Michael:
So, here's the fact the glass is half full, which
Michael:
is the same as half empty.
Michael:
Of course, the more relevant question is what conclusions do we draw from the fact.
Michael:
Because these can be rather different depending on your take regarding half
Michael:
empty or half full, for example, because they emply a different sense of urgency.
Michael:
The thing is that arguing rationally based on facts can be just as frustrating
Michael:
as arguing emotionally when we don't agree on the meaning of the facts.
Michael:
In fact, even more so.
Michael:
Because everyone is so deeply convinced that their take is right.
Michael:
I mean, after all the facts prove them, right, don't they.
Michael:
It really is a factual argument: but the glasses have empty
Michael:
and you can't deny that.
Michael:
Why then does the other party based on the facts, arrive at a different
Michael:
conclusion and how come they are just as convinced of their conclusion.
Michael:
The problem is that facts are just facts and the argument is not about the facts.
Michael:
It's about what the facts mean.
Michael:
It's informed by our experiences and expectations.
Michael:
It's influenced by our values and principles.
Michael:
And this means that it only masks as a rational discussion,
Michael:
unless we agree on these things.
Michael:
It's a rational discussion relative to our values and principles.
Michael:
Only when we agree about these will a rational argument lead to the same
Michael:
conclusion for all participants.
Michael:
Are you clear about the values that influence the meaning of a fact to you
Michael:
and are you communicating them clearly?
