Why Doesn't Everyone Think Like I Do? (Part 1 Of 2)
By Rabbi Shmuel Gluck
I was driving my car, when the car ahead of me slowed as it approached an intersection, and both cars were "stuck" behind a "fresh" red light. My first reaction was to become frustrated (I probably wanted to honk), as I often do when I'm behind a driver who doesn't react as I would've.
Then, a thought "struck" me. I assume that everyone does as I do, and thinks as I think. Believing that many people, either consciously or subconsciously, think the same way as I think, highlighted, to me, how self-centered, and irrational, people can be. I'd like to expand on this thought.
Why do people in a car blow their horn at the car ahead of them? I do it for two reasons: 1) I'm certain that the other driver is distracted, slow, or just "missed the boat". In many cases, after I've honked, I'll often notice some interference with the car ahead of me, and realize that I would've reacted in the same manner as the driver ahead of me. That's when I realized that my "knee jerk" reaction, that other people are inferior in some form, or another, is not true, is a terrible way to think, and painful to admit.
2) I also honk because I can't imagine that the driver ahead of me doesn't have the same driving habits that I have. I also can't imagine that the driver wouldn't take the same risks as I do, or be in the same rush that I am. I assume that everyone should think like I do and, even if they don't share the same experiences as I do, they should, somehow, be aware of, and accommodate, my personal situation. In other words, they should be in a rush because I'm in a rush.
While some readers may not "connect" with my driving habits, many people act in a similar manner in other areas of their lives. Being aware of the thought processes, and the expectations, that it creates in others, will help them avoid many of their arguments with other people. There are two main reasons that people disagree with other people:
1) One person believes that the other is doing something that is counterproductive. In other words, the first person believes that s/he has a better way of doing whatever the second person was doing. Depending on the relationship (parent to child), how much the second person is affected (employer to employee), or how much the first person respects the second person (student to Rebbi), the first person will feel a need, or responsibility, to comment.
2) One person is attempting to achieve a goal in a manner which is as effective as a second person's. The difference between the two is in the approach, and not in the result. I want to elaborate on this type of disagreement.
Before I disagree with, or offer advice to, others, I ask myself the following four questions:
1) Is it relevant? I realize that many arguments deal with irrelevant facts. Was the cousin's wedding 15 years ago, on a Tuesday, or Thursday? Did it snow during child number two or three's, Sholom Zochor. I avoid many disagreements by saying, "we don't have to argue we can just Google it".
2) Is my view only a personal preference, which I believe may be an improvement? I know someone who believes that anyone who disagrees with her/his choice of colors, furniture layout, or anything that's primarily a personal preference is "wrong". S/he can't comprehend that personal circumstances can make a difference, and that anything involving taste isn't inherently right or wrong. I, first, confirm that my view isn't a personal preference.
3) What are the circumstances? Before honking I consider whether I may be unaware, or worse, unconcerned, about a flock of turkeys slowly strutting across the road, and that they caused the car ahead to stop. In general, people are too opinionated. How many arguments stem from a lack of information? Limiting the amount of arguments that people have, does more than just minimize the amount of times they argue. It's possible that it can almost eliminate them.
People often form opinions of others, and objects, based on trivial facts. People can dislike others for reasons as simple as height or nationality. People can be critical of cars because of their country of origin, or of furniture because of its color. If this remains with them, their preference, and bias, won't have a significant effect on them, or others, other than they won't buy that car or furniture, etc.
When the results of that bias affect others, it becomes significant. Everything about those people, or objects, are judged by the original decision, the color, or origin. People, who, otherwise, could've been friends, are enemies. Items that could've been helpful, become ineffective.
It's my belief that the "silly" arguments that spouses, siblings, and people have, lay the groundwork for a distancing of their relationships. The "meaningless" arguments, distance people from those whom they love, and can destroy people, and families, when they cause people to become angry and/or lonely.
4) Are the negative feelings between the two individuals based on ongoing arguments, or the present argument? While there may be two, distinct, opinions, in a healthy relationship, any disagreement won't be as emotionally charged if their previous arguments weren't about unimportant topics. When people have multiple, meaningless, arguments with the same people, every argument, to them, seems to be worth arguing about.
I once tried counting the number of irrelevant, and relevant, disagreements that I had in a day. The results were very lopsided, with more than a dozen irrelevant disagreements, and only two that were relevant. I'm confident that the ratio is the same for others. Why ruin the day's mood, or a long term relationship, over a discussion of whether the Tappan Zee Bridge toll will, or will not, be raised? We'll find out when it happens or, maybe, we can Google it now.
This article's message may seem trivial to the many people whose relationships, and lives, are "okay". They may believe that there's nothing wrong with arguing once in awhile. I believe that such a response is the result of their lack of experience with anything more than their mediocre relationships. Unaware that relationships can be "better", they lack the motivation to upgrade to a great marriage, parent/child, Rebbi/Talmid, relationship, etc. Many people base their possibilities on what they've seen in their own families, and never reach for more. This article intends to transform the average relationship into one that's above average.
