I guess I really should try to do another post. There are so many thoughts that go through my mind at times and any one of them could be made into a post, yet so often, the inspirations seem to just sprout up and than pass, without any one seeming any more prominent than another.
At first, it seemed that I couldn't get any really strong handle on any single subject, so I thought I'd just introduce each thought briefly and see which ones takes off in the comment section.
Fortunately, once I got started in my writing, my thoughts did flow again and I soon discovered that what I was writing in relation to the basic theme of how I've been inspired by others could be broken down into two parts.
BB-Idaho said something to me once and I wasn't sure how he worded it. I just remember that it was in one of my earlier posts. I had to do word searches looking for it, but finally did find it in the post "Lessons for the Strong and the Weak". In about the 11th comment down, BB says "Never negotiate from a position of weakness. Always negotiate from a position of strength." This is an issue that I keep continually going back and forth on because I've never been quite sure whether people are more impressed with strength, or humble honesty. I don't know. Do people mostly like those who are strong or those who are real? I guess the context of the statement is in relation to the subject of negotiation, yet when I think of my own strengths and weaknesses, what is usually on my mind is things such as influence, impact and trying to deeply touch those I interact with. Perhaps that is another subject, other than negotiation.
Since I don't very often view myself as a strong person on a lot of levels in comparison to most of the rest of the crowd, I tend to go with the humble, honest, genuine and real approach, whether than the "strong" approach.
There are verses in the Bible that relate to this idea.
"10) Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." (James 4:10, KJV)
"10) Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Corinthians 12:10, KJV)
"5) Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5, KJV)
"27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (1 Corinthians 1:27, KJV)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Wow! What a prodigious memory! I had to look that quote up myself.
Actually, it was preceded by "Naturally, one thinks of the old saying.." The gist of that particular comment was that negotiation, in general, is more genuine between postions of equal strength. In war, the winner dictates the settlement..in business the boss dictates the
direction, etc. There are exceptions when the strong recognize their own fallacy..many moons back, at a management seminar, we partook in a one-on one negotiation. Given a sample case, we were to arrive at some
% of agreement. Given the number of Type A folk, almost all hammered out 50-50, sometimes after hours of hollering, table pounding and even tears. My 'opponent' came on like gangbusters, facts, figures and reasoned argument; he said he wanted 99%, but would give me 1% for being a good listener! Deep in the 'case' was a subtle situation which, I pointed out would make it not only illegal, but immoral. To the guy's credit, he admitted it and offered 50/50. I said I would argue some more, but 50% of illegal was STILL illegal...I ended up with 80%, by far the highest in the class. You know what? I felt terrible! My 'opponent' had given up his strong case, not because he was overpowered, but because he was a decent man with the rare ability
to recognize its one little fault.
So, perhaps the lesson is, you can argue from position of strength,
and even win...but sometimes..might is not right.
..long time ago, and I still feel bad about it. :)
There is probably quite a bit more that I could say on this subject, but for now, I have limited time. I need to go back and read what I've just quoted in context and remind myself what it was that I initially said in response to it. All I know is that this phrase for some reason stuck with me.
I'll read your comment again later, but for now I just want to comment about my "Prodigious Memory". I used to pride myself in keeping people honest by really paying attention to what was said and than catching people in their contradictions. They say that to be a really good liar, one has to have a good memory. You have to have a good memory to catch someone lying as well.
Once in awhile I would point out a contradiction to someone and get the response, "Wow! That was so long ago." and I might say "Well, I know and maybe you've since changed your mind on the matter.", yet if I'm talking to a chronic liar, the fact that I can sometimes remember entire conversations if I really pay attention makes them feel very nervous. :)
the point was, BB, you were arguing from strength there. strength means more than power. your opponent saw the strength of your argument over his, thus gave you the high marks.
remember, in argument or negotiations, the strongest point may be the ability to point out weaknesses in the other's case.
that, basically is the premise behind our justice system.
now, if you see that as power also, that is just life. but from what you said it sounds like you had nothing to regret because it appears he saw the weakness of his argument and learned from it. that would be his strength or power. he was strong enough to admit his weakness. that is a strength that is rare.
BB,
I understand fully what you said about negotiation being "more genuine between positions of equal strength". Unfortunately, power and "strength" can give one party or the other an edge and that is why it is so possible for oppression to over rule any reasonable negotiation.
You shouldn't feel bad about what happened. It sounds as if you at least in part earned it by putting up a good fight and providing a good argument. I guess that is the point that Griper is making. You were blessed to have such a good boss. So many of them are more into taking advantage than into recognizing their own faults in both character and argument.
Your final remark, BB, in that "Might is not Right" reminds me of something else I once heard said. A child once said to one of the adults in her life "Even if you have more knowledge and more skill in the area of presenting an argument, that still doesn't necessarily make you right." Woo! That was a very wise statement from the mouth of a child!!
