What If I'm Wrong?

What if I'm wrong?

How is that for a good framing question to take with you in your day?

What if I'm wrong?

What if in every argument we have we approach it with the thought, What if I'm wrong? Would that change the way you argue?

And let me back up here for a second and say, I argue. I actually really hate the softer "discuss" framing. If I am trying to convince you of something and you are trying to convince me of something we are arguing our points. We aren't fighting, that's angry arguing. But we aren't just having a discussion either. We are trying to persuade the other. We are arguing. 

I'm super tired of the weasel words. We don't say argue. We don't say hate. (See above paragraph) There are things I hate. It's not violent, it may not even be super passionate hate, but I do use hate. I hate cooked peas. I hate being tone policed by people who want to tell me I shouldn't say hate. For the most part I don't hate people I don't know. I might hate what they've done, or say I hate a stance they have taken, but as far as the person? Usually don't hate them. But some I do. Some people have done nothing to me personally and yet, I still hate them for what they've done to others. And I am fine with that.

Another group of weasel words I don't like is all of the euphemisms for lie. Untruth, misrepresent, all of those. Now, there are times someone was mistaken. That's different. If you honestly thought something to be true and said it, it's not a lie. As long as you correct yourself when you find out you were wrong. If you keep saying the thing you were originally mistaken about AFTER you have had it pointed out that it is wrong then you are lying. I hate when people try to weasel out of saying someone lied. Lies of omission are lies. Lies to try and prove your point are lies. Taking a soundbite quote out of a paragraph of speech that then turns the soundbite into something different than what was intended, that's a lie. Now it could start out as being mistaken, we've all done that. Seen the soundbite and thought, What the actual fuck?? But then when reading or hearing the whole statement we are like, oh that's not at all what it seemed like at first. You weren't lying if you talked about it first, though you were careless and should know better, but if, once you know the context, you stick with the soundbite? It's a lie. 

SO...back to my original point. What if I'm wrong?

What if I keep that in my head when I'm arguing with someone. What if I'm wrong? What if something in these points you are making is going to change my mind?

Would we argue differently? 

I've seen it talked about before as arguing for clarity. Sort of the same thing. If you are arguing with someone with a different point of view, try for clarity, why do they think the things they think? Which is a good start. But what if instead of trying to figure out why they think what they do, what if you are wrong? What if what you think is the hard truth, isn't? 

Would you be more open to investigating their points?

I actually try to do this. I know some of you are shocked, you are like, what? You never act like you are wrong! You are a know it all! You are the WORST! And hey...slow down there, Chucky, I might be bad, but the worst? Wow...

Anyway...I actually read all of the information someone posts to back up their argument. I "do the research!" I listen to the speeches, I read the transcripts. I look into points that are made that I don't understand. But, sometimes, I'm just not wrong. And now I've confirmed that.

That's the real beauty of the What if I'm wrong? way of looking at things. Sometimes you will be wrong, but no matter which way it falls you will be more informed. You will know why people are saying nonsense. You will know what they think shows it isn't nonsense. And you get to decide if it's enough. If that backing data shows that you were wrong, or if it shows that nah, you weren't wrong. 

I will also say that there are people you cannot do this with. The argument of What if I am wrong? Because you've argued with them so many times that you know how it will go. The goal post movers, the ones who never back down from their original point no matter how many times you can show them that hey, what if you are wrong? The ones who post opinions of other people who agree with them as their proof. The ones who just want to argue with you until you are fighting. So for those, my typical stance is to not engage at all. 

I used to. I used to tilt at those windmills. And there are still times when something is said or posted that is just so egregious that I cannot ignore it, because if I did I'd be negligent (in my opinion) and then I go in. And I still read all of the things they post. And I still try to see their reasoning. And if I engage I try very hard to maintain that What if I'm wrong? stance. It's just very hard to do when they've shown me over and over again that I am not. 

What if I'm wrong?

Try it out. See how it feels. Does it make it easier to listen to others? Does it loosen your grip on your argument at all? Does it give you the space, and the grace, to argue differently? Instead of proving you are right, how about making sure you aren't wrong? Do you see the difference there or is that just me? Proving I'm right means bombarding you with facts and figures and OBVIOUS points. Making sure I'm not wrong means looking at your facts and figures and obvious points and seeing if they are actually facts and obvious points or if they are wishful thinking and nonsense. Or maybe not nonsense, but not enough to change my mind. 

Because sometimes we are both not wrong. Depending on what we are arguing about. Sometimes we are just seeing it differently. But if you need to lie about something to try and get me to see your side? Then the answer to What if I'm wrong? is clearly no. No, I'm not. 

And that's the Denise you all immediately thought about way up there about halfway through this blog. Seriously...the worst. 

But I didn't get there without looking at the other side. I just didn't find enough on the other side to make me change my mind. 

Which is even worse right? 

What if I'm wrong?