, be it positively or negatively.
\nThe Internal Family System (IFS) psychotherapeutic model names these reactive sparks "trailheads". Focusing on them and fleshing them out is a significant component of its process of healing and growth. In my opinion, NVC and IFS complement each other very well; the latter is a good lens to better understand inner conflict and, in turn, external conflict. Unfortunately, this post is already protracted as it is, so I'll save this topic for another time.
\nWith this in mind, try to shift your mindset regarding becoming aggravated. See these situations as opportunities rather than gratuitous ordeals. Following "what's alive in you" down the rabbit hole will lead you to previously unidentified yet important parts of yourself. Be thankful for the tasteless twits that cause your raging bouts of exasperation for bringing you closer to yourself through butthurt-fueled epiphaniesA substantial amount of progress and clarification on this blog was due in part to me getting repeatedly triggered by otherwise thoughtful people dismissing the value of the rational/subjective balance and inconsistently adjudicating what has the right to be considered reasonable. Sometimes going so far as using it as a demarcation line for enforced ostracization.. Without even realizing it, they're actually helping you out—in an obnoxious, infuriating way
\nTo conclude this section, let me share this interesting exercise Marshall Rosenberg suggests for cultivating more resilient Giraffe ears. As stated earlier, it's an unforeseen, nasty jab in one of our sensitive spots that will usually knock us off our empathic listening stance. Accordingly, we can become sturdier if we lower our odds of being blindsided by making preparations in a safe environment beforehand. To this end, he recommends making three lists:
\nOnce we've compiled these lists, we can start applying the NCV deciphering protocol to each one and try to infer what feelings and needs underlie them. This way, if we get ambushed by one of them in the future, we'll already know how to break it down into NVC components, which will come in very handy to keep a cool head.
\nNow that we've become half-decent at empathizing with ourselves, it's time to tackle how to proceed with others.
\nAs I said in the previous post, it's good to keep in mind that, on average, people fare just as poorly at empathizing with themselves as with others. Hence, they may miss the forest for the trees and get overly attached to one inadequate strategy to comfort a latent need. This means getting to the bottom of the issue is most often an iterative process. The more we connect to "what's alive in them," the stronger our empathic bond. Conversely, the more we invalidate or overwrite their experience, the faster we'll sour the exchange and alienate them.
\nThe Imago Dialogue framework is a good guide to follow. The first step is making sure we're on the same page. We want to secure a clear understanding of what they're sharing with us and explicitly show them that we do.
\nThis is easier to do when we focus on small steps that lay less ground for misunderstandings. In order to ensure we aren't mistaken, we frequently check in with them, so should we be, they can nip it in the bud; otherwise they have concrete proof we do get it. We can do this by mirroring what they say, i.e. paraphrasing their words back to them, as well as asking for further clarifications if needed. In the latter case, try to make a show of good faith by laying out a few possible interpretations and doing your best to pinpoint the areas of confusion, rather than simply shutting them down with "I don't get it" or "This doesn't make any sense to me".
\nOnce we feel we have a firm enough grasp on what they're telling us, the next step is positing hypotheses about the feelings and needs alive in them. If we get it right, they'll get a strong sense of confirmation that we do indeed empathize. If we get it wrong, we keep zeroing in patiently and optimistically based on their corrective feedback.
\nDuring the entirety of the process, do your best to clarify and help the other person self-empathize by explicitly pointing out and referring to the four NVC components: specific situations, feelings, needs, and requests.
\nIf you'd like an example of what this may look like, I'd recommend listening to this striking example narrated by Rosenberg in this fairly short video. In the same video, he also mentions some behaviors we tend to confuse with empathy, which reap bitterly counter-productive results. Let's cover a few of the main offenders.
\nThe video opens with the example of an exercise he gave to some psychiatrists. They had to come up with an empathic reaction to a patient coming in and saying, "I'm feeling so depressed. I don't know that I want to keep alive. I think the world would be better off without me." One of them got very upset because her submission made other participants wince audibly. She had written, "That's ridiculous! You have everything to offer."
\nPeople tend to have the bad habit of focusing too much on the statements attached to the feelings expressed, rather than the latter. Empathy isn't placating or cheering up the other person with empty reassurance. It's not fixing the issue with our pristine problem-solving skills and unsolicited advice. Neither is it debating their emotions down into submission with facts and logic. That's the surest way to dissolve any smidgeon of trust they might've held that we would ever understand them. These tactics are more geared toward helping us escape the discomfort of the situation than actually being present with our interlocutor's experience.
\nEmpathy isn't about you. It's about listening and connecting with the other. What's ironic is that we all already know this because we've suffered from these empathy impersonators firsthand when we were on the other side of the interaction. They feel more like a slap in the face than support. They're invalidating and give off the impression that our conversation partner is seeing straight past us. We have a pretty good genuine empathy detector and can easily sniff out counterfeits. Nevertheless, some of these bad habits are deeply ingrained and hard to shake off when we're back on the empathizer hot seat.
