About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You must ultimately shape yourself into someone whose company you enjoy.
I love that sentence, Luke.

Ed


Post 1

Friday, July 15, 2011 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If I could go back in time and explain this to myself at age 13, the common age of transition into "adult in training" mode, would I have believed it even coming from my future Self?

Or do all adolescents have to experience the stinging loss of selling a little of their souls before they "get it" and not only learn of this technique, but employ it effectively?

These are rhetorical questions. I think a young mind properly trained in the classical ways to ponder the "Big Questions" would be in a decent position to digest the advice properly. Others? Not so much. I would have fallen into the latter category.

What about others here?

As an interesting aside, I receive occasional e-mail newsletters from Yates Canipe of Straightforward Inc., a seminar company. He had this to say recently:

Yesterday at lunch a young man started telling me about a movie/documentary (propaganda in my opinion) that he had seen which PROVED the OUR GOVERNMENT was responsible for the World Trade Center attack. I could have argued with him on facts or observation. It would have been frustrating for you as it would have been for me as you know that his mind is made up, HE THINKS. So I asked:

Then you are saying that the Muslims had nothing to do with it? No Response.

Which party in the government led this attack, the Democrats or Republicans? No Response.

What about the other planes? No Response.

Who exactly in the government benefited from the attack and how? No Response.

I then shut up.

If you do not respond in some manner, then you are agreeing with them. However, the response does not have to be arguing with them. It can simply be a statement that you do not believe it. Your actions will have more impact that words.


Sound advice!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/15, 7:43pm)


Post 2

Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 7:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Luke! I learned that technique in sales training many long years ago.

It does not work so well here, where we come specifically to address core issues. Nonetheless, Givens's point is well made.

Allow me to also recommend Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury.

Members of the Harvard Negotiation Project, Fisher and Ury focused on the psychology of negotiation in their method, "principled negotiations", finding acceptable compromise by determining which needs are fixed and which flexible for negotiators.

[I point out that this is a key: people simply may not or purposely do not reveal the true negotiating point. For instance, in numismatics, we might argue "price" when what is really at issue is grade.]

By 1987, the book had been adopted in several school districts to help students understand "non-adversarial bargaining".

[The problem is basic: when we disagree, we fall back to a me-versus-you dialog. But, most often, both parties want the same thing - a deal on some terms - or they would not be talking. The authors explain how this also applies to hostage situations.]

In 1991, the book was issued in a second edition with Bruce Patton, an editor of the first edition, listed as a co-author. The book became a perennial best-seller. By July 1998, it had been appearing for more than three years on Business Week's "Best-Seller" book list. As of December 2007, it was still making appearances on the list as one of the "Longest Running Best Sellers" in paperback business books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_to_YES


This book was recommended to our numismatic educational seminar by a lawyer for Heritage Auctions.

One of the many, many insights was that when you negotiate, do not sit opposite the other person. Sit on the same side of the table.


Post 3

Thursday, April 19, 2012 - 4:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the article, I wrote:

"In the end, this has everything to do with honoring the Self as the ultimate value. You must ultimately shape yourself into someone whose company you enjoy. Everyone else may withdraw from your life, but you still must live with yourself. So make sure you maintain a solid relationship with yourself even if others leave as a result."

I posted this article at College Confidential and got this response to that passage:

Ouch. Not an approach to life I want to pass on to my kids. Here's an alternative, from E. M. Forster: "Only connect."

I thought that was funny and shows the contrast between Objectivism and the rest of the world.

Post 4

Thursday, April 19, 2012 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The 'ouch' is a dead giveaway; yet another existentially terrified creature, driven only by abject fealty to their herd mentality genes.

"Kids, forget about shining up your self; claw over the backs of others, uber alles."

Bringing something to the tribe, you see, is 'selfish', while glomming onto the backs of others and showing them your sores is a virtue.

regards,
Fred



Post 5

Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 10:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

You just made me think of this harsh phrase:
the morality of maggots
And whether it is harsh or not has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

:-)

Ed


Post 6

Friday, January 25 - 7:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Instead of getting defensive, say, "Thanks for letting me know your thoughts. I’ll consider them."

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/25, 7:51pm)



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.