I still need to go back and reread the context of the phrase in this post and see what I initially said to it.
I wish that I still had the memory that I used to. Sometimes I think that I'm beginning to lose it already. Oh well.
Griper,
Not everyone who hears a good argument will listen to it and reward it. Even you have admitted that such behavior is rare.
A lot of people just dictate and use their power to get what they want, even if it is at the expense of anyone else. I think that is the point that BB was making and it is the reason why sometimes true negotiation never happens and the weak just get trampled on. Unfortunately, this is a weakness in Capitalism and this is why some Government involvement is occasionally needed in order to protect the weak.
In your response to "That is just life". Perhaps soon, Socialism will be "Just Life". I think this is because when those who believe in Capitalism take their ideas too far to the Capitalist Extreme by removing all regulation and cutting too many programs, the other side rebels with the opposite extreme, which is Socialism. If both sides were more willing to negotiate more fairly and compromise, than perhaps we could avoid the constant swinging between the extremes.
Many, perhaps most, negotiations involve 'quid pro quo', wherein negotiators give up something to reveive something. You see it a lot in group dynamics: numerous varying opinion, but the group is reponsible for coming together on some project. We used to see it in politics..it is supposed to be a hallmark and strength of democracy. Now days, budging even a tiny millimeter is seen as a terrible abrogation of principle.
(One reason why everyone hates centrists!) IMO, without quid pro quo, two disparate sides will simply end in gridlock, particularly if the goal of each is to completely convert the other.
How often to we see complaints in the blogosphere about 'banging my head' or 'failed to convert a single person'? ..and thats not even negotiation, just discussion!
Gov't-wise, we hear 'you can't fight city hall. Perhaps because you are weak and they are strong?
Perhaps because you have no quid pro quo to offer? (You could refuse to pay your sewer tax, but
...good luck). Any discussion of negotiation need consider the give and take of quid quo pro...even Shasta the dog understands he need compromise to get a treat. :)
BB,
You have said it so well. You may be a democrat, but we are so very much on the same page, especially when it comes to working together and finding a way to compromise.
The reason why we so often "Bang our heads." and "Fail to convert." is because we are expecting more than what can reasonably happen, such as "Completely Converting the other". Negotiation is not the goal, only the Conversion of those who will not be Converted and yes, exactly, there is no "Quid Pro Quo" offered.
As for the example of the dog, even I have to compromise at times, by only expecting from him what's reasonable. I have to take him for walks because to expect such a high energy dog to sit quietly all day long without receiving adequate exercise is not a reasonable expectation and so I have to give a little even though I am bigger than him and am also the one in charge.
I guess I'm still thinking about this post and what I can add to it.
Since negotiations are "more genuine between positions of equal strength", power and strength give people the edge, oppression can over rule reasonable negotiation and too often the weak just get trampled on; Government involvement is occasionally needed in order to protect the weak, by giving them a means by which they can negotiate from a position of greater strength, whether than weakness.
When you think about it, you will realize that the conflict between the Democrats and Republicans is a negotiation process between the Strong and the Weak, or the Rich and the Poor. Even though there are some Rich Democrats, they still act as advocates for the needs of the poor.
When Republicans cry out and warn the Democrats not to just give out hand outs, they have a very valid thing to say, for this creates dependency whether than jobs, yet when Republicans insist that there should not be even the slightest degree of regulation of businesses ever and that there should not be any social programs at all offered, they are expressing an extreme and the Democrats response to that is to fight for the other extreme which is Socialism.
Perhaps, once in awhile, an outside party can recognize the folly of a negotiator unwilling to concede- 1 Kings 3:16-
3:28..a morality tale for the ages that still rings true..."my way, or the highway"..the epitome of
stupid. :)
lista,
first of all, stop exaggerating. to sit and say that republicans insist that business be unregulated is not right. and they do not seek to deny all social programs.
Griper,
I'm not talking about the Republican party as a whole, only about the extreme side of it. Not all Democrats are Socialists either.
Many Republicans come across as if they believe exactly as I have stated. Also, it is not at all uncommon for the cuts to social programs to be too deep when Republicans get their way.
BB,
Thanks for your comment. More later.
Heh,heh..our view of political parties may require some negotiation...for starters, Lista
seems correct in general terms, but Griper's observation is right
in specifics. Your turn....:)
social programs, lista, in order to be in accordance to the Constitution, is the responsibility of the states, not the federal government.
think about it a minute. if the states controlled the welfare programs there would less division in washington, wouldn't there?
if the states controlled the welfare programs the federal government would not be as big as it is today, would it?
if the states controlled the welfare programs that would leave more time for the politicians in washington to do a better job of ruling the nation, wouldn't it?
if the states controlled the welfare programs they would probably meet the needs of the people better because the needs of the people are very different for each state.
if states controlled the welfare programs there would be no overlapping of programs which cost more of the taxpayers money to fund them both.
now, granted, our state taxes would end up being higher but that would be offset by the savings we'd have in federal taxes.
and where have innovative ideas come from in dealing with the problems caused by these welfare programs except from the states themselves?
