I think the positives and negatives of many characteristics are so interrelated that it’s hard to distinguish one as a strength or weakness. Here are some examples:
1) Self
- Think of a self-disciplined and stable person. Isn’t s/he also a little boring as a person who takes life too serious?
- Think of a playful and spontaneous person. Isn’t s/he also a little indecisive or driven by superficiality?
- Which one relies more on internal values, and which one on external?
2) Friendship
- Think of a reliable and caring friend. Isn’t s/he also a little controlling or demanding?
- Think of a fun and popular friend. Isn’t s/he also a little irresponsible of his/her actions or undependable in crises?
- Which one advances friendship in depth, and which one in width?
3) Communication
- Think of a person who has the patience required for a meaningful and logical conversation with deep attention to details. Isn’t s/he also a little self-righteous or so rigid with principles that s/he ruins the joy of a casual conversation?
- Think of a person who enthusiastically makes mutual exciting and joyful conversions with anyone on any topic. Isn’t s/he also a poor listener or an unsympathetic person who speaks before thinks?
- Communication networks consist of nodes and connectors. Which one is a node, and which one a connector?
4) Progress
- Think of a purposeful and committed person. Isn’t s/he also trapped by perfectionism that slows him/her down by setting unrealistic or pointless goals?
- Think of an energetic person who voluntarily jumps into all exciting projects. Isn’t s/he also an uncommitted person who overvalues immediate results and ignores long-term achievements?
- Which one is more successful with long-term projects, and which one with immediate or urgent ones?
As you see, each strength (X or Y) is associated with a weakness (A or B). Here is again the old question, rephrased: How can we substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: “Either gain strength X to the cost of weakness A, or strength Y to the cost of weakness B” with a profound one as the third solution: “Gain strengths X AND Y to bypass weaknesses A AND B”?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Self-disciplined or Stubborn
The behaviors of self-disciplined and stubborn people may seem to be similar because both groups persist on their own set of principles, which are created based on some internalized values. However, I think, the source of internalized values, which could be internal or external, differentiates self-discipline from stubbornness.
Internal values, such as respect, love, care, competence, honesty, integrity, physical and mental health, intellect, etc are associated by human nature. When the principles are rooted in internal values, I refer the insistence on the principal to self-discipline. As internal values seldom change over time, the self-disciplined people usually hold on their principles for long periods.
External values, on the other hand, are coupled with egoistic motives, which are emphasized by external sources such as public eye. I think egoistic motives can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”; while the righteousness can be translated to being respectable, lovable, worthy, competent, smart, knowledgeable, etc.
When the principles are rooted in external values, the persistence is closer to the stubbornness side of the spectrum. External values are frequently changed in nature or priority based on the feedbacks that a person receives from external sources; therefore, the principles, continuously replaced or modified, do not get the opportunity to mature. As a result, the principles that a stubborn person persists on usually lack solid grounds.
From outside, I don’t see a clear line between self-discipline and stubbornness. But, I think that examining the source of values, internal or external, that a person utilizes to create his principles can locate him on the spectrum of self-discipline and stubbornness.
Internal values, such as respect, love, care, competence, honesty, integrity, physical and mental health, intellect, etc are associated by human nature. When the principles are rooted in internal values, I refer the insistence on the principal to self-discipline. As internal values seldom change over time, the self-disciplined people usually hold on their principles for long periods.
External values, on the other hand, are coupled with egoistic motives, which are emphasized by external sources such as public eye. I think egoistic motives can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”; while the righteousness can be translated to being respectable, lovable, worthy, competent, smart, knowledgeable, etc.
When the principles are rooted in external values, the persistence is closer to the stubbornness side of the spectrum. External values are frequently changed in nature or priority based on the feedbacks that a person receives from external sources; therefore, the principles, continuously replaced or modified, do not get the opportunity to mature. As a result, the principles that a stubborn person persists on usually lack solid grounds.
From outside, I don’t see a clear line between self-discipline and stubbornness. But, I think that examining the source of values, internal or external, that a person utilizes to create his principles can locate him on the spectrum of self-discipline and stubbornness.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Interdependent or Independent?
As mentioned in a former post, independency, despite various benefits, is prone to be ruined by some side-effects such as selfishness and isolation. To explain the solution to overcome such drawbacks, let’s rephrase the question in the previous post: How can we substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: “Either stay on own to keep the independency, or compromise the independency for the sake of interactions” with a profound one as the third solution: “Keep the independency, AND get involved in highly demanding interactions”?