\nIt's also unfortunately too easy to muddle two different concepts frequently associated with empathy, namely feeling with and feeling forI've borrowed these names from the second edition of Internal Family Systems Therapy by Richard Schwartz and Martha Sweezy.. To make matters worse, people never seem to be able to agree on which term to use for which (empathy, sympathy, compassion, the list goes on):
\nIn our case, the empathy I'm talking about is feeling for. It's fine if you feel with the other too, but it's neither required nor sufficient to build the connection. If a friend tells you someone close to them has passed away and you share that you feel sad about it, you're still focusing on yourself rather than them. Prioritize demonstrating feeling for first.
\nTo recap, validating a feeling doesn't mean you endorse all the statements that accompany it. However, you won't be able to address and make progress on those until you've established an empathic connection, and endless quibbles over their rightness or wrongness aren't going to help get you there. All the things I've listed can be perfectly fine, as long as they're not passing themselves off as empathy. They might even be welcome depending on the context, but be sure that your interlocutor is interested in hearing them and that you've secured understanding and trust first.
\n\n\nWhen people trust that you value what's alive in them, what they're feeling and needing at a given moment, that that takes more precedence for you than whether what they're saying is right or wrong, this has a big impact on the relationship. It makes compassionate connecting much easier when people really feel that what's alive in them is what matters to you.
\n— Marshall Rosenberg (source)
\n
In the first post, I described how unproductive conflict resolution\ncan be explained by a generalized lack of proper empathy inquiry. In this one, thanks to Nonviolent Communication, we explored both a new lens of analysis for understanding this problem and a framework to bypass it. Indeed, this bonding impediment is caused and upheld through the use and internalization of what NVC dubbed Jackal language, a paradigm of interaction predicated on domination.
\nIt keeps us divided and confused by concealing our true feelings and needs under criticism and judgment. NVC provides tools to help us overcome these misdirections by focusing on more essential and genuine components of our internal experience. The more we lean on its wisdom, the better we're able to be compassionately present with that of others and assertively vulnerable about our own.
\nIt's important to remember that disentangling the empathy bottleneck by establishing an empathic connection is a prerequisite for conflict resolution and, more broadly, unobstructed communication. This is why overlooking questionable claims, at least initially, and validating the underlying feelings they are hiding is crucial, whereas getting bogged down on factual legitimacy is largely inefficient, if not outright detrimental.
\nThe best way to help others is to help ourselves first by focusing on healing our own inner wounds, as we'll bring enhanced clarity and equanimity along with our presence and cause less harm in the long run. Inspiring the people around us through our example is the most constructive way to enact sustainable change.
\nI wrote the initial version of this post in the summer of 2021. Since it was basically doneLittle did I know it would take me about 12 hours to edit the whole thing., I thought I might as well include it here. It's slightly outside the blog's general theme, though one could argue that being alive is an integral part of experiencing a meaningful life and exercise can help keep things that way a while longer. Furthermore, I think it's a worthwhile topic and this routine is probably fairly well suited to the audience of this type of blog.
\nNowadays, most people would probably agree that an exercise routine is one of the pillars of physical healthwith sleep and nutrition and that they should probably start one if they haven't already. They wouldn't be wrong. According to the World Health Organization, obesity has nearly tripled around the world since 1975. Between 1980 and 2014, the number of cases of diabetes has quadrupled. Lastly, cardiovascular diseases are the overall leading causes of all deaths. It’s undeniably a good idea to exercise and try to pursue a healthy diet.
\nThe current standard for working out is going to the gym, which seems to be held by most as the holy panacea for ensuring one's physical health. A narrative that doesn’t profit the Food & Fitness industry in the least, I’m sure. Similarly to global warming, one could say, whose main cause is definitely the hoodlums who can’t be bothered to properly sort their trash.
\nSince when did going to the gym become so ubiquitous? Was there some sort of successful grand marketing scheme, like for bacon and eggs? Has Edward Bernays struck again from beyond the graveEdward Bernays is one of the most cartoonishly mask-off yet unrenowned villains of history, in spite of the massive influence of his marketing and propaganda schemes on the current state of the world. Among his accomplishments, he managed to create the supposedly culturally "all-American breakfast" from thin air.?
\nIn any case, according to the current hegemonic framework, the options for exercise don’t seem very abundant at first glance. In order to do the righteous thing, dare I say, and avoid going to Hell for wallowing in cellulite, you must:
\nCommit to this new endeavor by purchasing an expensive monthly subscription to a gym (50 USD on averageIn the US at least, based on this 2022 report.).
\nCommute to its whereabouts and back at least once a week.
\nWhile on the premise:
\nLastly, make the whole thing a regular habit whilst the apex of workout you got so far was climbing the occasional staircase when confronted with one.
\nThat’s a lot of things to do. It’s no wonder many people think they definitely should exercise, but never actually act on it.
