If you’re reading this, I’m assuming you’d like to punch me in the face. My first suggestion to you is to go ahead and try(but don’t underestimate the punch you’ll get back).
But before we fight, let me try to explain why you feel that:
Why do you want to punch me?
You probably read/heard something, and now you’re wondering if I’m serious, or just mocking/trolling you. This makes you unsure of my intentions.
Is this guy a good or bad person, and can I trust him or not?
This uncertainty makes you uncomfortable, and you get a fight or flight moment. The punch is obviously the fight.
The truth is, I’m serious most of the time(and try to make it obvious when I’m just joking), and my goal is to do only what I can to keep society from collapsing on itself(because I’m part of society, and if it collapses, I also suffer, I’m not pretending to be a selfless angel).
But, Amando, how can you be serious about this one thing in particular? Are you dumb?
The answer is simple, we think very differently. I’m not saying my thoughts are superior or inferior to yours, I just express them differently. I assume we lived very different lives, had different upbringing, and that affects how we think because we look at things from very different perspectives.
I try very hard to not fall into the trap of underestimating those who disagree with me.
You could make all sorts of arguments as to who is right in that scenario, but given how globalized we are, try to imagine the complexity necessary to explain the same thing but taking into account 7.6 Billion people all with different opinions that are perfectly valid from their point of view.
Making sure 7.6 Billion people are able to understand the other (7.6 Billion - 1) points of view is impossible, so we need to find out who needs to know what about which points of view and when. This is the same reason you don’t understand why people above you(at work, or your parents) would make decisions that seem counter-intuitive to you. They see something else because they take into account different variables.
That difference can be all sorts of things, let’s split it into two opposite extremes, one is about a completely different external environment:
They are in a different layer of the hierarchy than you(for example: the worries of a CEO are different than that of a factory worker, but there are still worries)
The other is the same environment, but a completely different perception:
They experienced most of life in a way that was nearly the opposite of yours, and thus, interpret the same signals in almost the opposite way
That’s arguably the most complicated thing in the way of true globalism and the feeling of behaving like a species toward the future(whether it be on Mars or somewhere else).
The reason we disagree right now is because there is a mismatch in either:
- Our assumptions about each other
- Our communication style
- Our assumptions about the topic we’re discussing
- Our assumptions of what we’re actually discussing
- The details we have but didn’t share(or didn’t listen/pay attention to)
- All of the above
I tend to focus on the big picture, big patterns, and especially meta-patterns, and I jump around from one meta-pattern to another the same way you may jump from one detail to another, this makes both our arguments incredibly hard to articulate and share with each other. Neither argument is better than the other, but my default mode of thought is exploring big-picture patterns, it’s what comes more naturally. When I identify the right moment, I jump into the details.
My favourite thing
I love new points of view and will go further than most to understand where you’re coming from. Build a good argument and I’d love to talk it over with you with genuine interest in learning how to communicate with you in the future.