The worst outcome of the self-help book era is that certain traits that have become indispensably valuable to a generation of young adults. Recent literature paints discipline in such a profound light, that it would seem as though if you are unable to carry through with a habit for more than a week - you have sentenced yourself to a life of failure. Similar analysis can be applied to comments on focus, and that if you lack attention towards a task or goal you won’t be able to achieve anything. Not only are these not true (of course), but there is something greater to be said about the way these comments are phrased.

Say you had a plant. If I was trying to convince you to water your plant, I have two routes I can choose. The first is by candidly telling you that if you don’t water your plants, they will die. This might get you to water your plants, but it also might just annoy you because I’m pointing out that you not doing something will lead to some action. Conversely, if I told you that if you do water your plants, they will thrive, grow and your room will look better - you will be more inclined to do it. But why? The reason is that we don’t like attaching ourselves to discussions around what we shouldn’t do. No one likes being told don’t touch the big red button because something bad will happen. [1] We’d much rather be told that us choosing to do something will lead to a good action.

What is the lesson here? That two things can be true at the same time. It is of course true that if you don’t water your plants, they will die. Equally as true is that choosing to water your plants will make them thrive more. Both are true, one sounds better. Both are true, one is easier to act upon. Most importantly: both are true, one is more critical to know.

This gist here obviously extends past gardening. A slightly more complicated situation to apply this logic to would be when comparing two ideas in a group setting. Imagine you’re a business owner deciding weather to partner with a new company. Let’s also say you have two people giving you advice, Julia and Jason. Julia might tell you that partnering with the company is a bad idea because the deal is too costly. Jason might tell you that partnering with the company is a good idea to bolster public image.

There is a temptation in this scenario to do a couple of things. The first thing you’re inclined to do is consider which route is more important to you. Would you rather save money, or improve public image. But this is a terrible way of looking at things. Such a choice is not zero sum, and even though you may be tempted to oversimplify the choices down to just two differences in priority - you are doing exactly that, oversimplifying. Even though Julia presents their opinion from a financial lens, you’d be mistaken to assume that her position discounts consideration for the public image. The omission of information does not imply lack of thought.

That’s the first thing you’re tempted to do. The second thing you may want to do is explain to Julia or Jason why their idea is not the best approach. You may tell Julia that the deal is not really that costly, or may tell Jason that the public image of the organization is not that bad. While this approach also has merit, a much more compassionate approach is too not just explain why a certain way of thinking is bad, but why another way of thinking is good. Notice how this connects quite clearly to the plant example. You’d much rather tell Jason something along the lines of: while the company image could be bolstered by partnering with the company, it’s more important we don’t take a bad deal for some reason.

This way you aren’t invalidating the presence of an idea, and are instead providing insight that will allow someone to make a better choice next time. Just telling them their approach is incorrect is demoralizing, and does little to give them tangible feedback.

It takes a great deal of humility to practice this. Many people would feel like they don’t need to justify themselves in situations like this. But this would be an apathetic mindset to adopt. You should justify your choices and explain your reasoning, because believing that you can discern with certainty what the best approach shows a great lack of humility. It’s important to come to terms with the fact that if you were in a different time, in a different place, its a near statistical certainty that you would have believed very strongly in things you now consider to be wrong. Someone 10 years ago could never have postulated the AI boom with great certainty, and might have even gone as far to believe in a headstrong manner that it’s just a fad.

This is why you should justify your choices. Because it’s not enough to simply claim that something is correct, because doing so is demonstrable of lacking an open mind. And the lack of an open mind prevents you from parlaying your ideas into better outcomes. And who doesn’t want better outcomes? [2]

Notes