\nIt does seem to me that sometimes this worship of the gym and sacrificing our time, money, sweat, and blood at the altar of building ourselves a shredded body, rippling bulky muscles through every nook and cranny, ends up missing the main point of regular exercise: merely, being fit.
\nBut are there any viable alternatives? Well, what if I told you it's possible to start exercising right now with no requirements for a specific location or any equipment? More than that, you could do it for free, and to top it off, it wouldn’t even voraciously drain your measly free time.
\nBecause, as a reclusive wimp, that's what I’ve been doing for more than six years. So far it’s been working pretty well for me, and doctors don’t even hate me!
\n…or at least I hope they don’t.
\nIf you’re reading this post, I’m assuming it’s probably to get the answer advertised by the title rather than peruse my extended ramblings. Therefore, I’ll get right into the meat of the subject with a quick overview.
\nIt's not a particularly controversial take that regularity beats intensity when it comes to exercise. I based my strategy on this principle: maximizing frequency to minimize strain and duration. Could I find a short exercise routine that anyone could do quite simply? After some quick investigating online, I settled on the first decent program I found and tried it out the following morning.
\nThe rules were simple: I would do 10 minutes of exercise every single morningweekends and holidays included for three months, after which I would decide whether to keep going on or not based on the results. I started this program on the 1st of October 2019, and not only did I respect my initial engagement, but I’ve been going strong ever since. I've racked up an uninterrupted streak of more than 2000 days in a row as of writing.
\nI'd like to stipulate that I wasn't a well-in-shape and sporty person before sticking to this routine. No need to be concerned about a potential unfair advantage from the outset on my part. Actually, it was because I had started growing a burgeoning beer belly after one year of slight overindulgence and wanted to see it melt away that I set the whole thing up in the first place. At that point in time, I would need to pause and catch my breath in a wheezing fit after a thirty-second run.
\nI did fulfill my initial goal within the span of these three months, albeit greatly reducing my beer intake must have helped too. I also gained a moderate amount of muscle in the process. This is what convinced me to keep going. That, and not feeling like I was on the brink of death after dragging the weekly groceries up to the fifth floor. As a bonus, I also got a bit more confident in my body and myself.
\nAs it happens, because I started on the spur of the moment and am also a bit absent-minded, I didn’t weigh myself before and after those three months, nor did I take before and after pictures. I didn’t think I’d be writing a blog post about it a few years later and having some quantitative data sure would be nice. I'm afraid you’ll just have to take my word for it.
\nStill, to give you a rough idea, I've weighed around 66 kilos on averageMy weight is very volatile. I can easily drop or gain half a kilo in one day, if not more. So I think an average is more informative in this case. I've only started weighting myself regularly since June 2020, and it's fluctuated within the range of 62 to 72 kg up to now. for the last few years for a height of 1 meter 85. If you’re in a country that still uses barbaric units of measure, that’s about 146 pounds for 6 feet 1. I'm not making any promises about you reaching these numbers, though. Far be it from me to oversell you a miracle cure. Keep in mind that I'm also an ectomorphTechnical jargon designating the lanky body type. by default, and fortuitously follow haphazard intermittent fasting through the habit of skipping breakfast.
\nAnyway, let's cut to the chase and explain how you would go about implementing it for yourself.
\nExercise is by no means my field of expertise, so when I started my experiment, I just browsed for a decent 10-minute workout. Something doable that wouldn’t leave me begging for mercy and cradling my aching muscles afterward, while still providing decent exercise to most of my body. I ended up using the first formula from this list of quick "total body" workouts by self.com.
\nIt consists of the following steps:
\n![\"Push-ups\"](\"https://media4.giphy.com/media/5t9IcXiBCyw60XPpGu/giphy.gif\")
![\"Squats\"](\"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/43728b_b70756c56ee74beea5d62a90b2b71b82~mv2.gif\")
![\"Plank](\"https://i.pinimg.com/originals/08/b1/f8/08b1f8a8de39bc33916af4547dc04b5a.gif\")
![\"Jumping](\"https://media4.giphy.com/media/ckMk3RKUK29lziaspI/giphy.gif\")
![\"Jumping](\"https://media.tenor.com/Z6gmDPeM6dgAAAAC/dance-moves.gif\")
Rinse and repeat until you reach a total of 10 minutes.
\nThe only thing you need is a patch of uncluttered floor, which I’m assuming shouldn’t be too troublesome to find, and a device to time yourself. If you’re reading this post, then you have access to the internet where you can find online chronometers (like this one). There’s also a high probability you possess a smartphone, which should have a preinstalled clock application with this feature anyway.
\nI firmly recommend swapping out the jumping jacks for no-jump jumping jacks to avoid getting embroiled in unnecessary blood feuds with downstairs neighbors if you live in an apartment building or when you stay in hotels and other people's places. I'm speaking from experience here.
\nAdditionally, I want to emphasize that although this routine should be fine for the vast majority of people, if you have a special muscular or bone condition, perhaps a wound, or just doubt that this is suited for you, be sure to check with your doctor. I’m definitely not fit to give any medical advice, and my goal here is to help you out, not to cause injuries.
