This conversation is closed.

Go along with the flow of a conversation rather than seeking to change it?

As the 'what is reality' (see link at end) conversation reached it's allotted time span, the issue of going with the flow rather than seeking to control it was put on the table and left Open. I see this topic to have global repercussions on multiple levels. Should citizens go with the flow or work to change what be happening? Should bystanders observe without intervening? At what point is one seeking to control what others do and at what point is one helping out by intervening? When ought one just let the flow flow and when ought one step in and guide it a bit? Are disruptors of a negative flow (who seek to put a stop to the bad stuff) the same as disruptors of a positive flow (who seek to derail and prevent positive changes)? How do we tell them apart? are there appropriate ways of judging? are there better ways to do stuff?

Putting this into the tedsters to see where it flows.


(http://www.ted.com/conversations/21159/what_is_reality_2.html )

  • Dec 18 2013: Something that seems rather paradoxical in nature is that the voice that most needs to be heard and listen the most be the one that least be interested in talking when others do not care to listen. Thing is that the most needed message is often the least welcomed one. I have come across individual that express the notion :"My way or the highway" who actively refuse to go along the highway. Curiously how they present an alternative that they themselves are unwilling to embrace. Many a conversation be stagnated least the flow go into watering the fields others stand upon.

    Succinctly put go with the flow when it takes you to a better way and seek to change the flow towards the negative ways so that it end in a better way ( just expect negative reactions from those who desire negative ways).
  • Dec 17 2013: This conversation allotted time is almost finished... any last words?
  • Dec 8 2013: HI
    people are categorized in three classes.parrot,bee,rebel
    the first group go with the bandwagon (flow)and just play along but about second group they THINK then make their mind.the last (but not the least)one seem cynical ,but this group are the only one who are impressive in their stuff and seeking for a challenging conversation.
    • Dec 9 2013: Are there rebel bees who buzz the leading parrots to guide their movements?
    • thumb
      Dec 9 2013: I don't think there are many purist parrots/bees/rebels. Most people are probably all of above depending on the circumstances, perhaps with a tendency toward one or another of those categories.
      • Dec 11 2013: Hey Harald...

        I in essence agree with what you said ...

        now to pass a gift someone once gave me...
        - How did you manage to write something that you didn't think about?

        I realize that by questioning I will likely disrupt the flow and push it towards wondering about why individuals resort to evident 'lies' (an untruthful statement be it intentional or otherwise). I trust you will consider my response with a bit of humor while recognizing the underlying issue I pointed out. What I would like is a change in framing that better reflects what individuals intent to say... by pushing them to say it directly. There are a couple of generic 'conversational forms' which induce me to jump at them rather than flowing with them. For example when I hear a 'but' and when I hear an 'or' and when I hear " I don't think ...'

        I consider going with the flow accepting whatever framing is being used... and while I can do it I tend to jump at certain forms especially with people I consider that can handle it ...
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2013: Apparently you understood what I meant, which means we have a similar interpretation of the English language.
          Since there is nothing wrong with the semantics of this phrase, I'm not going to get into any philosophical discussion about whether or not it could be formulated in another way ;-)
          By the way, there are different ways of going against the flow. Some that make sense and some that don't. Picking apart every comment you hear is probably not the best use of intellectual resources.
      • Dec 11 2013: Yup... BTW I only pick apart certain comments :-)

        Especially when I consider that in essence there exists an underlying agreement in principle...
  • thumb
    Dec 7 2013: Esteban,
    I don't remember if I engaged in the original conversation about what is reality... Age has an remarkable ability to save you from yourself, but I digress....
    But, this question intrigues me... maybe it's my training in engineering.
    I see a conversation where all participants are flowing in the same direction, mostly agreeing and complimenting each other on their wisdom and virtue... It's like looking at water flowing through a structured canal. Water is flowing smoothly, without turbulence. There is nothing wrong here, it's a functional flow, not exciting, creates no inspiration.
    Then there is water rushing down a mountain. It twists and turns, over falls into languid pools only to seep out and again rush over rocks, foaming white and tumbling loose stones... now that is an exciting stream of water. I like conversations that twist and turn, new ideas come in and are sent tumbling... quiet, thoughtful words that seem to bring a moments peace to the conversation and then someone makes a provocative statement and it's off again.
    But, that's just me....
    • Dec 7 2013: Like the metaphor you used... yea engineering can focus us into seeing the 'perfect' solution... then we have to consider the human factor with all its rational-irrationality twists and turns likes desire and everything else...

