Great piece as always, and I know I come at many of these issues from a different perspective, but since you endorse arguing... :-)
When I engage with someone who disagrees, as often as not, I'm seeking to learn as to persuade (case in point -- you might respond to this with counterpoints I had not previously considered, and I welcome that education). And when seeking to persuade, it's almost never on the point itself, but merely to show that "people on my side are driven by logic, civility, and respect, so you don't need to hate us." E.g., I know there is virtually no chance that a Trump hater will persuade a Trump fan to her side nor vice versa, but if one can show that they have more in common in terms of wanting everyone to live well and be safe and healthy, then perhaps the magnitude of the disagreement, limited to the best ways to achieve those mostly shared common end goals of broad prosperity, can be reduced to still allow friendship despite the political differences.
True persuasion of a particular endpoint, at least for me, is mostly limited to sales and negotiation, but even there, especially where I've been most successful, it starts with questions to understand the true underlying interests of the target (rarely are they the same as the superficial or even claimed objectives). Sometimes, this may be prefaced by a favor or some excessive honest disclosure to gain trust first, so they open up about their true interests. Or, sometimes by a request for a favor, which engenders trust because then they know I owe them a favor in return. But ultimately, how can one construct a proper case or pitch that will hold an unshakeable appeal to that audience without first knowing what exactly that audience wants?
Important acknowledgement on those attempts at true persuasion: I'm rarely working a large audience. I'm usually working on a single person, or, at most, a family or small group of executives. So perhaps for a larger audience, my approach is inappropriate. Perhaps it becomes essential to rely on generalized and aggregate information for a large group, like a political speaker must, because it's impossible to understand the specific and unique underlying interests of a sufficient portion of the individuals.
And here's a combative stance on the specific point of race in that NYT article you linked: This is a small factor for most people elevated more by race baiters for financial or political gain than by any actual personal experience. The child of an abusive family, regardless of race, is likely to have a harder life (psychologically, at least) than the child of a happy family. A child is more likely to be beaten bloody on a recurring basis by peers for any manner of minute differences, usually relating to weakness, shyness, or social awkwardness far more than race, and this also leaves permanent effects on the child into adulthood. With respect to career advancement, getting things done with a positive, happy attitude while helping coworkers to also succeed will almost universally lead to advancement, at least as positions for advancement are available. Complaining and projecting an attitude of entitlement or sabotaging others will have the opposite effect. Race plays a miniscule role in comparison.
Worse, the (false) assertion that racism is a bigger problem than it is creates perverse incentives to perceive oneself as a victim ("my people have it harder than yours," which can only be countered by "but I had it personally worse than you did"). And a victim mindset largely (not entirely -- a notable minority are able to harness those experiences to harden their core and achieve greatness) precludes the kind of positive attitude and innovative drive that yields professional success. Therefore, urging someone to believe they are a victim is likely to damage the entire arc of their life and harm both their happiness and lifelong earning potential.
In other words, if you want to keep a person or an entire group of people down, tell them that they are victims and that others have it easier. At best, that creates hatred toward those groups who "have it easier." I think the word du jour for that is "privilege," which in turn fuels and perpetuates the race-vs-race mentality.
None of this is to say that there is not racism (obviously there is, and some despicable people are largely defined by their hatred of others over race, gender, religion, age, accent or other factors that are not based on the choices or kindness of their targets), but it is just one relatively minor facet to the complex set of challenges in the lives of Americans. Let's condemn cruelty and praise kindness, condemn making choices out of fear or to join the mob and praise being bold despite the difficulty, condemn intolerance and praise listening-before-talking, condemn prejudgment and praise those who wait to hear the facts and arguments of all sides before reaching conclusions. These are teachable skills that unite us while precluding the creation of a weak and vulnerable culture of victimhood. They also leave scant room for racism.
This is a lot to take in, but let me offer a modest answer: Persuasion covers much more than sales or negotiation. It can include maintaining a friendship, asking a mate for marriage, or getting a kid to leave off the smartphone.