\nIf some of the moves are unfamiliar to you, you can look them up onlineIf you click on the callouts for each step, you can see a short GIF serving as a visual example. (that’s what I did). There are a lot of video demonstrations out there
\nBy default, you’re just supposed to try to get as many rounds as you can within 10 minutes. However, I don’t know about you, but a slightly bigger number does nothing for my motivation. Maximizing my free time does, though. So noting that I did 4 rounds on average, I decided to stick to that number, and if I finished in under 10 minutes, then I got to keep that time difference. If you’re a time hoarder like me, feel free to implement this twist.
\nThe easiest way to start tweaking this routine is simply to reduce the break duration. I wouldn’t recommend this for the first few weeks, especially if it’s been a while since you last exercised. You want to get into the habit before you start intensifying the challenge.
\nPersonally, by now I’ve gone down to 10 seconds for my in-between breaks. And yes, that’s extra free time. These days, I do the routine in about 7 minutes. But that’s a seasoned maneuver unfit for rookies, alright? Don’t start on the hardest difficulty only to immediately give up because you bit off more than you could chew. You also want to decrease it incrementally. I didn’t go from 45 to 10 seconds in one fell swoop either. Go down to 30 seconds, then 20 once you’re comfortable at 30, and so on.
\nDepending on your goals, you might also want to add extra stuff. In the beginning, I had a really hard time doing the five push-ups, and I was unsatisfied with that fact. I might be a wimp, but come on... I don’t want my heart to be pounding like a gerbil on crack after five meager push-ups. So I added 20 more in a row after my four rounds. The first few days were pretty rough, but now it takes more than just five to intimidate me.
\nI also wanted a nominal amount of abs, so I added 30 seconds of plank after these extra push-ups. Just like for the rounds, I made it progressively harder, up to a max of one minute and a half. Although I have to say that unlike all the other moves so far, you might need some material for that one, such as a flat pillow or a yoga mat. Because, speaking from experience, if you do it on a hard floor, you can hurt your elbows.
\nI did these extra push-up and plank sessions for several months but have stopped since then. With new things popping up in my morning routine, I had less time overall and was hitting diminishing returns regarding my personal goals anyway. More recently, I bumped up the number of push-ups to 10 per round to rekindle a touch of challenge as the routine gets easier with time.
\nBasically, feel free to customize this routine to fit your goals and adapt it to your current situation. I sure did. It's even possible to get quite shredded from home with little equipment. Colin Murray made an interesting video on the topic if you're interested in some domestic yet more strenuous workouts.
\nHowever, if you're starting from scratch, I’d strongly advise sticking to the vanilla version for at least the first month. This way, you can garner some experience with a fairly safe option and get an idea of what you’re doing before you sway from the beaten path.
\nWith all that said, there is only one truly challenging element in this routine, and that's just picking up and upholding the habit.
\nIf you’re anything like me, you regularly consume this type of life improvement advice but only end up implementing an infinitesimal amount of it. Impatience can also be an issue. If you’re expecting to lose 3 kilos after two days, you might get sorely disappointed and give up too early.
\nSo if you're not already exercising regularly, I'd like to challenge you to try out and stick to this routine for 90 days, i.e. three months, starting today.
\n"Why three months?" you might ask, and that’s a good question. Well, I’ve stolen this concept from a subreddit I went to when I first decided to grow a beard. They had set this rule that if you wanted to post a picture to ask how dire your situation was and whether there was any hope, you had to let it grow for three months first. There were two reasons behind this rule.
\nFirst, some things just take time, and if you are not patient enough, the diagnosis can be way off. Before three months, it can be hard to make an accurate estimation. It’s the same with exercise. After three months, you should definitely start seeing some improvements. At that point, you’ll be in a good position to make a rational decision, based on empirical data, on whether it's worth it or not for you.
\nSecond, according to that sub, if you don’t have the resilience to keep at it for three months, then you’ll never make it anyway. Although it’d be nice if that weren’t the case, there's some truth to it. It’s the same with getting healthy. If you can’t invest 10 minutes every day (i.e. about an hour per week) for three months, no offense, but I’m not sure how exactly you’ll ever get fit. Frankly, when compared with most alternatives, 10 minutes a day is a pretty good deal.
\nAnyway, I followed their advice at the time, albeit I never ended up posting a picture of what then looked like I had lacklusterly plastered my cheeks with glue before rubbing them against a cat undergoing chemotherapy. I was committed enough by that point to abstain from relying on external validation (ok, fine, I was also self-conscious). Regardless, it worked out well enough for me eventually.
\nBased on this experience, I followed the challenge I'm giving you now and tried my 10-minute workout every single day for three months. And when the fateful day came, I judged that the investment was definitely worth it, and I've kept on ever since.
\nIf you think 90 days is definitely too much for you, at least try it out for one month and make your decision then. If you’re struggling, you can also try something a bit more lenient, like exercising six days a week instead of seven.
