If you ask any of my acquaintances what pisses them off about me, in 99% of cases the answer will be my "patent on truth".
This epithet appeared approximately in the following context: I'm always right.
Well, more precisely - in my own eyes I'm always right, but there's no such thing as truth, so I'm a loser, and my patent on truth is shit.
Right, that's when it's not me who's right, of course, but my interlocutor - nobody's argued with this assumption yet.
At one fine moment I still wondered: maybe people are right? Maybe I've never been right in my beliefs?
Started googling. Turned out people who are "always right":
- don't know how to listen
- are bad leaders
- are terribly insecure
- get into defensive positions with and without reason
- don't sympathize with anyone
In other words, I was wrong to be like this.
What to do, they told me I was wrong, and I didn't listen to anyone, not empathetic.
But something still gave me no peace.
Why did it often happen that my patent on truth brought discomfort to myself? Why was I ashamed when people couldn't convince me of something and pretended the main reason was in me, in that I don't listen and don't understand?
First insights came when I started writing blogs and shooting videos. The generally accepted format of communication between writer and reader is as follows: the content creator lives their life, based on it ideas arise in their head, which they clothe in the format available to them today (text, video, song, whatever).
The content creator also takes care that a person who sees their creations has an opportunity to let them know their impressions.
In other words, the creator has the following areas of responsibility:
- live an interesting life
- birth an idea
- translate the idea into human language
- show it
- give space for criticism
- draw conclusions and return to p.1
The receiving side's area of responsibility is..
nothing
Of course, both in life and online there are responsible commenters who assign themselves such areas of responsibility as:
- obligation to delve in and understand
- obligation to compare with other ideas
- through these 2 prisms and the prism of their worldview translate their impressions into language understandable to the author (in other words, the comment is written not for oneself, just like the original content)
Unfortunately, personally my life experience shows that interlocutors both in life and online don't understand the importance of these tasks and care only about one thing:
- do everything not to keep emotions from new information in their head longer than it's comfortable doing so
After all, any idea that stays in the head for a long time comes alive, grows, presses, pricks, destroys the soft and evenly trimmed lawn of beliefs.
The task of such interlocutors' brains is simple - shift responsibility for cognition back to the author.
Let's return to the patent on truth.
Suppose I tell you that you're lazy and it's time to read a book.
This is my truth. Truth suffered through years.
You argue with me and say I'm not body-positive. That you can be lazy because Elon Musk.
For me this isn't an argument, and I continue pushing my truth.
You give up and say I argue because I don't hear you and generally, it's my complexes. What normal person will try to convince someone.
This is where the argument usually ends with your victory. You no longer hear my arguments, and you cleverly hung a label on me as a person not with "truth" but with "patent on truth" - you took truth for yourself.
And yes, I agree - in this argument I lost, because by my rules not proving something to someone = losing.
Logically, losses are uncomfortable for me, and I need to change my thinking systematically.
It happened that giving up the patent on truth turned out to be very painful - to believe in someone else's beliefs today and find out in a year they don't suit you can be physically painful.
Living by someone else's rules has more than once made me an alcoholic, smoker, drug addict, lonely, sad, sick, fat, lazy, stupid - the list goes on endlessly.
2 systematic changes in my life have helped me a bit, as of today.
- don't duel with those who disagree with your choice of weapon
- look for a question to which neither of you will want to answer "yes" or "no"
I'll explain in detail.
Choice of Weapon
Every Russian knows that one of the duelists chooses sword or pistol, and the second honestly attacks first.
Suppose I chose a weapon for my idea - I write an article.
For this I studied for years, created a blog, wrote stupid things, thought them over. Experienced pain when they told me I'm dumb. Paid for hosting, spent tons of time and effort.
And here's the article. For some reasons I used to give people the opportunity to ignore all this and write to me that I'm wrong because I'm generally trying to prove something to someone.
And I really believed that my writing is proof of something to someone, not just searching for the meaning of life for myself.
With age it got easier. I turned off comments, don't look, don't search. But I'm looking for criticism even stronger than before.
If a reader finds a way to delve in, compare, and most importantly, convey their thoughts to me and not stop until I accept them, I'll be extremely grateful. I just don't agree that an article\video\life idea that was born over hundreds of hours can be understood by spending seconds.
My area of responsibility as a creator is to find an idea and choose the language we'll fight in. Want to fight - attack first, but only in the language I chose. Want to choose the language of communication - take care that someone's interested in talking to you in it.
I'll simplify: my article can be commented on by opening your blog. My videos can be commented on by shooting your own. My arguments that you're fat can be commented on standing on scales with a book about proper nutrition.
Keep arguments that you won't argue with me because I'm doing it wrong with you.
In other words, want to argue with me,
Victory is in the Question
I confess, I really was wrong when I pressed people with my proofs.
You definitely can't win with this.
The only tactic that will lead to my personal win with guarantee is to find a question to which each of us won't want to answer simply, yes or no.
Key word - won't want.
Is using voice chat bad?
I think yes, you think it's OK.
This is the wrong question.
The right question is - let's talk together about what it means to us.
For me voice chat is a manifestation of disrespect for the interlocutor, desire to save on the message at the expense of the listener's time.
And for you?
I solemnly swear that I will always be only right and exclusively right, will have a patent on truth and, from time to time, you.
Want to walk with me on the water of my ideas, hang on a cross for a bit, and when you're tired, come back.
