We all like it when someone agrees with us. It makes us feel knowledgeable and confident in our own opinions. However, disagreements are usually far more abundant, unfortunately, than agreements! And often these disagreements can turn nasty – very nasty… Any conflict that arises out of disagreement is very unfortunate, as it can always be avoided.
CSI: Caveman Sends Instructions
There is no reason that we all need to agree – that can never happen. But what is most important to remember is that it really doesn’t matter if someone disagrees with you. Why should you let it affect you? We often do. Why? Well, because of our old friend Ego! (If you are unsure of how the ego is connected to this particular problem, then please read the post entitled: Your Worst Amigo: Ego)
Small disagreements which turn into conflicts, however small, may seem to simply be part of the inescapable and unchangeable ‘way things are’. This, however, is shortsighted, as ‘the way things are’, for the most part, are what we make them. It is easy to say that humans are humans, and they will always vent anger and be confrontational, but it is also wrong. We allow ourselves to become confrontational – it is not hardwired into us! As a side note, I was watching an episode of Season Two of CSI yesterday, (I am, admittedly, absolutely addicted! I have now addicted my family too - they are currently watching an episode here at home as I write this post!) and one of the main characters, Grissom, mentioned to the coroner, whilst discussing a hockey game fatality, that (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the prehistoric DNA is still present in modern humans; we buy our beef from the supermarket rather than hunt it with a knife – man needs to vent his anger somehow…”. Whilst I usually agree with Grissom, I definitely disagreed with this theory/acceptance of this type of behaviour as being inevitable. We never need to vent anger, we only choose to because if are not skilful enough to control it.
WHAT’S IT WORTH?
For example, a colleague at my work place was trying to force his political opinions on me one day last year. He was absolutely bent on proving that I was wrong and that he was right. He was taut and quite aggressive, and was obviously not thinking clearly and calmly. At that point, I had already decided to be absolutely non-confrontational and passive, even if he said something that I fundamentally disagreed with. When he asked me whether or not I agreed with him, and I mentioned that I didn’t, he almost flew into a rage, stating that I didn’t have any clue what I was talking about and that he was right. After a few more minutes of raging monologue, he eventually stopped and looked at me, silent. “So?’, he said, ‘Do you understand?’. “Yes,’ I said. ‘Do you agree then?’ he puffed. ‘No,’ I said and smiled. He stormed out of the office in an almighty huff, slamming the door behind him. Later that day, I returned to my desk to find a series of photocopies of various articles apparently backing up his political views. Of course, I didn’t read them, as I had no interest in engulfing myself in a battle of egos, especially when I knew that my opinion would not change. I left them on my desk for a few days so tat it wouldn’t be obvious that I had not read them (me binning them in the office immediately would be a non-verbal sign of aggression, and possibly further antagonize my friend, who was clearly not really in control of his emotions), and later that week quietly slipped them into the bin outside the school. There was no further confrontation, however, as I guess my colleague realized that it wasn’t ‘worth’ arguing with me, as he couldn’t gain anything from it.
Let’s reflect for a moment. What would have happened if I has ‘stood my ground’ on the issue and played into the confrontation? And if I ‘won’ the argument somehow, what would actually change? Answer: nothing, apart from the fact that my friendship with my colleague would have weakened further. I considered my friendship with my colleague more important that convincing him that my views were correct and his were incorrect. At the end of the day, it is his life. The point here is this: If someone wants to believe that something is a certain way, and is utterly unconvincable, then let him; why should you raise your blood pressure and engage in negative behaviour just so that you can satisfy your ego by convincing someone that you are right and they are wrong, especially when nothing positive can come of it?
DON’T PLAY THE GAME
To finish off, I’d like to illustrate this point a little further by discussing the actions of another colleague. In fact, I’d just like to pick up on something that he said. It was concerning school reports, and how his line manager had complained that a particular report was too short. This colleague couldn’t believe the audacity of the line manager and flew into a rage in the office. When a friend told him to just forget about it and write an extra line or two (the report was, in truth, and in all our opinions, far too short!) he said, ‘I ain’t no chicken playing no chicken shit game!’ He then proceeded to crash out of the office and have it out with his line manager. Unfortunately, both of the ‘teachers’ were ego maniacs, and so the conflict turned immediately nasty, extremely loud by all accounts, and was even witnessed by a handful of students. Nice.