\nLet me give you a few additional tips to help you have the easiest journey possible.
\nIf it’s been a while since you’ve engaged in any physical activities, you’ll most likely experience sore muscles the first few days. It will make the second and third days a bit harder, but push through it. Personally, it didn’t ache anymore on the fourth day, and I doubt it should last for more than a week. In fact, you'll become more resilient to them as you implement this routine, so it's a worthy investment in the long run.
\nSetting up new habits can be tricky. Here's some advice to maximize your chances of success if you tend to struggle with it.
\nFirst, you have to fit it somewhere in your schedule. For example, I always take a shower when I get up in the morning. If I don’t, I'll just feel off for the whole day. That's why I scheduled my exercise routine just before it. I can't shower before I've finished my exercise, which effectively makes it a requirement to get on with the rest of my day. There are added benefits to doing things in that order: you’re exercising on an empty stomach and can wash off the sweat right after. But you know yourself best, so choose the optimal time slot for you.
\nFollowing through with the routine should also be automatic. It's a lot harder to keep up a habit if you need to invest substantial willpower to do it every single day. Frequently questioning and negotiating the routine's terms instead of just getting on with it is definitely not going to help with consistency. The same applies to obsessing over the expected outcome.
\nThat's why you should just commit to the challenge and accept it as part of your daily routine for the next few weeks. Reassess whether it's worth it only at predetermined and fairly distant intervals. Maybe weigh yourself only once a week if it helps. It can be demoralizing if you expect to see big changes from day to day.
\nSecond, I’d recommend tracking your progress. Habitbull is a pretty good app for this. It will keep track of your current streak. It might be a pretty insignificant stat overall, but I’ve found it’s a very good motivator for me. I get really pissed when I screw up a nice streak. You want to harness the power of the Sunk Cost FallacyMaintaining a pattern of behavior regardless of whether it's still beneficial because you've already invested too much into it. For instance, persisting in a failing gambling spree instead of cutting your losses while there's still time in the hope you'll turn things around. to your advantage.
\nHowever, don’t let it screw up your entire effort either. If you miss a day, it’s not the end of the world. Regularity is key. Missing a day here and there won’t have any negative effects, as long as you don’t let it tank your morale and get back to it the next day. You don’t need a 100% continuous streak to complete the challenge, just shift the end date by one day.
\nLastly, accountability is also a good way to stay motivated. Personally, I made do without, but following through on habits comes pretty easily to me once I set my mind to it. If you think it might help you, let a friend know you’re doing this challenge. Or even better, get someone to do it with you, you can even share feedback this way.
\nMy main concern in this post was to refute the Toolbox Fallacy that you need anything in order to start getting fit. Anyone can take up regular exercise.
\nThe Toolbox Fallacy is a concept I discovered in this YouTube video by Ian Martin (also available as a Medium article). He describes it as such :
\n\n\nI can’t do X until I have Y. Once I have the (gym membership, tablet, camera, laptop, time), then I’ll be able to (workout, paint more, work on my photography, write, be happy.) That is the Toolbox Fallacy […].
\n
You already have everything you need to get started right now! Furthermore, there isn't only one proper exercise method. Going to the gym is not the only way to get fitTo be fair, for many people, the gym is a good fit, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it., so think outside the box and find something that works for you.
\nIf my solution does the trick for you, that’s great! If not, that's fine too. Just make your own. That's what I did, and so can you. Do you enjoy biking, swimming, running? The specific activity doesn’t matter all that much as long as you're getting a decent workout on a regular basis. The gym is not the end-all be-all of fitness. Be creative and find an enjoyable and manageable way to stay healthy!
\nApril 25, 2026: Mention no-jump jumping jacks as an alternative to avoid getting in trouble with neighbors.
\nNovember 26, 2026: Linked to the new Substack version of the post, updated a few numbers, and fixed a typo and a broken link.
\nNovember 10, 2023: Reworked a couple wordings here and there.
\nHave you noticed a disconcerting trend with most conflicts in your life? A nagging yet nebulous feeling of uneasiness surrounding them? A general dearth of insight regarding the ins and outs of why and how they occurred. A disappointment with a majority of their half-baked resolutions, which seem to amount more to sweeping most contentions under the rug and tacitly agreeing to feigned forgetfulness than actual closure?
\nI know I have. I started noticing it during my teenage years, as my until then enduring bond with my sister started souring with pubertyDon't worry, it's all good now. Teenhood is life's hazing; once you make it out the other end, it progressively gets better., and our verbal altercations rose in frequency and vitriol.
\nI'm not the biggest fan of shouting matches. Moderate social tension is enough to put me on edge. I'm also under the impression that I have naturally more qualms to start flinging vicious personal barbs than the averageI'm more of an obnoxious erosion than nuclear mortar type.. This means that despite usually bearing the brunt of the lambasting, I don't even get to participate in most of the fun. All of that to say I possess an ample source of motivation to minimize this type of interaction.