      I like to think everyone is on the right path, it's just that some are heading the right direction! ... and some just think they are heading in the right direction! The curious thing is that everyone is telling those heading in a different direction Hey turn around and head in the right direction, thing is some do it because that the rught reasons and some because of the wrong reason ... This question here seeks to figure out how would one know when to keep what one has got and when to change it... likely easier said than done...
      • thumb
        Dec 8 2013: Is everyone on the right path or is everyone on their path? In my experience, I have seen people on the path of destruction. I have warned them and I was ignored. Unfortunately, I was correct. I feel like I have failed terribly in these incidents. I question myself: why was I ignored, why couldn't I make them understand, what more could I have done to prevent this terrible thing.
        In our conversations on TED, we are not faced with these kinds of issues. Here,
        I opine on others opinions... there are those whose opinions I find well placed, but there are others whose opinions I find not well thought out... like "everyone should be healthy, wealthy and wise" I return with " Great, but, how would that happen?" They reply " Well, this group or that or the government" I go on to point out the if this group or that government could have figured out making everyone healthy. wealthy and wise, it should have been done in the 12000 years people have had groups or governments. That is how I got labeled as a curmudgeon.
        • Dec 9 2013: Mike,

          The path ... has a right direction constructive and has the other direction that leas to destruction... Fortunately you where correct, unfortunately they choose to ignore your warnings and chose to keep going in the erroneous direction... rather than turn around and head the right direction... for example consider the case you gave ... you basically consent to the point and ask 'how would that happen'? Do notice that in the three responses you reported they gave all of them sort of put the solution somewhere out there rather than on each individual centering on doing what each ought to do... when you present evidence that kind of challenges their responses they degrade the conversation into an emotive name calling projecting unto you what applies to them...a curmudgeon... nice word... will have to add it to my vocabulary...
  • thumb
    Dec 6 2013: Esteban, Way to broad of a selection here ... there are conservations where people say we want to collaborate when they just want you to shut up and fall in line. Examples would be politicians and your boss. Most companies say they have a open door policy ... do you really want to wonder in there and criticize the boss, the company, and tell them how stupid they are .... freshen up your resume.

    After a few minutes into a party I can tell what most are in favor of and against ... they are set and not receptive to any comments against their stand on that issue. They will hold a grudge. Would it really hurt you to say that is interesting and excuse yourself in search of your spouse.

    Should bystanders intervene ... again not enough information. One dead is horrible .. but two dead is worse ... take pictures on your cell phone ... get a picture of the get away car and license plate .... recall all conversation .... you are now a part of the solution not a statistic.

    Being passionate about a subject is great ... but it is important to not become a "nut" about it. If people start avoiding you and the party invites end ... you may have over done it a bit.

    As to judging ... is that really fair? Is it our place to judge? I can only make decisions for myself. We all have some we would rather be around than others. That is not judgement ... that is choice.

    I am sure that there are better ways to do things ... MY WAY LOL ... seriously ... I do the best I can ... I see people who have a better way of dealing with things ... It may or may not apply to me or my persona ... but I do try to upgrade and learn from my mistakes as we all should.

    All the best. Bob.
    • Dec 6 2013: Bob,

      I agree with just about everything you said and wonder what can be done to improve the company :-)... Yes it really hurts when somebody imposes a bad way rather than embrace a good way and it seems to me that as individuals and groups we ought to find better solutions to this kind of situations. Its a bit like the issue of 'judging' we be forced to do it while free to choose how to do it. Its a bit paradoxical when someone tell us "you cant judge me"- On the one hand thats a judgement call they are making of us, on another hand thats a false assertion, and still on another hand as I said individuals are bound to judge while free to choose how to do it; so we better learn the better ways to judge others and self (even it that happens to be YOUR WAY or someone else's way or my way :-=).

      OBTW I realize that - there are conversations where people say they want to collaborate/listen when they just want us to shut up and fall in line and do what they say. So why should we do what they want rather than they do what we want? Note that the solution to that conundrum involves just doing what ought to be done...Its not about what the others or we think to be it is about what happens to be.
  • Comment deleted

    • Dec 6 2013: Chris,

      Curiously I think you did not actually include me within the group of people who
      " ... fail to have the slightest concept of how others may perceive THEM and THEIR comments", thought I find myself belonging to such a category--- well for slightly different reasons than the ones you mentioned.

