They Just Don't Understand

When we debate substantive issues with others at work, and progress towards resolution stalls, we sometimes suspend open debate. Meanwhile, though, the debate can continue in our minds, or privately among like-minded colleagues. One focus of ongoing private debate is a series of attempts to explain why those on the other side disagree. Ironically, many of the more popular explanations perhaps tell us more about ourselves than they do about the behavior or obstinacy of those with whom we disagree.

In what follows, I'll refer in the first person to those offering explanations — "us," "our," and "we." I'll refer in the third person to "our" debate opponents — "they," "their," and "them."

They're being illogical

Do we really believe that their capacity for logical reasoning is insufficient for this particular task? Really?

What appears as a logical flaw in their thinking can actually arise from information we ourselves lack or have forgotten. Or possibly, someone else is actively concealing that information. When logical errors seem like the best explanation, search instead for forgetfulness, deception, self-deception, hidden agendas, or blind agendas.

They're being hypocritical or inconsistent

When it seems that they're applying a standard inconsistently, especially for their own benefit, hypocrisy is a possibility. But do they really think so little of our powers of perception that they believe we won't notice?

Explanations of others' behavior by which we place ourselves in morally superior positions deserve close scrutiny. Examine carefully the argument that they're being inconsistent. Is all the evidence available and valid? Is there no other interpretation of that evidence?

Our arguments are weak

Perhaps they disagree because our arguments are weak or flawed in some way. An indicator of this explanation is the urge to perfect one's arguments and try again.

If we've Explanations of others' behavior
by which we place ourselves in
morally superior positions
deserve close scrutinybeen careful, our arguments are probably correct. A more likely possibility is that we haven't evaluated our arguments from our debate opponents' perspective, which can include false assumptions or outdated or incorrect information. Check that the arguments address such matters effectively.

Our arguments are sound, but they don't understand

Perhaps they just can't follow our arguments. Really? Are they so challenged mentally?

This is another explanation that is as dubious as it is self-serving. If they're unable to follow the thread of our arguments, perhaps the problem is that we're expressing them poorly. Even worse, perhaps our approach is condescending or offensive in some other way. If what we say moves them to anger, it is our own actions that may be compromising their ability to think clearly.

Finally, when we suggest that our failure to resolve the issues in question is evidence of our opponents' corruption, we're adopting a very risky position. If we're mistaken, we've placed in jeopardy our relationship with our debate opponents. Damage can be permanent. If we're correct, then we have a problem more severe than our inability to resolve the question at hand. Attend to that instead.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Running Your Personal Squirrel Cage

As Glen rounded the corner behind the old oak, entering the last mile of his morning run, he suddenly realized that he was thinking about picking up the dry cleaning tomorrow and changing his medical appointment. Physically, he was jogging in a park, but mentally, he was running in a squirrel cage. How does this happen? What can we do about it?

Give Me the Bad News First

I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that if you wait long enough, there will be some bad news. The good news is that the good news helps us deal with the bad news. And it helps a lot more if we get the bad news first.

Some Hidden Costs of Business Fads

Adopting business fads is an expensive organizational pattern, with costs that extend beyond what can be measured by the chart of accounts most organizations use. Here are some examples of the hidden costs of business fads.

Goodhart's Law and Reification

Goodhart's Law, applied to organizations, is an observation about managing by metrics. When we make known the goals for our metrics, we risk having the metrics lose their ability to measure. The risk is elevated when we try to "measure" abstractions.

Recapping Factioned Meetings

A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 12: Embedded Technology Groups and the Dunning-Kruger Effect

Groups of technical specialists in fields that differ markedly from the main business of the enterprise that hosts them must sometimes deal with wrong-headed decisions made by people who think they know more about the technology than they actually do. Available here and by RSS on March 12.

And on March 19: On Lying by Omission

Of the many devious strategies of workplace politics, deception is among the most commonly used. And perhaps the most commonly used tactic of deception is lying. Since getting caught in a lie can be costly, people try to lie without lying. Available here and by RSS on March 19.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info