By Rabbi Shmuel Gluck
I was driving my car, when the car ahead of me slowed as it approached an intersection, and both cars were "stuck" behind a "fresh" red light. My first reaction was to become frustrated (I probably wanted to honk), as I often do when I'm behind a driver who doesn't react as I would've.
Then, a thought "struck" me. I assume that everyone does as I do, and thinks as I think. Believing that many people, either consciously or subconsciously, think the same way as I think, highlighted, to me, how self-centered, and irrational, people can be. I'd like to expand on this thought.
Why do people in a car blow their horn at the car ahead of them? I do it for two reasons: 1) I'm certain that the other driver is distracted, slow, or just "missed the boat". In many cases, after I've honked, I'll often notice some interference with the car ahead of me, and realize that I would've reacted in the same manner as the driver ahead of me. That's when I realized that my "knee jerk" reaction, that other people are inferior in some form, or another, is not true, is a terrible way to think, and painful to admit.
2) I also honk because I can't imagine that the driver ahead of me doesn't have the same driving habits that I have. I also can't imagine that the driver wouldn't take the same risks as I do, or be in the same rush that I am. I assume that everyone should think like I do and, even if they don't share the same experiences as I do, they should, somehow, be aware of, and accommodate, my personal situation. In other words, they should be in a rush because I'm in a rush.
While some readers may not "connect" with my driving habits, many people act in a similar manner in other areas of their lives. Being aware of the thought processes, and the expectations, that it creates in others, will help them avoid many of their arguments with other people. There are two main reasons that people disagree with other people:
1) One person believes that the other is doing something that is counterproductive. In other words, the first person believes that s/he has a better way of doing whatever the second person was doing. Depending on the relationship (parent to child), how much the second person is affected (employer to employee), or how much the first person respects the second person (student to Rebbi), the first person will feel a need, or responsibility, to comment.
2) One person is attempting to achieve a goal in a manner which is as effective as a second person's. The difference between the two is in the approach, and not in the result. I want to elaborate on this type of disagreement.
Before I disagree with, or offer advice to, others, I ask myself the following four questions:
1) Is it relevant? I realize that many arguments deal with irrelevant facts. Was the cousin's wedding 15 years ago, on a Tuesday, or Thursday? Did it snow during child number two or three's, Sholom Zochor. I avoid many disagreements by saying, "we don't have to argue we can just Google it".
2) Is my view only a personal preference, which I believe may be an improvement? I know someone who believes that anyone who disagrees with her/his choice of colors, furniture layout, or anything that's primarily a personal preference is "wrong". S/he can't comprehend that personal circumstances can make a difference, and that anything involving taste isn't inherently right or wrong. I, first, confirm that my view isn't a personal preference.
3) What are the circumstances? Before honking I consider whether I may be unaware, or worse, unconcerned, about a flock of turkeys slowly strutting across the road, and that they caused the car ahead to stop. In general, people are too opinionated. How many arguments stem from a lack of information? Limiting the amount of arguments that people have, does more than just minimize the amount of times they argue. It's possible that it can almost eliminate them.
People often form opinions of others, and objects, based on trivial facts. People can dislike others for reasons as simple as height or nationality. People can be critical of cars because of their country of origin, or of furniture because of its color. If this remains with them, their preference, and bias, won't have a significant effect on them, or others, other than they won't buy that car or furniture, etc.
When the results of that bias affect others, it becomes significant. Everything about those people, or objects, are judged by the original decision, the color, or origin. People, who, otherwise, could've been friends, are enemies. Items that could've been helpful, become ineffective.
It's my belief that the "silly" arguments that spouses, siblings, and people have, lay the groundwork for a distancing of their relationships. The "meaningless" arguments, distance people from those whom they love, and can destroy people, and families, when they cause people to become angry and/or lonely.
4) Are the negative feelings between the two individuals based on ongoing arguments, or the present argument? While there may be two, distinct, opinions, in a healthy relationship, any disagreement won't be as emotionally charged if their previous arguments weren't about unimportant topics. When people have multiple, meaningless, arguments with the same people, every argument, to them, seems to be worth arguing about.
I once tried counting the number of irrelevant, and relevant, disagreements that I had in a day. The results were very lopsided, with more than a dozen irrelevant disagreements, and only two that were relevant. I'm confident that the ratio is the same for others. Why ruin the day's mood, or a long term relationship, over a discussion of whether the Tappan Zee Bridge toll will, or will not, be raised? We'll find out when it happens or, maybe, we can Google it now.
This article's message may seem trivial to the many people whose relationships, and lives, are "okay". They may believe that there's nothing wrong with arguing once in awhile. I believe that such a response is the result of their lack of experience with anything more than their mediocre relationships. Unaware that relationships can be "better", they lack the motivation to upgrade to a great marriage, parent/child, Rebbi/Talmid, relationship, etc. Many people base their possibilities on what they've seen in their own families, and never reach for more. This article intends to transform the average relationship into one that's above average.