      It seems to me that most will go with the flow of a conversation until such time as the conversation begins to actually seriously challenge their beliefs and notions... many a defense mechanism will then be activated by their beliefs and notions to keep the others away ... or move themselves out of the other points or change the topic. Ideally one would work through the issue resolved it once and for all and move on to better things. What ends up happening in many occasions is that the conversation is terminated unilaterally with all sort of justifications for acting as some individuals choose to do.
  • thumb
    Dec 5 2013: If it is a stream of thoughts and ideas, I hate giving it a direction. The flow meanders into confusion, gets into a idealist cul de sac or falls in a brilliant cataract of a wild insight - one should let it flow. Freely.
    Some of us can stand at the bank and wash our mistakes clean.
    • Dec 5 2013: Pabitra,

      Personally I love giving it a nudge in the appropriate direction :-) what I still have to figure out is how to do it in more enriching ways :-). So any ideas on that would be appreciated ...

      At first the idea I got from "Some of us can stand at the bank and wash our mistakes clean" related to a story I was creating where one ventures up the river through the river to be washed clean. The muck flows down stream, trickles down, so that by the time one gets to the tranquil lake one be squeaky clean. In that story there where all sort of other analogies and systems related to dealings with 'the muck'... the water... the ways one follows...

      BTW 'giving it a direction' need not lead to meandering into confusion ... just as wondering about need not mean one be lost nor knows not where one be heading. As Harald pointed out "The trick is to figure out when to go with the flow and when you go against it". Sometimes we should let it flow - freely and then sometimes we ought get it into a idealist cul de sac, who knows it may just serve as a perfect filter to keep them gold nuggets in the sack.

      I am curious what you meant by "stand at the bank and wash our mistakes clean"... would you care to elaborate and explain it?
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2013: I spent 20 years working in a river. A river so treacherous, so grand, so wonderful yet so wild that it defies description. It changed the person in me. The lesson that I learnt from it is simple : never work against nature, work with it.
        Thoughts are natural. Like rivers. The 'muck' they contain are full of nutrients that one can have deposited and cultivate a good 'crop'. That is how thousands of years of wisdom has flowed.
        I have seen, up close, the folly of harnessing the flow into dams - huge monoculture atrocities that we misconceive as our great innovation for irrigation and agriculture.
        We can cut ditches and guide some flow into our thinking ground but never try to 'steal' the whole flow by directing it into an 'useful location'.
        I hope you know about the principle of dilution. There is nothing such as 'pure', its all about the concentration of impurities in things. Flow helps to dilute the impurities and making things clean.
        About standing at the bank - that's a personal choice, Esteban. I have swam enough, I guess.
        • Dec 6 2013: For a moment I thought that you might had meant to have lots of dough at the bank to pay off mistakes ... Thank you for clarify what you meant...

          Yes work with them rivers and guide them waters to do what ought to be done...
          Glad you saw the nutrient content of the muck... seems to me you didn't perceive the metaphor related to using idealist cul de sac as a filter to catch valuable stuff.

          Yea dilution can sometimes be used though sometimes it may be better to simply neutralize the pathogens and dangerous chemicals (or put them to do useful stuff). There be the organisms that sequester and even break down them impurities actually lowering the concentrations by use and/or transformation of the substances into innocuous stuff...

          In regards to standing at the river bank... remember you can alway get a hammock or a chair :-) relax and observe the rivers flow. Of course with 'the products' and 'products of products' of some good 'crop' while telling some good stories and creating them anew.
  • Dec 5 2013: Seem to go along with flow,Be a bystander, and control in a subtle and invisible way and let the people percieve and believe that they are controlling, but in reality you are in control of it . Just like the market which controls the lives of the people and the people percieve and believe they are in control of their lives.

    What I feel and think is it is easy to change or divert the conversation if it is going in a wrong direction , but it is very difficult to practically change the government going in the wrong direction or the society going in the wrong direction.

