Whenever a point is made, it is often not made with everyone in mind
Rob, this one is for you 😘
For everyone else, please note that this is very tongue in cheek. Cheers!
One of the lessons that took me a decade to learn: don’t make 5 points when you could’ve made 1 point 5 times.
People will forget 99% of what you said by the next day. Tell them one story. Share one idea. Make it interesting by making it useful.
NOW…
Let’s talk about the phrase “well, it depends” or “it’s more nuanced than that”.
Of course it is! It will always depend on context, and there’s always a spectrum to every answer. Very, very rarely is something ever all black or all white.
Pointing out that the idea isn’t right per se in x,y,z circumstance or that it doesn’t hold true when the stars and moon align to celestial North–is not useful. The point of sharing an idea is often not to address every nuance there ever was. The point is often to share what is hopefully useful in this given circumstance.
If you wish to demonstrate all the things not included in the abbreviated version of this argument, then show how bringing up a counter situation is useful. If I said, “I believe everyone should go on a 20 minute walk daily”, then it is not particularly helpful to mention that they shouldn’t when its raining or snowing or monsooning outside.
A teacher I had in college would say, “it depends,” is the college answer. You don’t pick a side and argue that. Stand on the middle of the fence, show how side A is kind of correct and how side B is kind of correct.
Naw. Pick a side. Please. It’s more fun for everyone, and it forces you to be specific. It forces you to make it practical.
As I think about this all more, I believe part of the mistake is when people ask for feedback, the feedback-ee (lol, not a word but I think you under mean what I stood 😜) starts looking for every counterargument and point that they can. This is good, but sometimes too abstract.
I think the feedback-ee should start with what they found was actually useful—meaning they might try to use it in their life. Then, if nothing was useful, they might try to suggest what would have made their buddy’s idea useful.
Let’s run an example.
Me: Let’s say I make the claim that people who are depressed should try to work out more. This can decrease their depressive symptoms. It probably doesn’t address the root cause, but can work drastically well.
Them: you’re wrong, it varies person by person and working out is not a one-size-fits-all shoe.
This is almost always true…
Me: Agreed. So what’s your point?
Them: For me, what helped the most was medication.
Another person: Medication is wrong. You should try herbal tea and meditation! It worked for me!
Another stranger: You’re all wrong! You should…
And so on, and so on.
This is where ideas fracture, and people begin saying, “everyone has their own truth.”
BUT THAT ISN’T USEFUL. THAT’S ANOTHER VERSION OF “IT DEPENDS.”
Rather, what is true here is probably that everyone first believes their own experience. We are egocentric creatures that can easily think, “if it worked for me, it can work for you. We are both human. Try this.”
So Here Is The Kicker
There are many different ways to come to the same solutions. Thousands of ways. If I present something, it could be because I think it is the path with the greatest chance of success—i.e., it has the highest likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Other solutions would work, but they are riskier or dependent on being in another context.
Saying, “A depressed person should exercise more,” is not negating all of the other ways to reduce depressive symptoms. It is not a comprehensive answer to only say ‘you should exercise more’, but it is a simple enough answer to give someone one obvious action to choose or not choose to do.
I think presenting one idea with one to two suggested actions is the strategy most likely to change someone’s behavior. As opposed to presenting 15 ideas and hoping your audience is able to determine the best of them. Synthesis and distillation of ideas is huge.
I have read hundreds of articles. I have forgotten 99% of them. The long lists of “87 things you should do before you die” are not more enticing than the short list of “2 Things You Should Absolutely Do Before You Kick the Can.”
No analysis paralysis. No second-guessing if I picked the right order to experience things in. Just the beauty of 2 simple suggestions.
The idea giver bears the risk of seeming unintelligent, but that’s when it gets really fun.
Here’s a way of looking at it. Think about the best, the worst, and the average presentation that you’ve heard.
The worst presentation had someone who spoke for an hour, but you have no idea what they said in all their gibberish. They may have argued fifteen different things, and you thought 15 of them were pointless and underdeveloped.
The average presentation makes 5 or less points and seems to have a lot of fluff stuff but 1 or 2 of the ideas were good, so it wasn’t a complete waste of time.
The best presentation probably made 1 or 2 big points in several different ways over the course of the hour. You left feeling like you knew what you needed to do next and that none of the counterarguments you had in mind were stronger–i.e. more effective–than what was presented..
One more reframe.
Beginners tend to speak at length because they are still discovering what they mean; they circle the truth, hoping volume will substitute for clarity. Masters do the opposite. Having already done the sorting, they can afford to say less—even at the risk of sounding simple.
Excess words are often the tax paid for unfinished thinking. The beginner explains everything because they don’t yet know what can be left out; the master omits judiciously because they know exactly what survives compression. To the beginner, being simple appears unintelligent.
Huge Caveat
Always make your own decisions and question what people say. There’s a greater than zero chance their idea isn’t just useless but harmful.
So I say, instead of looking for ways to disprove what they are saying, look for the idea that is more useful than theirs and present that as the counterargument. You must argue for a specific action, behavior, or thought pattern that is superior to theirs in practice.
Yes, it always depends. But tell me why that matters, and if I missed anything of significance in the nuances that were disregarded.
Final point to be disagreed or agreed with: I think teachers, friends, and strangers will have much more productive conversations by framing their ideas on what behavior is most likely to achieve the desired outcome.
Future Thinking
This inspires me to continue pondering what it is to ask others for feedback and how to cultivate the “whose idea is more useful” mentality in debate. How do you recognize when the purpose of an idea is not for the logical correctness of it, but for the emotional clarity it brings?