\nAs such, I started spiraling into anguish pretty quickly when I realized we had the exact same fights every two weeks and never seemed to make any progress. If the content of the aspersions didn't offer any solution at face value, I inferred the real issue must lie deeper. I'd try to bring it up during our bouts, pleading for fledgling truces dedicated to delineating the root of the conflict, but to no avail. I couldn't help thinking there had to be a better solution than this.
\nPrimed by this experience, I increasingly started to spot these breakdowns in communication in every area of life, ranging from mild to severe and independent of my direct involvement.
\nIt didn't matter if it was with friends and family, at work, or between strangers on the internet. So much conflict, so little productivity. Most of the time, even the contenders don't really seem to know what they're actually fighting about. And it's not like the settlements are any better. Usually, one party eventually gives up and hightails or yields, at least in appearances. Other times, a shoddy compromise is half-agreed upon without ever considering whether it genuinely addresses any of the underlying problems. Again and again, the senselessness of the whole affair irked me. There definitely had to be a better way to go about this.
\nWhen I discovered Nonviolent Communication a few years later, I knew I had just found what I had been looking for all this time. I finally had a framework to explain why conflict happened and how to resolve it.
\nBefore we get into alleviating strategies, let's try to understand the problem first.
\nThe theory of constraints posits that every system is held back by its smallest bottleneck, which reduces the entire output to the latter's maximum capacity. As such, the key lever to unlocking a higher level of productivity is to identify and widen it. Think of a clogged tube, for example. Despite having a 5 cm diameter, if it's restrained to 2 cm for a short section by a tight elastic, its maximum flow will be capped by this constraintIf you'd like to read more about the theory of constraints, you can check out this post by Tiago Forte on the topic. It's also got some visual examples, which may help you understand it faster..
\nIt's an interesting framing when you set about implementing changes to a system, as according to it, only a very limited number of actions will lead to any substantive impact. Indeed, you won't reap the benefits of any other optimization until you've addressed the smallest bottleneck, since it represents the hard limit of the whole shebang.
\nSay we have two elastics on our 5 cm tube, causing a 3 cm and a 2 cm constraint. If you only remove the 3 cm one, the tube is still capped at 2 cm. If you only remove the 2 cm one, the tube is now capped at 3 cm, which is an improvement. Lastly, if you remove the 3 cm elastic first and its counterpart second, you have now unlocked the full 5 cm girth. However, you could only see the results of this compound optimization after removing the smallest bottleneck.
\nIn our case, we're interested in the system of human conflict resolution. I'd say it's still pretty dismal and has significant room for improvement. It'd be a gargantuan task to paint a comprehensive picture, so let's just abstract it into these two striking examples. If we consider violence as a conflict resolution failure, which I do, here are a few stats that support my point.
\nOn the interpersonal scale, according to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, about 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 menMore precisely, 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men. See Tables 4.7 and 4.8 on pages 44 and 45. It categorizes severe physical violence as anything beyond a slap, push or shove. aged 18 and older have been the victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime in the US.
\nBased on data by the UCDP, there have been a total of 1 533 642 direct civilian and military deaths in conflicts and one-sided violenceDisease and famine not included. You can visualize the data on the Deaths in conflicts, World, 1989 to 2021 chart of OurWorldInData.org/war-and-peace.
Source: the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset. worldwide so far in the 21st century (from 2000 to 2021 included). So on average, that's about 191 deaths directly caused by conflict every day, and that's while living in one of the most peaceful periods of the last 600 years.
Obviously, these stats are the result of a complicated interweaving of factors. Yet, if we focus on the interpersonal scale through the conceptual lens of the theory of constraint, I believe that the main bottleneck is our widespread lack of proper empathic inquirySome people may broadly encapsulate this concept within "emotional intelligence". I'm not the biggest fan of the term for several reasons. Having to stitch "intelligence" to emotional maturity in an attempt to boost the latter's perceived legitimacy seems more like an abdication to the zeitgeist responsible for its neglect than an emphasis on its importance to me. However, in our current case, its main issue is simply that it's too broad and vague.. In order to understand why, we have to take a look at the inner workings of conflict.
\nIn a nutshell, conflict is the presence of mutually incompatible desires between different parties, such that if one gets their way, the other(s) won't. If Mary wants to blast music at max volume while John, who's sitting right next to her, wants to focus in peace then conflict will occur. Same thing if they both want the last piece of cake. However, that definition is a bit too simplistic and muddles distinct elements into the same conceptual goop, which is in fact a big part of the problem.
\nAccording to the Nonviolent Communication (NVC) framework, human preferences are informed by needs at their core. These include basic survival needs (like air, food, sleep and shelter) but also broader components of a fulfilling existence (such as love, creativity, harmony, independence, learning, and many more).
\nThese needs branch out into more specific predilections (e.g. your favorite food), but they carry a lot less weight on your well-being in the grand scheme of things. Would you rather forgo sleep or ice cream for two weeks?