    I am just curious to know , have you been born on 4 or 8 day of any month.The way you play with words seems you have a strong influence of 4 or 8 number.
    • Dec 5 2013: Santokh

      In a way I see that you are sort of talking about the interplay of thoughts/feelings interaction with the mind/body to conform the story/spirit a certain way. It's also the interrelationships between individual - the group - the situation. Each seems to be a bystander observing/experiencing what be going on while at the same time subtlety contributing to what be going on by what 'they' choose to do (and not do).

      Its sort of curious how:
      - the markets stems from what individuals choose to do
      and what
      - the individuals choose to do stems from what markets do
      and still
      - it seems markets and individuals have behaviors all their own

      Someone said to me that they do what others do... and I responded if everyone does what others do ... who/what determine what be done by each and everyone?

      Many believe that they are in control of their lives/beliefs/thoughts when at most individuals may only guide to a certain extent what they experience BE THAT AS IT BE for that to happen individuals ought do what needs to be done when it ought to be done as it ought to be done... Many only come to realize what they have chosen to do after the fact. Ideally each will have clear guidelines of the direction they want to go, and will work around or move through the obstacles; in practice a blockage may divert the flow from one way to another ways. Its even possible that a new ways will be created. A simple intervention to help the flow flow may advert a disaster down a different gutter. Each walker on the path helps forms it.

      Yes it can be difficult to change particular ways, still the greater of tankers can be moved and redirected by a constant force, especially when appropriately applied at the key point to maximize the effects. Then there is the intermittent natural frequency resonating forces that add up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs )

      ---
      I was born on 22 of the seventh month --- some will consider that a 4 day (2+2 ) :-) Sum year digits = 22
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2013: Esteban, this is not an "either...or" question.
    There are situations when you go with the flow and others when you don't.
    Always going against the flow, no matter what, would quickly isolate you in any personal interaction.
    On the other hand, accepting something just for the sake of maintaining peace in a personal interaction, is equally inappropriate.
    The trick is to figure out when to go with the flow and when you go against it.
    • Dec 4 2013: Harald,

      Indeed we should keep in mind Go along with the flow of a conversation AS we seeking to change it :-) ... IF it ought to be changed.

      Of course go with the flow if it's the right direction and go agains it if it's the wrong direction ... (chuckling at the form : positive to positive, negative agains negative).

      Hopefully this conversation will go towards answering figuring out effective means to determine when and how to move with the flows in conversations... I heard eddies are good resting places...
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: I'm afraid this conversation wont provide you with an answer to your question because there are no rules set in stone as when to go with the flow and when not.
        It's up to the individual to make the appropriate decision.
        • Dec 4 2013: there are still some days to go for this conversation and participants may choose to focus on figuring out some heuristics individuals use to choose... I have a simple one I follow ... go with the flow when the story seems good and seeks to cultivate good stuff.... I tend to intervene into stories with a particular closed bias seeking to open them up

          what do you do in relation to when to intervene and when to stay out of the waters
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: The thing is, although a story might seem good, it can still be a bad story (and vice versa).
        I make the decision whether to go or not to go with the flow on a case by case basis.
        • Dec 5 2013: Harald,

          Sometimes thats a good way to do it... sometimes one has to work on improving the story... sometimes one has to let the story improve us... then sometimes one has to wonder whats behind the story teller seeks to put forth the stories they tell...
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2013: This depends on your goals and your respect for or consideration of the goals of others in the conversation.

    Where I live, one receives unsolicited calls from people trying to sell something or to collect money for a cause. A typical strategy is for the caller to start talking and to continue to talk, even when the person on the other end of the phone is obviously attempting to interject a "No, thank you." Because the caller does not want to hear what the sales target has to say, that person probably hangs up on the salesperson most of the time.

    In social settings in which people have expectations of a sort of egalitarian format in which people have comparable opportunities to be heard and have their views considered, if someone seems only to want to talk and dominates the conversation by talking more than his share, as though his interest is only in promoting his point of view or ways of thinking, others will often choose to avoid that person or not invite him to further events, because he monopolizes the 'air time' in a way they do not find enjoyable or constructive for the group.

    In traditional teaching settings, teachers used to lecture or put forward a comment or response to every student comment, like the hub in a network with many spokes. One thing teachers are encouraged to do now to engage students more in thinking is to facilitate discourse by limiting such intermediation and allowing students as much as possible to discuss with each other. This allows the community to find meaning collaboratively rather than to be steered into the teacher's particular way of thinking.

