Arrogance? Insularity? I dunno
May. 21st, 2002 12:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyWhy is it that some people are incapable of understanding that there is a difference between "Not listening" and "Not agreeing"?
Having recently been in an argument with someone, I have finally withdrawn from it when I realised that the person in qustion wasn't prepared to accept that I didn't agree with his point and the only possible reason that he hasn't won me over is that I'm not listening.
I find this POV surprisingly arrogant; to assume that your argument is so good that all who hear it shall be won over (so long as they listen) *is* arrogant, I'm sure. Perhaps alternatively it's an inability to understand that others see the world differently, or that your argument isn't that convincing, or that there may be a better way of doing things (in others eyes, anyway). In short, a point of view that differs from your own, and your own argument is of insufficient merit or strength to change that point of view as it does not hold up to counterargument.
Being disagreed with is a part of life - we all come to understand, as we grow, that sometimes others do not see the same world that we do. Sometimes, philosophical or personal reasons mean that we do not see eye to eye with others. I've always felt that in such a situation the best thing to do is understand that you aren't going to agree and either try to find an alternative solution, and try and work around the problem to acheive an acceptable solution. It saddens me that many people, rather than taking action to achieve what they want, would rather bitch because others refuse to take it for them.
Having recently been in an argument with someone, I have finally withdrawn from it when I realised that the person in qustion wasn't prepared to accept that I didn't agree with his point and the only possible reason that he hasn't won me over is that I'm not listening.
I find this POV surprisingly arrogant; to assume that your argument is so good that all who hear it shall be won over (so long as they listen) *is* arrogant, I'm sure. Perhaps alternatively it's an inability to understand that others see the world differently, or that your argument isn't that convincing, or that there may be a better way of doing things (in others eyes, anyway). In short, a point of view that differs from your own, and your own argument is of insufficient merit or strength to change that point of view as it does not hold up to counterargument.
Being disagreed with is a part of life - we all come to understand, as we grow, that sometimes others do not see the same world that we do. Sometimes, philosophical or personal reasons mean that we do not see eye to eye with others. I've always felt that in such a situation the best thing to do is understand that you aren't going to agree and either try to find an alternative solution, and try and work around the problem to acheive an acceptable solution. It saddens me that many people, rather than taking action to achieve what they want, would rather bitch because others refuse to take it for them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thats what pisses me off
Date: 2002-07-04 03:45 pm (UTC)People who say "No" to ideas you present, but can offer no actual substansive argument as to why, or why their way is better, or why a certain rule is enforced.
A lot of the problem is that people invest too much of themselves in their ideas, so by attacking the idea or the establishment they see you as by extension attacking them.