Grunching. (Responding to the exercise/challenge without reading other people’s responses first.)
Letting go is important. A failure in letting go is to cling to the admission of belief in a thing which you have come not to believe, because the admission involves pain. An example of this failure: I suggest a solution to a pressing design problem. Through conversation, it becomes apparent to me that my suggested solution is unworkable or has undesirable side effects. I realize the suggestion is a failure, but defend it to protect my identity as an authority on the subject and to avoid embarrassment.
An example of success: I stop myself, admit that I have changed my mind, that the idea was in error, and then relinquish the belief.
A 5-second-level description:
I notice that my actual belief state and my professed belief state do not match. This is a trigger that signals that further conscious analysis is needed. What I believe (the suggestion will have undesirable side effects) and what I desire to profess (the suggestion is good) are in conflict.
I notice that I feel impending embarrassment or similar types of social pain. This is also a trigger. The feeling that a particular action may be painful is going to influence me to act in a way to avoid the pain. I may continue to defend a bad idea if I’m worried about pain from retreat.
Noticing these states triggers a feeling of caution or revulsion: I may act in a way opposed to what I believe merely to defend my ego and identity.
I take a moment to evaluate my internal belief state and what I desire to profess. I actively override my subconscious desire to evade pain with statements that follow from my actual internal belief. I say “I’m sorry. I appear to be wrong.”
An exercise to cause these sub-5-second events:
I proposed a scenario to my wife wherein she was leading an important scientific project. She was known among her team as being an intelligent leader and her team members looked up to her with admiration. A problem on the project was presented: without a solution the project could not move forward. I told my wife that she had had a customary flash of insight and began detailing the solution. A plan to resolve the problem and moving the project forward.
Then, I told her that a young member of her team revealed new data about the problem. Her solution wouldn’t work. Even worse, the young team member looked smug about the fact she had outsmarted the project lead. Then I asked “what do you do?”
My wife said she would admit her solution was wrong and then praise the young team member for finding a flaw. Then she said this was obviously the right thing to do and asked me what the point of posing the scenario was.
I’m not sure my scenario/exercise is very good. The conversation that followed the scenario was more informative for us than the scenario itself.
I think your scenario is good. I think the group dynamic and individual personality determine when this is easy and when it is difficult.
I have been in groups where it is easy to admit mistakes and move on; and I have been in groups where admitting a mistake feels like you are no longer part of the group.
So this can be realistic. I find taking the approach of admitting mistakes often helps others follow the same path, and leads to a better group dynamic.
Don’t cherish being right, instead cherish finding out that you’re wrong. You learn when you’re wrong.
I prefer to cherish being right enough that I appreciate finding out that I was wrong. It feels like more of a positive frame! (And the implicit snubbing to the typical “don’t care about being right” injunction appeals.)
Well, it isn’t being wrong that you cherish under Cayenne’s model, just finding out about it so that you can correct it. To put it in other terms, being wrong is bad, but learning that you are wrong is good, because all of a sudden something gets shifted out of the “unknown unknown” category.
Grunching. (Responding to the exercise/challenge without reading other people’s responses first.)
Letting go is important. A failure in letting go is to cling to the admission of belief in a thing which you have come not to believe, because the admission involves pain. An example of this failure: I suggest a solution to a pressing design problem. Through conversation, it becomes apparent to me that my suggested solution is unworkable or has undesirable side effects. I realize the suggestion is a failure, but defend it to protect my identity as an authority on the subject and to avoid embarrassment.
An example of success: I stop myself, admit that I have changed my mind, that the idea was in error, and then relinquish the belief.
A 5-second-level description:
I notice that my actual belief state and my professed belief state do not match. This is a trigger that signals that further conscious analysis is needed. What I believe (the suggestion will have undesirable side effects) and what I desire to profess (the suggestion is good) are in conflict.
I notice that I feel impending embarrassment or similar types of social pain. This is also a trigger. The feeling that a particular action may be painful is going to influence me to act in a way to avoid the pain. I may continue to defend a bad idea if I’m worried about pain from retreat.
Noticing these states triggers a feeling of caution or revulsion: I may act in a way opposed to what I believe merely to defend my ego and identity.
I take a moment to evaluate my internal belief state and what I desire to profess. I actively override my subconscious desire to evade pain with statements that follow from my actual internal belief. I say “I’m sorry. I appear to be wrong.”
An exercise to cause these sub-5-second events:
I proposed a scenario to my wife wherein she was leading an important scientific project. She was known among her team as being an intelligent leader and her team members looked up to her with admiration. A problem on the project was presented: without a solution the project could not move forward. I told my wife that she had had a customary flash of insight and began detailing the solution. A plan to resolve the problem and moving the project forward.
Then, I told her that a young member of her team revealed new data about the problem. Her solution wouldn’t work. Even worse, the young team member looked smug about the fact she had outsmarted the project lead. Then I asked “what do you do?”
My wife said she would admit her solution was wrong and then praise the young team member for finding a flaw. Then she said this was obviously the right thing to do and asked me what the point of posing the scenario was.
I’m not sure my scenario/exercise is very good. The conversation that followed the scenario was more informative for us than the scenario itself.
I think your scenario is good. I think the group dynamic and individual personality determine when this is easy and when it is difficult.
I have been in groups where it is easy to admit mistakes and move on; and I have been in groups where admitting a mistake feels like you are no longer part of the group.
So this can be realistic. I find taking the approach of admitting mistakes often helps others follow the same path, and leads to a better group dynamic.
Don’t cherish being right, instead cherish finding out that you’re wrong. You learn when you’re wrong.
Edit—please disregard this post
I prefer to cherish being right enough that I appreciate finding out that I was wrong. It feels like more of a positive frame! (And the implicit snubbing to the typical “don’t care about being right” injunction appeals.)
And under this model, we like learning because...?
Well, it isn’t being wrong that you cherish under Cayenne’s model, just finding out about it so that you can correct it. To put it in other terms, being wrong is bad, but learning that you are wrong is good, because all of a sudden something gets shifted out of the “unknown unknown” category.
This is it exactly!
Edit—please disregard this post