    If one often hears the suggestion that one is controlling, others may feel he is not giving everyone a fair opportunity to explore an idea through their way of thinking. If one wants people to engage in discourse, it is wise to give them space, even if one strongly prefers ones own way of thinking.One person cannot expect to set the terms of the collaboration in egalitarian settings.
    • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

      The controlling typically make a tantrum claiming that others want to control them especially when other tell them that it will be the highway (rather than their way) which will prevail in the discourse. Of course telling some that it will be the highway can equate to telling them what they want to hear... for their ways align with the highways. So its not my way or the high way it is the highway and everyones way so long it's aligned with the highway.

      The egalitarian format "all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities" consider certain fundamental principles of civility. In practice thats isn't followed even by 'the most advanced' societies. I have seen how the intolerant often demand that the tolerant tolerate their intolerances rather than everyone embrace the tolerant ways. I have seen how those who seek suffering and conflict make others suffer especially those who seek wellbeing, peace, dialogue. As you say certain people and ideas want to talk and dominates the conversation especially when the conversation takes a particular turn which will keep them out of the playing field because everyone will play nice now. Let us keep in mind what it is that we seek to cultivate and focus on cultivating it. Should one go along the flow of the conversation when the participants want to impose their conflicting views that complicate moving forward? Lets consider the actual better possibilities ? Should one intervene and set the terms of the collaboration to ensure that collaboration happens? Absolutely, in fact if one sits and observes what happens without intervening to ensure individuals well-being one is taking the wrong side rather than taking the right side.

      One person can make a difference to change it all. One thought, suffices to change it all...
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: You write "Should one go along the flow of the conversation when the participants want to impose their conflicting views that complicate moving forward? "

        Often the purpose of conversation is to make sure such conflicting views get a proper airing. While agreement on one course may allow for faster movement, that makes sense, from the standpoint of collaboration, only if the group agrees to that course.

        Many people, for example politicians, talk passionately about wanting collaboration but what they mean is that they want everyone to follow them in order to move things forward. That is not collaboration.

        You often talk of the "right side." But the "right side" is typically very difficult to identify objectively and indisputably. Many people are sure they know what is actually right or better, but others believe equally strongly that they know a different view is right or better. Each may hold to some sort of psychological explanation for why the other is unwilling to accept what is "right," naturally meaning their assessment of what is "right."
        • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

          I hold that when we converse on what we each thinks happens to be it helps if one bases it on what happens to be. In other words lets use what is actually right or better to guide individual thinning of it. Sometimes its very difficult to identify objectively and indisputably what happens to be, then sometimes its very simple it is just that some individuals refuse to accept it. As you say many want others to follow THEIR assessment of whats going on rather than follow what be boing on ...

          As you point out Often the purpose of conversation is to make sure such conflicting views get a proper airing... I take that to mean get properly resolved ... the thing is that for some that means follow along with their ways regardless of them being right or wrong or resolving anything...where as for some that means follow along whichever happens to be the proper resolution of the situation.

          Yea (Each may hold to some sort of psychological explanation for why the other is unwilling to accept what is "right," naturally meaning their assessment of what is "right.") Few will venture into exploring the psychological explanation for why they are unwilling to accept what is "right," naturally implying that that their assessment of what is "right" differs form the right assessment of what at is right .
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: One cannot use what is "actually right" to guide thinking if one does not already know what is right.

        Give some examples of things you would say are "actually right" in an objective sense but that you think people are generally unwilling to accept.
        • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

          There is a right way to do it and many a wrong way to do it. Some refuse to accept the fact that there is a right way. The same could be said about judgements, and assertions. Some claim one judgement is as good as another judgement... when in fact some judgements are better than others judgements.

          Note that in an objective sense if what one claims to be corresponds to what happens to be THEN what one claims to be actually corresponds to what actually be... In other words if one chooses to provide the right answer one gets the right answer, else one gets it wrong.
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: I think it is clear that if what you claim to be true happens to be true, you are correct in your claim. For example, if we all know my dog is named Midge, anyone would agree that you are right when you claim her name is Midge.

        I don't think you need to convince anyone of this self-evident statement!

        If you feel like it, give a specific example of something you would say is "actually right" in an objective sense but that people are unwilling to accept. The more concrete an example you choose, the easier it will be to make your point.
        • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

          The example of identical copies existing, or the case on an absolute objective reality, or the absolute meaning for a word. I consider these to be specific example of something I would say is "actually right" in an objective sense but that some people are unwilling to accept.