\nIndeed, it's important to note that these needs are primary and, as such, mostly agnostic and permissive. They don't require very specialized means or situations to be fulfilled. Regardless of personal preference, both pasta and zucchinis can satisfy a need for food. Similarly, many different people can meet someone's need for intimacy. There is no need catering monopoly.
\nIt's also possible to withstand most needs being unfulfilled for a substantial amount of time, aside from the most basic survival ones. Granted, it probably won't be very enjoyable. This is why I usually prefer to refer to this concept as yearnings or values since they carry less connotation of "neediness".
\nA need's state of fulfillment is what gives rise to feelings. Satisfied needs usually generate emotions, which we tend to label as "positive", such as gratitude, delight, calmness, captivation, or tenderness, to name a few. Unmet needs, on the other hand, engender "negative" emotions like dread, frustration, contempt, apathy, despair, shame, and many more.
\nAlthough everyone has access to the same pool of needs, they aren't all valued to the same extent, depending on the individual.
\nWe're naturally wired to seek the fulfillment of our needs. In order to do so, we come up with various strategies. There are usually many different options available for the latter because of the broadness of each need. For instance, if you're hungry, you could cook a meal or go to the restaurant, and there are many possibilities when it comes to the specific recipe.
\nYet if there's this much leeway, how come we can't settle on better compromises more often?
\nUnfortunately, most of us are unclear about this inner process. It's quite rare for someone to be able to name their specific needs at play. Conflict arises when the strategies deployed by different people come at odds, and they perceive a threat to the impelling needs behind them. However, our awareness of the situation is usually pretty limited. We're spurred to action by a sudden experience of unpleasant feelings, and in an attempt to get rid of them, we infer an interpretation of their cause so we can put a stop to our discomfort.
\nThe actual needs and feelings are always "valid", however the interpretations overlaid on top of them most often aren't. If someone is feeling an emotion, that's a real "objective" fact. They are indeed feeling it. Furthermore, according to NVC where there's a feeling there's a need, so there should at least be one of those involved too. Nevertheless, there isn't any guarantee regarding how accurately they will identify said feelings and needs. The same goes for the story they'll wrap over them as an explanation, which can frequently be completely off-base.
\nAlas, people tend to disregard introspective inquiry. Instead, they fall madly in love with a single interpretation paired with a single need-fulfillment strategy and fight to the death over both. They'll identify with second- or third-order thoughts superimposed on their emotions and only communicate about the latter, adding new layers of confusion and misdirection for their interlocutors. Because these masquerading thoughts aren't the actual crux of the issue, "fixing" them may prove completely fruitless.
\nThe genuine pain point is always the need, not all the superfluous malarkey plastered onto it. At its core, what truly pisses people off isn't this superficial layer of the conflict, but that you're not "getting it". Not only are their needs not being met, but it even feels like their mere existence is being invalidated.
\nSadly, this pattern often spirals from singular conflicts to overall mindsets.
\nGenuine connection is a need in its own right. Whether or not we're aware of it, we're all craving palpable empathy—to be understood, to have our needs acknowledged and respected. Either this was the instigating issue of the conflict in the first place, or these new deprived needs go pile up with the others. In both cases, misidentifying the needs at play and poor communication only exacerbate strife.
\nTo make matters worse, the longer said needs remain unaddressed the more defensive we become, and our receptiveness to those of others plummets proportionally. Indeed, the more guarded we become, the less we're willing to be candid and vulnerable, which would ironically be the best way to dispel the confusion. Additionally, as we feel increasingly misunderstood and hurt, our resentment starts creeping up whilst our good graces evaporate. "If the other person is being such an ass, I don't see why I should try to understand their point of view." This inauspicious trend is all the more amplified when we get the impression that the people we're interacting with are willfully scorning our grievances.
\nAs you can imagine, it's far too easy for these dynamics to devolve into a vicious cycle where nothing ever gets resolved and the situation only keeps getting worse. Furthermore, when such occurrences are repeated, this dynamic starts permeating our baseline mindset. It's not like the slate is wiped clean at the end of every conversation.
\nIf someone has only ever been accustomed to receiving very little empathy and understanding, they'll be highly defensive by default. Plus, they're starting out with a pretty shoddy tool set for conflict resolution due to the lack of positive examples. All of their subsequent interactions and conflicts start at a disadvantage. When you're communicating with someone, you're also unwittingly dealing with the baggage of all their previous run-ins.
\nAll of this sounds pretty dire, but is what I'm describing really that big a deal? Does it truly have that much of an impact on everyday life?
\nYou might be tempted to say that I've only been talking about some hurt feelings here and there. Surely, these puny subjective vagaries don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. After all, aren't we a rational and civilized species concerned with loftier matters? It's not like Joe Schmoe is going to overrule the laws of thermodynamics by being keenly butthurt.
\nI could retort by asking whether you've ever opened a social media app, but that would be a bit too flimsy an answer, so allow me to further elaborate.