How could it have been avoided? Well, I would like to think that if I was in a similar situation I would:
1. Look at the report objectively, putting ego under the metaphorical glass, and write another one or two lines;
CSI: Caveman Sends Instructions
There is no reason that we all need to agree – that can never happen. But what is most important to remember is that it really doesn’t matter if someone disagrees with you. Why should you let it affect you? We often do. Why? Well, because of our old friend Ego! (If you are unsure of how the ego is connected to this particular problem, then please read the post entitled: Your Worst Amigo: Ego)
Small disagreements which turn into conflicts, however small, may seem to simply be part of the inescapable and unchangeable ‘way things are’. This, however, is shortsighted, as ‘the way things are’, for the most part, are what we make them. It is easy to say that humans are humans, and they will always vent anger and be confrontational, but it is also wrong. We allow ourselves to become confrontational – it is not hardwired into us! As a side note, I was watching an episode of Season Two of CSI yesterday, (I am, admittedly, absolutely addicted! I have now addicted my family too - they are currently watching an episode here at home as I write this post!) and one of the main characters, Grissom, mentioned to the coroner, whilst discussing a hockey game fatality, that (and I’m paraphrasing here) “the prehistoric DNA is still present in modern humans; we buy our beef from the supermarket rather than hunt it with a knife – man needs to vent his anger somehow…”. Whilst I usually agree with Grissom, I definitely disagreed with this theory/acceptance of this type of behaviour as being inevitable. We never need to vent anger, we only choose to because if are not skilful enough to control it.
WHAT’S IT WORTH?
For example, a colleague at my work place was trying to force his political opinions on me one day last year. He was absolutely bent on proving that I was wrong and that he was right. He was taut and quite aggressive, and was obviously not thinking clearly and calmly. At that point, I had already decided to be absolutely non-confrontational and passive, even if he said something that I fundamentally disagreed with. When he asked me whether or not I agreed with him, and I mentioned that I didn’t, he almost flew into a rage, stating that I didn’t have any clue what I was talking about and that he was right. After a few more minutes of raging monologue, he eventually stopped and looked at me, silent. “So?’, he said, ‘Do you understand?’. “Yes,’ I said. ‘Do you agree then?’ he puffed. ‘No,’ I said and smiled. He stormed out of the office in an almighty huff, slamming the door behind him. Later that day, I returned to my desk to find a series of photocopies of various articles apparently backing up his political views. Of course, I didn’t read them, as I had no interest in engulfing myself in a battle of egos, especially when I knew that my opinion would not change. I left them on my desk for a few days so tat it wouldn’t be obvious that I had not read them (me binning them in the office immediately would be a non-verbal sign of aggression, and possibly further antagonize my friend, who was clearly not really in control of his emotions), and later that week quietly slipped them into the bin outside the school. There was no further confrontation, however, as I guess my colleague realized that it wasn’t ‘worth’ arguing with me, as he couldn’t gain anything from it.
Let’s reflect for a moment. What would have happened if I has ‘stood my ground’ on the issue and played into the confrontation? And if I ‘won’ the argument somehow, what would actually change? Answer: nothing, apart from the fact that my friendship with my colleague would have weakened further. I considered my friendship with my colleague more important that convincing him that my views were correct and his were incorrect. At the end of the day, it is his life. The point here is this: If someone wants to believe that something is a certain way, and is utterly unconvincable, then let him; why should you raise your blood pressure and engage in negative behaviour just so that you can satisfy your ego by convincing someone that you are right and they are wrong, especially when nothing positive can come of it?
DON’T PLAY THE GAME
To finish off, I’d like to illustrate this point a little further by discussing the actions of another colleague. In fact, I’d just like to pick up on something that he said. It was concerning school reports, and how his line manager had complained that a particular report was too short. This colleague couldn’t believe the audacity of the line manager and flew into a rage in the office. When a friend told him to just forget about it and write an extra line or two (the report was, in truth, and in all our opinions, far too short!) he said, ‘I ain’t no chicken playing no chicken shit game!’ He then proceeded to crash out of the office and have it out with his line manager. Unfortunately, both of the ‘teachers’ were ego maniacs, and so the conflict turned immediately nasty, extremely loud by all accounts, and was even witnessed by a handful of students. Nice.
How could it have been avoided? Well, I would like to think that if I was in a similar situation I would:
1. Look at the report objectively, putting ego under the metaphorical glass, and write another one or two lines;
or,
2. Even if I sincerely thought that the report was of the correct length already, I’d take a moment to think about what I had to gain or lose from confronting someone who I strongly disagreed with about what is in reality a ludicrously small matter. If the line manager in question was particularly egotistical or aggressive, I would probably just write extra lines anyway to avoid confrontation.
This modus operandi is not akin to playing ‘chicken’, rather it is being skilful and behaving in a way that causes minimal disruption to my life – it is beneficial rather than superficial and destructive - and prevents me from creating any negative energy.
Think about it: why does it matter to you if someone agrees with you or not? (Notwithstanding extreme cases, such as defending yourself in a court of law, or similar situations!). In reality it doesn’t matter; it matters only to your ego – and ego is of no benefit to any us whatsoever.
So, perhaps the next time you are about to engage in confrontation, think carefully about whether or not it is really worth it – it rarely, if never, is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After re-reading this post, I thought I'd lighten the issue up a little by embedding one of my favourite sketches of all time. The sketch is called 'Argument Clinic', and is by Monty Python's Flying Circus; contrary to what you may think upon reading their name, they have nothing to do aerial entertainment and don't even contain a snake called Monty - however, they are utterly hilarious. Enjoy!What next?
You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:
Digg this postAdd to Technorati Faves
Add to Google Bookmarks