BB,
I'm not sure what you mean, BB. I run across extreme Republicans all the time. Especially on the web.
Griper,
Who said I was talking about the Federal Government? I'm just talking about he Republican verses Democratic Philosophies.
I'm not really opposed to more control being returned to the states. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that it's going to happen.
BB,
Perhaps I'll take the time later to come back and reread the above comments and see if I can figure out what you are saying. Meanwhile, maybe you can just specify what comments (Date and Times) you are referring to. Thanks.
and what is the philosophies of each party, as you see them, lista?
Well, there are a lot of different sides to both of these parties, but what I see within them is something similar to one of the conflicts in the Church, which is the conflict between Law and Grace and there needs to be a balance between the two. Churches that stress the law too much are strict and cold and not so loving, yet Churches that stress grace and forgiveness too much end up encouraging laziness and lack of responsibility.
A whole post could be done on this subject including lots of verses about both law and grace. I don't want to take the time to go into all that right now.
Though it might seem that desiring small government would be a sign of a de-emphasis on the law, in reality the Republican party is the one on the side of law and high expectations, not because they expect a lot from the Government, but because they expect a lot from people.
Quite apart from the moral issues such as Abortion and Homosexuality, in the private sector, people are expected to get over their hang-ups and fears with minimal assistance and "get off their butts" and find work. The reason why this can be out of balance is because many people have certain physical and emotional hang-ups that are much harder than a lot of hard core Republicans realize.
A lot of Republicans are quite judgmental and expect too much. This leaves people feeling judged, discouraged and without hope.
The Democratic Party is more about Grace and Forgiveness. Realizing the great extent to which people struggle both physically and emotionally, they offer both forgiveness and help. Often too much help. The reason why this can be off balance is because people do indeed need to take some responsibility for their own lives.
Where as an over emphasis on Law and Expectation and Responsibility can leave some people feeling discouraged and without hope, an over emphasis on Forgiveness and Grace can produce laziness, apathy and lack of drive. What is needed is some balance between the two.
Folks who study the political parties note a range from one extreme to the other.
That looks like an interesting page you left a link for. I look forward to reading it.
and i'd agree with the idea of a range of beliefs and if you really study it, it is no different from the range of ideas in the beginning. where should power reside, should it be centralized or dispersed? or another thing, should greater power be in the private sector of a society or in the public sector?
and i have never been one to believe that power can be balanced. that would imply perfection. and while equalized power would appear to be the best it needs compromise in order to get things done. and in politics, compromise is a winner for one side or the other. it can't be a winner for both. it can never be a 50-50 result.
Griper,
I guess I'm more interested in the second of the questions that you posed than in the first, though you have gotten me thinking more about the first of your questions.
What do you mean, Griper? Power has to be balanced. You just can't have one group of individuals ruling over another without any checks and balances. That just isn't right.
Equalizing; Balancing; What's the difference? I don't always like to get so caught up in the subtle differences between words. We may never be able to find the "Perfect" Center, yet that doesn't mean than we shouldn't try to get as close to it as possible.
Ok. So it's a 49-51 result, a 48-52 result, or even a 40-60 result. Come on, Griper. Let's not throw up our hands and give up just because perfection isn't possible. Even that line of thinking sounds like black and white or all or nothing sort of thinking to me.
i don't advocate the giving up, lista. remember i am the one that advocates the can do attitude. and giving up is the can't do attitude. you don't give up until you reach that point of saying i can't do it so why try anymore.
checks on power is achievable but balance is not.
and remember lista i am the one that is always advocating the ideas that you consider as impossible, by the fact you point out the exceptions to my ideas in order to show me that i am wrong.
as for balance of power in government you can't have balance as long as you use the democratic process of decision making. that guarantees an imbalance of power. the majority always rules thus power is in the hands of the majority.
as for the middle of the road type of politics that only means that the two parties are more closer to a unity of belief. some have identified those who advocate those ideas as persons called rinos and dinos.
and also remember that a nation united by political belief is called a dictatorship too.
Balance is not the same as fairness to everyone. If the middle wins, than the people who believe in both of the extremes do not get their way.
There are times, Griper, in which the words "I can't" are true. For example, a retarded person will never pass a class in calculus. This is not negative thinking. It is simply a fact.
I'm sorry if this sounds like an exception, but the whole reason for Governmental Assistance is for the sake of the exceptions; those who for what ever reason can't quite make it in a Capitalist Society. And yes, I said CAN'T. It doesn't matter how much you deny that this reality exists. It still does.
The actual power in the Democratic Process, Griper, is not where you suppose. Those who believe in the extremes are never going to get their way. The ones in the middle (those who can be swayed) are the ones who are actually negotiating and getting things done.
Post a Comment