\nThe thing is, humans are social animals optimized for collaboration and thus highly attuned to collective harmony far more than rigorous rationality. Social psychology has demonstrated multiple times that our reality is highly prone to intersubjective malleability. From Sherif's autokinetic effect experiments and the definitely foolproof induction of reliable social norms of objective measurements to Asch's conformity experiments and the curbing of truthWhen it's not our moral principles, as shown by Milgram. to soothe social acceptance, just to name a couple.
\nFacts don't care about your feelings, and the fact of the matter is that feelings don't care about your factsThis isn't a prescriptive statement on my part, merely an observation.. A phenomenon that Edward Bernays fully and successfully exploited when he turned bacon into the staple "all-American breakfast" by pioneering a potent mix of weaponized statistics and arguments from authority or got women to smoke to further the feminist causeHey, technically, fewer women equals lesser potential for oppression, doesn't it? The math holds up. Seize the means of pollution and reclaim your torches of freedom from health!.
\nMore often than not, our more social needs for empathy, validation, and getting along supersede those for impartial deduction and pragmatic productivity. I'd wager you can easily find numerous examples of this in everyday life. It's pretty common knowledge that the personable incompetent loafer will usually long outlast the abrasive lone wolf high-achiever in most companies. It's also why, in spite of middling to deficient experimental proof of efficiency, many people favor alternative medicines. Their practitioners tend to exude a touch of reassuring warmth, which is frequently enough to beat their competition.
\nAs such, when propagated on the global scale, the makeup of John Schmoe's rancor becomes, in fact, acute cause for concern. Say, it could go so far as to affect who gets chosen as the leader of the current most influential country in the world, no biggie. I mean, certainly, the people would elect anyone but a competent, composed person who's got their shit together and more pressing concerns than daily bouts of mudslinging on TwitterI'm definitely not making a pointed reference to a fairly recent event. Any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental..
\nAlright then, so if we'd better start getting a move on, what can be done to reverse this downward spiral of parochial acrimony?
\nLet's end this first post on a slightly more hopeful note. After all, feedback loops go both ways. They have the potential for vicious and virtuous cycles alike.
\nIf we want to resolve conflict constructively, achieve better understanding and compromises, improve our odds of actually affecting change, and slowly start resorbing the damage worldwide, we'll have to start dropping some of the bad habits we've inherited.
\nFirst, keep the empathy feedback loop in mind. People will tend to match your energy over time in either direction. If you dive in heated and nasty straight out of the gate, you're off to a bad start. On the other hand, if you continuously do your best to deescalate the animosity level, it'll become increasingly difficult for the other party to keep being a temperamental gremlin in good conscience. It's almost always a good idea to take a moment to cool off before any interaction, if necessary.
\nAs the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There's a reason the golden rule and recurrent leitmotiv of Dale Carnegie's famous book How to win friends and influence people is "Don't criticize, condemn or complain". Most of the other principles he espouses are also based on optimizing for the virtuous cycle and avoiding what's likely to lure out the opposite.
\nSecond, try to see where the other party is really coming from. Unfortunately, they fairly often won't be particularly helpful in this endeavor. So do your best to triangulate the actual core needs based on what you can infer from the situation, and iterate based on their feedback. Most people might not be very good at identifying their needs by default, but if you formulate them well enough, they can tell whether you've hit the nail on the head or not. You should notice when you do, as it usually comes with a pretty sharp drop in tension. It's the interpersonal equivalent of finally breaking free from constipation.
\nDepending on the situation, deploying the entire empathic sleuthing apparatus can be superfluous. However, if you're trying to get someone to embrace a broader perspective (such as one including yours), you'll get highly suboptimal results until they get the sense that you're broadly aware and respectful of their ongoing needs. This step is almost always a prerequisite for conflict resolution. In any case, the other party will definitely feel a lot better about you and the interaction if you extended them a suitable amount of consideration in the process.
\nI'll dive into more practical details of the Nonviolent Communication framework in the second and final part of this series, but for the time being, let's wrap this up.
\nI want to emphasize that I don't believe conflict to be intrinsically bad, nor am I advocating for its eradication. I value agency and human needs. It's par for the course that the differing desires of individuals will clash now and then. I enjoy authentic diversity and recoil at the idea of the artificial peace brought about by the dull hive mind of a completely homogeneous society. Nevertheless, I'd be happy if we could get to a place where we don't feel the constant urge to psychologically or physically maim each other over petty squabbles.
\nIf we want to have any chance of shifting our current conflict dynamic, it's instrumental to understand why and how it's happening. This applies to both its general patterns and the core issue behind each specific situation. When we don't understand ourselves, much less the other, the odds of a solution emerging are very slim.
\nVery often, conflict doesn't arise from irreconcilable needs but rather from mutually incompatible strategies to fulfill them. Therefore, it's usually possible to find an alternative that respects the essential requirements of all parties involved. This process is greatly hindered by the muddling of strategies, interpretations, feelings, and needs. Coming up with an optimal compromise requires an environment of candid collaboration fostered through the demonstration of empathic inquiry.
\n