Regarding racism: Black Americans in general do have a tougher time than white Americans in general, based on longevity, crime victimization, and a host of other factors. A key reason seems to be the disparity in wealth. My father benefited from a VA loan that offered negligible interest on his mortgages. I personally benefited from the sale of my parents' house after they died. Dad also got free tuition at MIT through the GI Bill, and earned good money throughout his career--leaving his four offspring some money. Few Black Americans were permitted either government benefit; today, the average black household owns one-tenth the wealth of the average white American. Is that racism? I'd prefer to think of it as deeply unfair.
Now: For you and me to have a conversation about that, we'd need to start by strengthening our relationship. Preferably over alcohol. Which leads me back to my original piece.
I agree with everything you wrote in your reply, including the correlation between poverty and race. I'd just add that's another reason to focus the dialog on ensuring there is easy mobility from poverty for those individuals who work for it, rather than casting it as a racial issue. Because A) the correlation is relatively meaningless -- coming from a wealthy family correlates more tightly with future financial success than race and we should not want to leave behind poor whites or Hispanics or Asians or Native Americans or... (and remember the understandable outrage caused by the book "The Bell Curve" for its focus on similar racial correlations, but in that case related to intelligence), B) focusing on the racial facets CREATES racism (in multiple directions) as people resent the "others" who do better than their group or who demand extra help over their group, not limited to blacks and whites, as evidenced by the violence against Asian shop owners, Asian students having a harder time gaining admission to universities based on their race, antisemitism, etc. Anything that factors race into official policy nurtures those forms of prejudice.
I would happily provide you with drinks to tell me why I'm wrong. :-)
When my pal Lisa applied to Bates, she answered what I guess must be known as the "difficulty" question: What was the most difficult thing you have ever tackled? Her answer was a one-word tour de force: "Fractions." She was admitted, for which I give the Bates Admissions department a ton of credit. I'm not sure they made such a wise choice with me, but hey, I got better.
Great piece as always, and I know I come at many of these issues from a different perspective, but since you endorse arguing... :-)
When I engage with someone who disagrees, as often as not, I'm seeking to learn as to persuade (case in point -- you might respond to this with counterpoints I had not previously considered, and I welcome that education). And when seeking to persuade, it's almost never on the point itself, but merely to show that "people on my side are driven by logic, civility, and respect, so you don't need to hate us." E.g., I know there is virtually no chance that a Trump hater will persuade a Trump fan to her side nor vice versa, but if one can show that they have more in common in terms of wanting everyone to live well and be safe and healthy, then perhaps the magnitude of the disagreement, limited to the best ways to achieve those mostly shared common end goals of broad prosperity, can be reduced to still allow friendship despite the political differences.
True persuasion of a particular endpoint, at least for me, is mostly limited to sales and negotiation, but even there, especially where I've been most successful, it starts with questions to understand the true underlying interests of the target (rarely are they the same as the superficial or even claimed objectives). Sometimes, this may be prefaced by a favor or some excessive honest disclosure to gain trust first, so they open up about their true interests. Or, sometimes by a request for a favor, which engenders trust because then they know I owe them a favor in return. But ultimately, how can one construct a proper case or pitch that will hold an unshakeable appeal to that audience without first knowing what exactly that audience wants?
Important acknowledgement on those attempts at true persuasion: I'm rarely working a large audience. I'm usually working on a single person, or, at most, a family or small group of executives. So perhaps for a larger audience, my approach is inappropriate. Perhaps it becomes essential to rely on generalized and aggregate information for a large group, like a political speaker must, because it's impossible to understand the specific and unique underlying interests of a sufficient portion of the individuals.