Steven Covey suggests that an entity (person, company, country, etc.) matures in two steps: 1) from dependence to independence, and 2) from independence to interdependence. We’re mostly familiar with independence, but what about interdependence?
Interdependence, deeply rooted in “mutual” respect and trust, is required for all interactions between independent entities. It’s the hybrid of dependence and independence. I see it as the art of uniting paradoxes; a subtle merge to include the benefits of dependence and exclude the disadvantages of independence. In business jargon, it’s the win-win result: Benefit from the synergy among independent entities without the need of compromising their independencies. For analytical minds, dependency relations between two entities can be symbolized as 1+1 is less than 2; independency as 1+1 equals 2; and interdependency as 1+1 is greater than 2.
How can interdependence be achieved? I think that the self-awareness attained during the process of achieving a “real” independence guarantees the flow of interdependence afterwards. Real independence occurs inside while phony independence is more or less a facade. The two types can also be differentiated based on their underlying motives. More egoistic motives involved, the less real the independence is. The nature of egoistic desires can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”: I need nobody to either manage my life or get me what I want.
Egoistic desires are very strong motives to lead us towards external independence, but they are impotent to make us independent from inside. In addition, the fascination of the phony independence avoids us to proceed towards interdependence.
Steven Covey suggests that an entity (person, company, country, etc.) matures in two steps: 1) from dependence to independence, and 2) from independence to interdependence. We’re mostly familiar with independence, but what about interdependence?
Interdependence, deeply rooted in “mutual” respect and trust, is required for all interactions between independent entities. It’s the hybrid of dependence and independence. I see it as the art of uniting paradoxes; a subtle merge to include the benefits of dependence and exclude the disadvantages of independence. In business jargon, it’s the win-win result: Benefit from the synergy among independent entities without the need of compromising their independencies. For analytical minds, dependency relations between two entities can be symbolized as 1+1 is less than 2; independency as 1+1 equals 2; and interdependency as 1+1 is greater than 2.
How can interdependence be achieved? I think that the self-awareness attained during the process of achieving a “real” independence guarantees the flow of interdependence afterwards. Real independence occurs inside while phony independence is more or less a facade. The two types can also be differentiated based on their underlying motives. More egoistic motives involved, the less real the independence is. The nature of egoistic desires can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”: I need nobody to either manage my life or get me what I want.
Egoistic desires are very strong motives to lead us towards external independence, but they are impotent to make us independent from inside. In addition, the fascination of the phony independence avoids us to proceed towards interdependence.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friend or Mistake?
"When a friend makes a mistake, the friend remains a friend, and the mistake remains a mistake."
-Shimon Peres
How much time and effort do you think is required to substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: "Either diminish the friendship because of mistake(s), or ignore the mistake(s) for the sake of friendship" with a profound one as a third solution: "Keep the friendship as it is, AND admit/correct the mistake(s)"? What's the required level of maturity held by two friends that enables them to find (or at least, examine the possibility of) The Third Solution?
-Shimon Peres
How much time and effort do you think is required to substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: "Either diminish the friendship because of mistake(s), or ignore the mistake(s) for the sake of friendship" with a profound one as a third solution: "Keep the friendship as it is, AND admit/correct the mistake(s)"? What's the required level of maturity held by two friends that enables them to find (or at least, examine the possibility of) The Third Solution?
Friday, July 24, 2009
Independent (Free) or Selfish?
In this post, my focus is on selfishness as a potential side-effect caused by achieving independence or freedom. I think the level of independence or freedom we attain is positively correlated with the amount of attention we pay to our “selves”; therefore, highly independent people are prone to selfishness.
Think about a neighbor whom you depend on for a daily ride to work. The dependence creates a bond between you and your neighbor, and the bond brings in the attention to the “other”; thus, selfishness steps back.
On the other hand, in our odyssey to independence, the main point of interest is the “self” and we seek routs that provide it with freedom. We may lose, break, or replace many of our ties to people, society, organizations or any other entities that we depend on. As the ties loosen up, the amount of our interest and attention is reduced: We don’t care about those subjects as much as before. At all decision points, independence of the self has the priority #1; therefore, we are heavily concentrated on the “self” and oblivious to the “others”. That’s about the time when individualism kicks in, followed by selfishness.
