Totally Doodgical

Ever wonder why there’s a whole lot of sparring and not a whole lot of understanding these days?  It’s because people only argue from their point of view.  A persuasive argument leverages the other’s peson’s beliefs and speaks from their perspective.  Today’s “debates” with their “sound-bites” are just rallying cries and not true argument.  A true argumentor finds the kernel of disagreement and sifts through the chaff of agreement.

Here’s my rules of argument:

 Rule #1:  If you don’t understand the other side’s argument AND can justify it — don’t start arguing, start asking.

For rule #1, I think about the abortion debate.  I think about all the people who accuse each other about being “killers” or “legislating my body.”  If you’re berating the other side, there’s no use arguing because neither side will give in.

A good persuader will ask first, rephrase their beliefs looking for confirmation and then argue. 

For argument’s sake let’s take the side of pro-life.  We would ask someone when they believe life exists and choice retreats.  They would likely answer “at birth.”  So it might seem that our kernel of disagreement is at what point life exists.  But that’s not true:  you need to test it with an assumption.  Try asking this question:  if at any point during a pregnancy, with minimal invasiveness, an embryo could be transferred to a test-tube with no ill physical or mental effects, would you support this alternative to abortion?  Notice we’re still talking about their beliefs, but we’re finding out whether their objection is to a chain a woman’s body to pregnancy without a say or something else.  If the answer is negative, then follow-up questions should find where or if that switch could ever be made.

Rule #2:  Be willing to do the same exploration AND change your mind.

It’s not worth talking with someone unless you both can benefit from the other’s experience.  However, if you’re following rule #1, it is difficult to have a closed mind.  You might be sure of yourself, but not closed.

Turning the last situation around: a pro-choice person would ask the pro-life person when a person should be forced to sustain someone else’s life.  Should I be required to give up one of my kidneys to save someone else’s life?  my child’s life?  Should I be required to feed my child at the expense of my health?  What if there was only enough sustenance for one of us – which is right?  which should be required by law?  How far should a pregnant person be required to go to save the baby’s life?  bankruptcy?  house?  to protect the baby’s life?  alcohol?  seatbelts?  Find the limits where people switch and then confirm in your own words.

Rule #3:  Talk in their language, not yours. 

If you are arguing you should have 2 goals: acquisition of information and persuation.  You’re not going to be effective in either one if you force someone into your framework of understanding.  Use their words and their framework.  Their foundation and beliefs are different and that’s GOOD.  Its your job to understand it.

Notice my word change above depending on who I’m talking to:  baby vs. embryo.  A framework is not complete without terminology.  Look at math and physics.  If you don’t know the terminology, you can never hope to understand the framework (proofs).

Rule #4:  If it changes to violent, stop and walk away.

There are a few reasons to be violent, either by raising your voice or getting physical.  The only things that come to mind are protection from robbery or protests against the majority stomping on the minority (think Martin Luther King).  Generally, there are better ways to solve things.

In fact, if you stop when someone gets hot under the collar and don’t give them a reason to label you (that guy is just a bully, or he was blowing smoke because he came unglued), you just made them think about why they’re steamed and why you’re not.  People like to be consistent and don’t like to be mad without justification.  If you don’t give them that justification, they might just think about what you said.

If you’re the one hot under the collar, consider why you feel that way.

For example, I don’t get mad at people who call my wife or mother nasty things.  I know they are fantastic individuals.  I usually comment about how their comment says more about them than my family and walk away.

If there is one book I would recommend, I would recommend Crucial Conversations.  It’s like the miracle cure, the miracle gro, the fix-my-work-and-home medicine.  That’s pretty big talk for anything, let alone a book.  Even if you don’t believe me, then consider that American Express gives classes on it, Steven R. Covey wrote the forward, Dain Hancock from Lockheed Martin endorses it, and Wolf Creek Nuclear gives training on it.  This is not your ordinary self-help book.

 So it’s important, but what is it?  It basically outlines why we are awful at important conversations, when to recognize important conversations and how to achieve mutual success in important conversations.  If you’ve ever seen someone tackle a difficult conversation with finesse – whether stopping the boss from doing something unilaterally stupid or achieving harmony in their marriage despite discussing “the promotion” that requires a move – you’ve seen someone understand what’s really important in a Crucial Conversation.

This is not a book about getting your way.  It is about bring knowledge out of everybody while keeping everyone involved in the conversation.  Its about why we clam up or fight and destroy any good things that could come in conversations that are important to us.

In short:  Read it.  Its a lifechanger.

I had someone at career services ask me to give advice to a fellow student on how to break into the IP scene with a weak background (physics minor).  Here’s my response:

I’m going to start with giving you my 2 cents and then answer your questions.  Remember that my advice is as good as you pay for it, so take everything I say with a healthy dose of checking out my reality with others.  Everyone who’s successful has an angle, and here’s my take (which may not be yours).  If I’m too blunt, please forgive my bluntness.  I want you to understand how your employer is thinking.  The key is to make yourself fit what he wants.  It’s not to tell him how great you are (you’re not great, you have potential).
 
Let me start by saying that there are 2 major factors to patent law employment according to the employers I’ve done informational interviews with:  field of study and experience.  Those are the qualifications, if you don’t meet those, you will have a difficult time getting in the door.  After that, everything else is about differentiation.  Field of study is very difficult to change, since it’s what you know and what you’ve studied.  We’re talking wisdom and years of knowledge, so its not easy to change.  Relevant experience is where you can make a difference right now.
 
With your minimal technical background, I would see if you can go clerk part time for free.  You’ll gain experience and training and exposure to good people in the know.  In exchange you’ll give your minimal services for free.  I’m told (and I believe) that new clerks cost more to train than they make.  You’ll be diverting time from someone who can bill $200-$250 an hour into a personal tutor in patent law and what to do.  For clerks that have the right technical background, law firms realize that this is how the new people get up to speed.  For your iffy background, you’re going to have to prove yourself.  This means:  passing the patent bar, clerking for free/credit and knowing the right people.  You have the ability to effect the first 2, while your fellow students can get you connected with the last one.
 
Ok, enough with the generals, let’s get onto your questions:
 
QUESTION:  I’ve been able to arrange to take the classes I need.

(more…)