          You are right to think that I do not have to convince anyone of the vanity of a claim. If they choose to accept it or reject it that is up to them. In fact being able to prove it or not hardly changes the validity of a claim. By the same token being able to convince someone or not hardly changes the validity of a claim. In fact some get convinced to do the wrong thing thinking its the right thing quite often. My position centers on doing the right thing regardless of thinking/knowing/feeling it is the right or wrong thing to do.

          It is indeed correct to claim that if what is claimed to be true happens to be true well the claim happens to be true.... now to reiterate a point in the above paragraph: being able to prove it is true (or not) hardly changes the validity of a claim.

          One of the point I was seeking to make is that many a conflict would be resolved if individuals jointly look at the absolute objective reality. The thing is that some individuals may not welcome such proposition for multiple or reasons... and some individuals may seek such proposition as a way to do other stuff.

          Did the examples I provide help you see the point?
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: You write: "The example of identical copies existing, or the case on an absolute objective reality, or the absolute meaning for a word. I consider these to be specific example of something I would say is "actually right" in an objective sense but that some people are unwilling to accept."

        I don't think that these are so obviously right that one can attribute people's not accepting them to some sort of motive for not wanting to accept the truth. I think those who disagree with you on these are honestly not convinced of the truth of these claims.

        While proof does not affect whether something IS true, you cannot expect others to believe that claims you make are true if you cannot furnish proof or strong evidence. Your claim could as well be false. It is not as if no one ever claims things to be true that are false. Most thinking people are reluctant to accept claims simply "on authority" unless the person has special credibility to them and they have no practical way of verifying for themselves.

        How would you say you personally distinguish truth from falsehood.? Or if you prefer, how do you decide or recognize "what be?"
        • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

          You said "give a specific example of something you would say is 'actually right' in an objective sense but that people are unwilling to accept".

          From your response I realize that you just happen to be one of those people who belongs to the unwilling to accept them claims as actually right. Do note that this is just an objective observation of what actually happens to be taking place. I am abstaining from getting into the why's that some people choose to reject the claims. I am also abstaining from getting into a 'you have to prove it to me if you expect me to consider it'. I am even abstaining from expecting others to believe the claims or not. I am well aware of how the appeal to authority can shift the burden of proof and how this can be used in all sort of way that range from blindly following whatever the robed one says to dismissing legitimate cases because the robed ones say to dismiss them cases... tenured authorities in place only have authority so long as the assert edicts ... actually correspond with the truth of the matter... Of course them actually having authority to make a claim and/or usurping their position to make a claim are completely different matters.

          In regards to your last two question I could say that I have gone trough a series of ways... from believing what others told me to personally validating the congruency between what is claimed and what happens to be. Presently the one I like the most involves determining with certainty the way to go while under the uncertainty of a certain knowledge. In other words sometimes its quite irrelevant to know what is the problem what be quite relevant is to know what to do with the situation to bring about what one desires and ensure the proper way is followed. It also helps if being right or being wrong becomes irrelevant for the important matter was on what be learned, and discovering the truth of the matter...
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: What I was trying to ask was how do you, Esteban, establish "what happens to be." I promise this is my last question.
        • Dec 4 2013: Fritzie,

          What I do is create a single integrated storyline that appropriately includes the different perspectives. In more concrete cases I work the solution from multiple angles to ensure that the answer is the answer. And even then I wonder if I included everything in the proper way.

          I learned that someone option can be wrong or right and we should not trust someone's account of what happen (not even trust oneself account) investigate to ensure congruence between what is claimed to be and what actually happens to be ... preferably through multiple validations using different methods and approaches. Even then one should be prepared to drop what one thinks to be and embrace what happens to be if that's what ought to be done to ensure that what one thinks to be corresponds to what happens to be... doing this also involves keeping in mind one did what one did. Though as I have said before what one did in the past is no guarantee that what one does now will correspond to that past... sometimes one just has to focus on doing what ought to be done in the moment.
  • thumb
    Dec 4 2013: Interesting~! It seems this is the sequel of the thread "reality". I'd like to "sit in the sofa" in this thread.
    I think when you want a better reality and have a legitimate reason as well as means to change it for the better, you should give it a shot. Sometimes it needs some luck , sometimes it needs your continuous hardwork and strong willpower.
    • Dec 4 2013: Yoka,

      Yes as that thread was closing down one of the last ideas put on the table had to do with someone asking/telling me "why don't you just let the conversation flow rather than seek to control it" and I thought it would be worthwhile to explore the underlying idea behind that in a more general form thus I proposed this much broader conversation that has to do with when should one sit on the sidelines and when should one jump into and intervene in the game.

