Her agenda was my agenda

kristenervin art

She ran her fingers through my hair and stopped to look at me questioningly.

I waited for her to say something. I was letting her lead; unusual for me, but I recognized she had more experience in this area than I did. I was at her place and she was in control.

“Do you want it long enough to tuck behind your ears?” she asked.

Yes, I replied, and she went to work. After a few minutes, she said, “I like that podcast. My boyfriend and I listened to him all the way down on our drive to Florida.”

“What?” I was puzzled.

“I just noticed your hat,” she said, indicating the Joe Rogan ball cap I’d laid on the shelf in front of us when I had sat down.

“Oh, yea, he’s got interesting talks,” I said. “Looong ones. Good for road trips.”

She continued cutting my hair, then I asked, “So what do you like about the podcast?”

She stopped for a minute, thinking. “You made me think,” she said, with a small laugh. “I don’t know. It’s just…he asks good questions. It’s a good conversation.”

“Yea,” I said. “He has interesting people on the show.”

Later, I thought about what she said. It seemed generic, “good conversation”. I realized the simplicity was why the podcast worked for the millions of fans.

He just talked. There was no agenda. He started the podcast without trying to do anything but record his conversations. And his conversations weren’t politically stamped, although he did talk about politics. He talked about everything. Fitness, food, relationships, haters, and happiness. He wanted to have a discussion.

His curiosity made the dialogue less about lecturing you, or accusing people, and more about sharing information.

His intention was not to set an example, but he ultimately does set an example: Be curious, be resepctful, and don’t take yourself too seriously.

How sneaky if that was his agenda all along?

My opinion is worth more than your’s

 

udge-a-man-by-his-questions-rather-than-his-answers-18584001.png

 

Knowledge doesn’t come from regular judgments and proclamations based on my perspective.

It comes from gathering all the information I can.

It’s called curiosity. And it’s where knowledge comes from.

Not from condemnations..not from generalizations… and certainly not from assumptions about other people’s character.

Knowledge and growth comes from discussion.

You know what happens when you assume?

never apologize

How people view you is how they view you: It is an opinion.

Certainly your history is a significant yard stick of what you’re capable of, yet it is only an estimation made by others based on personal biases and snapshots, bits and pieces made into a generalization.

No need to explain yourself to their judgments. Simply let them be.

But don’t allow misrepresentation and assumptions to be perpetuated by being polite.

Speak out. Or else emotion become action. And noisy mobs become truth makers.

The fight satisfies

vs

Battle lines drawn.

Positions solidified.

Arguments made.

All thrilling, perhaps fun, but unlikely to change minds.

If your cause is important enough, it’s worth taking the time and emotional energy to make your case without an argument. The opportunity is to recast your outcome in terms of the other person’s worldview, not insist that they change what they want or what they think they know.

The culture isn’t immutable. You can change it.

But not by picking a fight.

 

Reposted from Seth Godin’s blog.

 

Is it corruption if everyone accepts it?

Orwell

Walmart…and McDonald’s… and Tyson, Foods, can (and do) dictate the price of goods they buy because of their monopoly-like influence over their suppliers.

Similarly, large media conglomerates…including Google, YouTube, and Facebook, can (and do) dictate what is allowed to be communicated by their customers.

Orwell wasn’t especially smart (or paranoid) in predicting a future where your words and actions are monitored and controlled.  He was simply observing the consequences of human nature, seen throughout history:

Power is concentrated in large institutions, whether they are large corporate institutions or large government institutions.  And after time, that power is abused.

The questions is: Why do we elect government leaders who continue to allow these large corporate institutions to disrupt our economy?

Why allow such influence on our businesses, our speech…over our very livelihood?