Talking about the sequence of Dependence->Bonding->Caring, some people fake independence by reversing this sequence. To pretend to be independent individuals, they replace Caring with attacking, invalidating, or humiliating the entities that they depend on - or seemed so in the public eye. It’s similar to an exaggerated state of denial. Let’s take an example from a larger segment of the society: governments. Iran is certainly dependent to the west to restore its economy. Foreign investments are needed to renovate oil wells and industrial infrastructures; modern technologies to upgrade communication networks; or even fuel to get the cars moving on the roads. However, the Iranian officials pretentiously claim independence by challenging the west and considering the sanction resolutions as “pieces of trash paper”. Such fake independence is only a big lie or a result of self-justification.
Moral of the story? We need some extra effort and attention not to be driven by the selfish side of our nature in our journey towards independence to avoid the sweetness of independence be ruined by the bitterness of selfishness and isolation.
Think about a neighbor whom you depend on for a daily ride to work. The dependence creates a bond between you and your neighbor, and the bond brings in the attention to the “other”; thus, selfishness steps back.
On the other hand, in our odyssey to independence, the main point of interest is the “self” and we seek routs that provide it with freedom. We may lose, break, or replace many of our ties to people, society, organizations or any other entities that we depend on. As the ties loosen up, the amount of our interest and attention is reduced: We don’t care about those subjects as much as before. At all decision points, independence of the self has the priority #1; therefore, we are heavily concentrated on the “self” and oblivious to the “others”. That’s about the time when individualism kicks in, followed by selfishness.
Talking about the sequence of Dependence->Bonding->Caring, some people fake independence by reversing this sequence. To pretend to be independent individuals, they replace Caring with attacking, invalidating, or humiliating the entities that they depend on - or seemed so in the public eye. It’s similar to an exaggerated state of denial. Let’s take an example from a larger segment of the society: governments. Iran is certainly dependent to the west to restore its economy. Foreign investments are needed to renovate oil wells and industrial infrastructures; modern technologies to upgrade communication networks; or even fuel to get the cars moving on the roads. However, the Iranian officials pretentiously claim independence by challenging the west and considering the sanction resolutions as “pieces of trash paper”. Such fake independence is only a big lie or a result of self-justification.
Moral of the story? We need some extra effort and attention not to be driven by the selfish side of our nature in our journey towards independence to avoid the sweetness of independence be ruined by the bitterness of selfishness and isolation.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Self-Assurance or Self-Justification?
“I am a good driver, he jump out of nowhere”; ”I studied hard enough, the test was a wack”; ”I was qualified for the job; the interviewer was a dumb”; ”I am a responsible employee, the company is a zoo” …
Have you ever been in any similar situation that you needed to justify an event? Do you think it is a positive attitude to justify our actions in one way or another? I think that to some degrees, as long as we are in the arena of self-assurance, Yes! Maybe, I am a skilled driver, and the accident had nothing to do with me; I was well-prepared for the test, and the examiner did not have enough time to come up with a well-designed test; I maintain all the job qualifications, and the interviewer had a different background; … maybe …
Self-assurance is an optimistic view of events that protects us from regrets and losses, and helps us to stop blaming ourselves and move on; however, if we incautiously exceed in applying this attitude, we’ll end up in the other side of the spectrum, which I call self-justification or self-deception. It happens because taking an action or occurrence of an event that is in dissonance with our beliefs or self-image creates internal "irritation"; therefore, we tend to use self-justification to fade the irritation by interpreting the action as a match to our beliefs, instead of admitting the action was a mistake or the beliefs were wrong.
Self-justification is a negative attitude because it wipes out the opportunity to learn from the mistakes by running the vicious cycle of mistake-> self-justification-> action. Self-justification gradually enters us into this loop, and without our notice, it starts rotating us in this circle so fast that not only it makes us blind to the reality, but also it gets the chance to create its own fake world of evidences and beliefs. Judgments and decisions are powerful tools employed by self-justification engine to label and categorize people and events (“out of nowhere”, “wack”, “dumb”, etc.) to create a false reality. Then, it convinces us believe in the false simply by making us close our eyes to the truth or distorting it. Self-justification also enforces the memory to distort or purely forget the past events that do not fit in its world. It’s always amazing to hear a self-justified person’s version of a story!
