What THEY want

I am quite tired of people who think that they are incredibly and infinitely important telling me that they are the most important thing in my life. Many people seem to think that they are much more important than they actually are, which is fine until they decide to act on it. Now don’t get me wrong, I am one of these people from time to time, but I am at least conscientious of this fact and try to minimize it. The people that are the biggest problem are the one’s who can’t be told that they are such. These people believe that they are more important, rather than just failing to realize that something else should be taking precedent. These people cannot be reasoned with; you just need to tell them what they want to hear and then move on.

Most people want to hear a certain answer and will settle for nothing less. They will not listen to reason and will not concede to the evidence presented against them. The world is full of these people from every walk of life. They are democrats, they are republicans. They are religious fanatics, they are atheists. They are Red Socks fans, they are Yankees fans. They have their stance, and no one will convince them otherwise.

So the question is: how does one deal with the mental Berlin Wall that exists in most people’s minds? Do you take a noble stand and fight for truth and justice? Do you become a martyr for your point of view? Or does doing so just make you one of these people?

Here’s an idea that was presented to me by a former TA of mine, Alessio Lerro: the person who gives in is the one who has the power. In this philosophy consider that there is an argument between two people, neither of whom will philosophically budge on what should be done. A compromise must be made because without the consent of both parties, any plan cannot be pushed forward. Since neither person is willing to allow for the other person’s plan as a whole, someone must first propose a compromise. It is this person who exercises more intelligence and more power, because they define the terms of the compromise and thus the overall outcome. Do you think this makes the person stronger and more intelligent or weaker for giving in first?

Another potential situation is one in which one entity has power over the other, such as boss-employee, professor-student, etc. In this case, when an argument on the course of action arises on a philosophical level, the one in power has the final say regardless. If this person is unwilling to compromise, the submissive position must give in. There are a couple of choices of how to handle that though. First, one can agree to take the action they are ordered too and subsequently do it; which, if they know the action to be wrong, would be foolish. Second, one can agree to do it and then just follow the course of action they want to regardless. This option can in some situations prove completely correct, and in others can get you fired. And the third option is to refuse to do it any way other than the way you want it; congratulations, you are now part of the problem.

I would like to focus for a moment on option two, in which you say you will do it and then don’t. There are many ways to do this, and this strategy is very useful when dealing with the massive hordes of incompetent people that rule over our society. Take professors for example; they love to give assignments that are “designed to make you think” but very few of them are practical or even possible. Writing classes are full of this, points are rarely awarded for people who can think outside the box, but rather for people who know how to write what the teacher wants them to write. It does not matter whether or not I think a particular poem is beautiful, clearly the professor thinks so and thus it would make perfect sense to say that in a paper. That will get you the A the majority of the time. You can try and take the moral high ground and always stick up for what you believe, but few of these people ever do well in anything by societies standards. When it comes to completing some requirements, it sometimes is just best to tell them you think one thing, even though you think another

Another way to approach this strategy is to literally say you will do something and then do it a different way or not at all. For example, if your boss tells you that the best way to build a house is from the roof down, but you know that you need to start with the foundation, it might make the most sense just to do it your way. A lot of times the ends justifies the means, and if your means will achieve the end better, just do it. Don’t rely on their approval all the time, you know how to do it. If you make your boss money, make a better product, or whatever, it will be worth it and your boss/supervisor/friend will look at the end result and realize you were right. They might be mad for a while, but you have done the right thing. Of course, this strategy only applies if you are not an idiot… so please don’t try this at home.

In the end I have to say that I am getting to my end of getting incredibly stressed out over the stupid decisions and policies of others. People are incompetent, end of story. But I am finding new ways of dealing with them that benefits both parties. Ok, so sometimes I shut up and do what I’m told and watch people crash and burn, and others I do it my way regardless of what I’m told. The perfect person would never get angry or upset, but would work with the idiots of the world to make things right. But I ain’t perfect, nor am I anything near it. Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is to stop thinking. People don't want truth, logic, or understanding. They just want. Give them what they want and you will both be better off.