And here's a combative stance on the specific point of race in that NYT article you linked: This is a small factor for most people elevated more by race baiters for financial or political gain than by any actual personal experience. The child of an abusive family, regardless of race, is likely to have a harder life (psychologically, at least) than the child of a happy family. A child is more likely to be beaten bloody on a recurring basis by peers for any manner of minute differences, usually relating to weakness, shyness, or social awkwardness far more than race, and this also leaves permanent effects on the child into adulthood. With respect to career advancement, getting things done with a positive, happy attitude while helping coworkers to also succeed will almost universally lead to advancement, at least as positions for advancement are available. Complaining and projecting an attitude of entitlement or sabotaging others will have the opposite effect. Race plays a miniscule role in comparison.
Worse, the (false) assertion that racism is a bigger problem than it is creates perverse incentives to perceive oneself as a victim ("my people have it harder than yours," which can only be countered by "but I had it personally worse than you did"). And a victim mindset largely (not entirely -- a notable minority are able to harness those experiences to harden their core and achieve greatness) precludes the kind of positive attitude and innovative drive that yields professional success. Therefore, urging someone to believe they are a victim is likely to damage the entire arc of their life and harm both their happiness and lifelong earning potential.
In other words, if you want to keep a person or an entire group of people down, tell them that they are victims and that others have it easier. At best, that creates hatred toward those groups who "have it easier." I think the word du jour for that is "privilege," which in turn fuels and perpetuates the race-vs-race mentality.
None of this is to say that there is not racism (obviously there is, and some despicable people are largely defined by their hatred of others over race, gender, religion, age, accent or other factors that are not based on the choices or kindness of their targets), but it is just one relatively minor facet to the complex set of challenges in the lives of Americans. Let's condemn cruelty and praise kindness, condemn making choices out of fear or to join the mob and praise being bold despite the difficulty, condemn intolerance and praise listening-before-talking, condemn prejudgment and praise those who wait to hear the facts and arguments of all sides before reaching conclusions. These are teachable skills that unite us while precluding the creation of a weak and vulnerable culture of victimhood. They also leave scant room for racism.
This is a lot to take in, but let me offer a modest answer: Persuasion covers much more than sales or negotiation. It can include maintaining a friendship, asking a mate for marriage, or getting a kid to leave off the smartphone.
Regarding racism: Black Americans in general do have a tougher time than white Americans in general, based on longevity, crime victimization, and a host of other factors. A key reason seems to be the disparity in wealth. My father benefited from a VA loan that offered negligible interest on his mortgages. I personally benefited from the sale of my parents' house after they died. Dad also got free tuition at MIT through the GI Bill, and earned good money throughout his career--leaving his four offspring some money. Few Black Americans were permitted either government benefit; today, the average black household owns one-tenth the wealth of the average white American. Is that racism? I'd prefer to think of it as deeply unfair.
Now: For you and me to have a conversation about that, we'd need to start by strengthening our relationship. Preferably over alcohol. Which leads me back to my original piece.
I agree with everything you wrote in your reply, including the correlation between poverty and race. I'd just add that's another reason to focus the dialog on ensuring there is easy mobility from poverty for those individuals who work for it, rather than casting it as a racial issue. Because A) the correlation is relatively meaningless -- coming from a wealthy family correlates more tightly with future financial success than race and we should not want to leave behind poor whites or Hispanics or Asians or Native Americans or... (and remember the understandable outrage caused by the book "The Bell Curve" for its focus on similar racial correlations, but in that case related to intelligence), B) focusing on the racial facets CREATES racism (in multiple directions) as people resent the "others" who do better than their group or who demand extra help over their group, not limited to blacks and whites, as evidenced by the violence against Asian shop owners, Asian students having a harder time gaining admission to universities based on their race, antisemitism, etc. Anything that factors race into official policy nurtures those forms of prejudice.
I would happily provide you with drinks to tell me why I'm wrong. :-)
When my pal Lisa applied to Bates, she answered what I guess must be known as the "difficulty" question: What was the most difficult thing you have ever tackled? Her answer was a one-word tour de force: "Fractions." She was admitted, for which I give the Bates Admissions department a ton of credit. I'm not sure they made such a wise choice with me, but hey, I got better.