Finally, I think self-justification is similar to brain-washing: The influenced person either is blind to the truth, or distort it in a way to proof his network of erroneous beliefs; therefore, he always resists to leave his world of fallacy.
Have you ever been in any similar situation that you needed to justify an event? Do you think it is a positive attitude to justify our actions in one way or another? I think that to some degrees, as long as we are in the arena of self-assurance, Yes! Maybe, I am a skilled driver, and the accident had nothing to do with me; I was well-prepared for the test, and the examiner did not have enough time to come up with a well-designed test; I maintain all the job qualifications, and the interviewer had a different background; … maybe …
Self-assurance is an optimistic view of events that protects us from regrets and losses, and helps us to stop blaming ourselves and move on; however, if we incautiously exceed in applying this attitude, we’ll end up in the other side of the spectrum, which I call self-justification or self-deception. It happens because taking an action or occurrence of an event that is in dissonance with our beliefs or self-image creates internal "irritation"; therefore, we tend to use self-justification to fade the irritation by interpreting the action as a match to our beliefs, instead of admitting the action was a mistake or the beliefs were wrong.
Self-justification is a negative attitude because it wipes out the opportunity to learn from the mistakes by running the vicious cycle of mistake-> self-justification-> action. Self-justification gradually enters us into this loop, and without our notice, it starts rotating us in this circle so fast that not only it makes us blind to the reality, but also it gets the chance to create its own fake world of evidences and beliefs. Judgments and decisions are powerful tools employed by self-justification engine to label and categorize people and events (“out of nowhere”, “wack”, “dumb”, etc.) to create a false reality. Then, it convinces us believe in the false simply by making us close our eyes to the truth or distorting it. Self-justification also enforces the memory to distort or purely forget the past events that do not fit in its world. It’s always amazing to hear a self-justified person’s version of a story!
Finally, I think self-justification is similar to brain-washing: The influenced person either is blind to the truth, or distort it in a way to proof his network of erroneous beliefs; therefore, he always resists to leave his world of fallacy.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Choice or Decision?
This topic is sort of relevant to my previous post. I was talking to a friend about the similarities and differences between Choice and Decision, and found it interesting to post it here. I don't emphasize on the terms I use, but the concept.
The similarity between Choice and Decision is obvious: You pick one (or many) options out of a pool of available options.
But, here is the difference:
In making a choice, you make the above selection, while you are still "open" to other options. You are still capable of seeing and acknowledging them.
In making a decision, you make the selection, while you "kill"the other options. You are blind to a portion of reality - which are the omitted options. It's interesting to know that the root of "decide" is "-cide" which means "the act of killing" in Latin. Some other words with the same root are suicide, homicide, and pesticide.
When I value the openness to the omitted options, I am NOT suggesting the hassle of continuous re-evaluation, the feeling of dissatisfaction with the selection, or the hesitation of time and energy required to pursue the selection. Here, I am talking about acknowledging all options, regardless of the selection result.
Finally, as usual there is no clear line between the two; they are pretty much located on the two ends of a spectrum. I think living in the Choice side of the spectrum helps us to avoid being Judgmental and protects us from Self-Justification. Judgment and self-justification occures when we can't live with many paradoxical options or signals around us; thus, we make a decision, not choice, to eliminate the internal dissonance. That's why I think this topic is related to my previous post.
The similarity between Choice and Decision is obvious: You pick one (or many) options out of a pool of available options.
But, here is the difference:
In making a choice, you make the above selection, while you are still "open" to other options. You are still capable of seeing and acknowledging them.
In making a decision, you make the selection, while you "kill"the other options. You are blind to a portion of reality - which are the omitted options. It's interesting to know that the root of "decide" is "-cide" which means "the act of killing" in Latin. Some other words with the same root are suicide, homicide, and pesticide.
When I value the openness to the omitted options, I am NOT suggesting the hassle of continuous re-evaluation, the feeling of dissatisfaction with the selection, or the hesitation of time and energy required to pursue the selection. Here, I am talking about acknowledging all options, regardless of the selection result.
Finally, as usual there is no clear line between the two; they are pretty much located on the two ends of a spectrum. I think living in the Choice side of the spectrum helps us to avoid being Judgmental and protects us from Self-Justification. Judgment and self-justification occures when we can't live with many paradoxical options or signals around us; thus, we make a decision, not choice, to eliminate the internal dissonance. That's why I think this topic is related to my previous post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