      In organizations this also takes place, when should a team member voice out and when should they just play along and see what happens.

      In a way having a nice conversation while sitting in the sofa can be ... all sort of things! Yes indeed a better reality ought to at least get a shot at the audition, thing is some don't like to let others play on equal terms nor be considered for a particular part (because they dont't have a chance to win on a one to one comparison). Who would in their right mind pick the less desirable option when they can pick the more desirable option? As you said sometimes one needs a some luck, and then sometimes one needs continuous dedication and persistent willpower to take one step at a time.

      As they say the longest joinery starts with the first step and requires taking one step at a time. Who knows maybe from the couch talks new ideas will spring forth and help transform the world with the collaboration of others...
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: Hi, Esteban,

        I used a Chinese expression of " being the first person to post comment"----" sit in the sofa".
        I see your thread has a meaningful gist in our real life:"In organizations this also takes place, when should a team member voice out and when should they just play along and see what happens." I'm also interested in the more disirable options from others. I think this is a good thread to think about thus I replied to it.

        Thank you.
        • Dec 4 2013: Yoka,

          Wow!, Can you elaborate a bit on what the Chinese expression means...

          I thought you where saying you would comfortably sit and observe what happens here, now evidently that seems to me to be way off from what you meant. I realize how important is to ensure one actually understands what other mean by the words they write ... though often we just assume and go with the flow thinking we got it :-)

          I too am interested in the more desirable options. In fact many of the conversational themes I put forth revolve around finding ways to more effectively share and ensure talking about the same stuff. which are directly applicable to work and personal life. How do we resolve differences ? how do we collaborate? how do we form shared conclusions? the list could go on an on.

          the one I have the most difficulty with involves jointly seeing something which seems different because of what individuals think/feel/believe/perceive
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: Esteban, you're right, I also wanted to express the feeling :"comfortably sit and observe what happens here", but since you have asked about it, I'd like to make some further explanation about the phrase:" “坐(zuò)沙(shā)发(fā)”.:)

        I didn't find an exact origin of the phrase but in my opinion it shoud be the first one to take a seat(a sofa is more comfortable and usual in the theatre) in the thread thus taken as the meaning that the first one to comment. :)

        We also call the first one's comment is the first floor and the next is the second floor and so on ---just like building a highrise. And the thread-starter is also called the building-owner.
        • Dec 4 2013: Thank for sharing that...

          Something I learned recently that I like to do involves taking metaphors with a bit of a twists; on the one hand to provide a deeper view, on the other hand to challenge the fundamental beliefs/notions/assumptions, and on yet another hand to induce individuals to move to a better stand. The expression "pull away the carpet under someone feet" can have multiple meanings. "move the carpet" involves a less drastic idea which still involves pulling at the fundamentals one stands upon. This plays along with other carpet sayings like 'sweep it under the rug'. Now consider the implications of "pull away the carpet under someone feet" when it is the legendary flying carpet, the utter trill felt (to some a shock)l to stand and walk upon the clouds. Of course if one stood supported by the belief that the carpet enabled them to be at such heights, not having it around can present a bit of a challenge. The same could be said of many situations in real life. What are the solid foundations of a new method/project/carpet?

          I got a bit sidetracked from the metaphor I wanted to put on the table... It seems that for many the idea to start building a house top-down rather than down-up seems just absurd. Some may question "how would one reach the upper floors without first dealing with the lower levels? One needs to work the lower floors to build upon. Of course when one tells them that to build the lower levels one first has to dig into the ground to lay down the foundations the idea of starting at the top and going down to build the house makes a whole more sense. "how would one reach the lower levels without first dealing with the upper ones?

          Even more important how would one work out the details of something without first knowing what them things contribute to the overall structure?
      • thumb
        Dec 4 2013: haha….I don't know what you set for your display of the comments in every thread. Mine is with the newest one on the top(it's our Chinese style too). So when people read from the beginning, they can see the construction of this thread is from the bottom to the top.