It takes two to fight

Angry Woman" by graur codrin
  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When I was a child and I got mad at one of my friends, my mother always reminded me, it takes two to fight. This meant she thought I was as much to blame for the conflict as my friend was. This in turn, made me consider my own contributions to the conflict and by doing so, better resolve the conflict by taking responsibility for my actions.

Whenever I find myself in conflict with another person, I try my best to review my own behavior to see how I contributed to the conflict.  I realize I might not be able to do anything to improve the current situation, but there is almost always something I can learn from the experience.  Perhaps next time I can avoid the conflict entirely.

However, the lesson I’ve learned the most from taking responsibility for my side of the conflict isn’t that conflicts are avoidable. Often, they are not.  It is more that by looking to correct my own behavior first, I do not focus on trying to get the other person to change their behavior at all.

The only person I can control is myself and even that is sometimes iffy if I am stressed or low on food energy. The point is that so often our conflicts are a result of us trying to control someone else. When we stop trying to control others, a good number of our conflicts simply go away. And that is why, it is always important to remember, it takes two to fight.

To cheat or not to cheat

You can win by cheating,
but at what cost?

Obviously – I am a Humanist – so I am not inclined to cheat as I view it as not only an ineffective way to accomplish my objectives, it would also likely cause me more trouble than just pursuing my objectives honestly.

However, my friend Kent responded to one of my posts about why not to cheat in school by saying he disagreed.

“Consider the business cheat - he/she robs those that are honest by stealing money from customers, suppliers, and from competing business.  Consider the tax cheat - those honest pay more in taxes as a result.  The person that cheats at cards robs his fellow players. ... They cheat because it works.  Why invent time and effort into something when you can talk short cuts? Only those that understand the effect of their behavior on others can understand why we can't cheat, and must play fair.”

And, well, I agree with him. My original post was limited to the subject of education. That’s the problem with writing short posts. They can’t possibly be totally inclusive of all possible situations. Humanism is a situational ethic and so, different situations require their own ethical analysis.  

Kent is quite right – cheating in most situations does indeed hurt other people. The reason good people don’t cheat is because they understand the negative effect it will have on others and being the compassionate people they are, they don’t want to cause others harm.

However, there is still an additional self-serving reason not to cheat. It is this reason that I teach my son.  Cheating makes other people not want to have anything to do with you. If he cheats at monopoly for instance, I stop, get up and leave. He can win that way – but not really since I refuse to finish the game with him. What I want him to learn is that the best way to win is to win honestly. First: cheating victories aren’t very satisfying because you didn’t earn them. But even more important than winning is your social relationships. If you want people to like and trust you, you have to play fair. 

Image: Card by Luigi Diamanti -  FreeDigitalPhotos.net

A Humanist approach to being polite

Gratuitous name drop - I know Roy

Roy Speckhardt - the president of the American Humanist Association has a new article in the Huffington Post today about 5 recommendations for a new politeness. It is an excellent article and I highly recommend reading the entire thing. But because I loved his recommendations so much and because they echo what I talk about in this blog all the time, I am sharing them here with a link to the article at the bottom.

1. Identify people in ways they prefer to be identified. This flows directly from the Golden Rule advice of treating people as they'd like to be treated.
2. State your opinions and critique with respect for the humanity of those with whom you might disagree. Politeness doesn't mean censoring the flow of ideas or even respecting your opponent's positions; just don't forget they're human, just like you. 
3. Be sensitive to the fact that there are groups in this country that are faced with daily prejudice and discrimination. Being aware of stereotypes will help you avoid speaking as if you endorse them.
4. When you're in the majority group, and most everyone is in some aspects of who they are, consider giving ground once in a while to someone who isn't. Hit the brakes on your Beemer and let that minivan merge into traffic.
5. Take the time to inform those who aren't polite about the effects their words can have, and explain how they can get their point across in a more compassionate way.

Read the entire article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-speckhardt/five-recommendations-for-_b_1648705.html

Leading with Respect

Who would you rather vote for?

In order to get people to agree to follow you, you need to treat them with respect. People choose who they will follow and who they won’t. So even if you disagree with a subordinate, you need to at least treat them with respect and dignity despite the disagreement. Let me tell you a true story about two politicians to help you understand why this matters.

I am one of those citizens who write letters to my elected officials when I am concerned about a matter of public policy.  One time, I wrote my congresswoman a letter about a law I wanted to pass. She ended up voting against it, which is fine. The bill passed without her vote anyway. No harm no foul. But it is what she did next that I have not forgotten decades later! Two months after her no vote I finally received a letter from her explaining how she agreed with me that this legislation was important and needed to pass. Again, she had voted against it 2 months prior. This is a REALLY long time to not respond to your constituent. As far as I am concerned she committed three errors. 1) She also assumed I was stupid enough to not realize that she was lying about her voting record. 2) She did not respect me enough to tell me the truth and 3) she took WAY too long to get back to me. It honestly would have been better had she not written me at all. Anyway, I never voted for her again and I consider her to be one of the more corrupt and worthless members of congress to this day.

Another time, another state and another congressional representative and this time I wrote a letter opposing a piece of legislation. My congresswoman wrote back immediately and told me that while she understood why I opposed this legislation and she agreed with me in principle, she was going to vote for this legislation anyway. She spent the rest of her letter explaining why she was going to vote the way she was. It was a well thought out letter. She didn't convince me she was right, but I absolutely voted for her again. Why? Because she respected me enough to be honest and forthright with me and she was prompt in her correspondence. 

The key to being a good leader is to think about how you want your leaders to act towards you. Then be the sort of leader you would respect.  In other words, treat the people you lead as if they are real live humans and not just stepping stones you need to advance your career. 

(Image: "Hand Dropping The Vote Paper" by taoty FreeDigitalPhotos.net)