One of the things I always had trouble with people was in deciding when to use reason and when not to. I believe there is a time and place for using reason. Others many a times don't accept this.
If what I say seems a little shocking, let me explain my position a little. For example, if I ask "Do women feel more grumpy in the morning?" the answers I expect are only:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Cant Say
Now if a person responds to my question with something like "No, it is just that in the morning, because of the stress of the day's work ahead, a woman usually feels grumpy till she has a strong cup of coffee", I start wondering.
Now I suppose I have made myself clearer. From the other person's point of view the answer he/she provided is very clear. From my point of view, the response does not address my question. I did not ask the reason why a person feels grumpy. I just wanted to know whether or not my statement (data) was correct.
Coming to a common understanding of the data is of primary importance. Only then should we go into the reason why the data is so. That apples fall from the tree to the ground below is a fact. That data can exist independently of the knowledge of the reason. In a similar way, a man can be dead without anyone knowing the reason for his death.
Now this does not mean that I am never interested in going to a reason. We delve into the reason only when we want find out why something happened and when we want to minimize (or maximize) the possibility of recurrence of that event. For example, if I became unconscious, I would like to know why it happened so that I can avoid it next time. The WHY of anything makes life interesting. Knowledge of data (WHAT) is a cheap commodity. Going into the reason (WHY) makes it a lot more fun. It tickles your brain. Mankind has progressed as a result of asking WHY. Having said that, it is imperative to acknowledge the WHAT, baseline it before going into the WHY.
When we have a conflict with someone and we ask that person "why do you keep doing "this"? Can you stop it?", I expect and accept the following answers:
(a) "I am sorry, I wont do this henceforth".
(b) "You are wrong, I didn't do any such thing. Can you give me proof that I did it? "
(c) "I do "this" because you do "that". If you avoid "that", I will avoid "this" "
(going into reason here is perfectly legitimate because the concerned person's action "that" drove the other person's action "this".
Now if the answer to my question instead is:
(d) The person says he did "this" because of some reason (for example, traffic in the road) which I didn't cause, what am I supposed to do? Did my problem get resolved? No.
The issue here is one person is expecting a resolution to a problem which the other person cannot accommodate. The right response for the complaint can only be (a), (b) or (c) above. For some reason that I am not able to understand, some people feel quite comfortable with a (d) response. The conflict continues..
If what I say seems a little shocking, let me explain my position a little. For example, if I ask "Do women feel more grumpy in the morning?" the answers I expect are only:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Cant Say
Now if a person responds to my question with something like "No, it is just that in the morning, because of the stress of the day's work ahead, a woman usually feels grumpy till she has a strong cup of coffee", I start wondering.
Now I suppose I have made myself clearer. From the other person's point of view the answer he/she provided is very clear. From my point of view, the response does not address my question. I did not ask the reason why a person feels grumpy. I just wanted to know whether or not my statement (data) was correct.
Coming to a common understanding of the data is of primary importance. Only then should we go into the reason why the data is so. That apples fall from the tree to the ground below is a fact. That data can exist independently of the knowledge of the reason. In a similar way, a man can be dead without anyone knowing the reason for his death.
Now this does not mean that I am never interested in going to a reason. We delve into the reason only when we want find out why something happened and when we want to minimize (or maximize) the possibility of recurrence of that event. For example, if I became unconscious, I would like to know why it happened so that I can avoid it next time. The WHY of anything makes life interesting. Knowledge of data (WHAT) is a cheap commodity. Going into the reason (WHY) makes it a lot more fun. It tickles your brain. Mankind has progressed as a result of asking WHY. Having said that, it is imperative to acknowledge the WHAT, baseline it before going into the WHY.
When we have a conflict with someone and we ask that person "why do you keep doing "this"? Can you stop it?", I expect and accept the following answers:
(a) "I am sorry, I wont do this henceforth".
(b) "You are wrong, I didn't do any such thing. Can you give me proof that I did it? "
(c) "I do "this" because you do "that". If you avoid "that", I will avoid "this" "
(going into reason here is perfectly legitimate because the concerned person's action "that" drove the other person's action "this".
Now if the answer to my question instead is:
(d) The person says he did "this" because of some reason (for example, traffic in the road) which I didn't cause, what am I supposed to do? Did my problem get resolved? No.
The issue here is one person is expecting a resolution to a problem which the other person cannot accommodate. The right response for the complaint can only be (a), (b) or (c) above. For some reason that I am not able to understand, some people feel quite comfortable with a (d) response. The conflict continues..
One other word for reason is excuse.
ReplyDeleteWhen one has done something wrong or commits a mistake, then acknowledging that mistake is like a NO NO.
So, they start to justify them by answering with reason or excuses.
There is a reason to give reasons and that is to justify themselves and their wrongdoings!