Conversations

Make Time To Do It

April 8, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The essence of time management is to prioritize Think about how these two declarations sound:

“Let me make time to do it.”
“Let me find time to do it.”

If you asked someone to do something, which response seems more convincing and persuasive?

When someone says they’ll make time to do something, you sense they’ll give the matter a feeling of priority. It implies that they’ll prioritize.

On the other hand, if someone says they’ll find time, it appears like they’ll hope to find a gap where they may fit you in—if they can remember what it is you asked them to do.

Often language—particularly self-talk—can have a way of revealing truths about values and priorities. The expression “I’ll make time” shows how the idea of time management only matters to how important the stuff is that’s competing for your time.

Idea for Impact: You know something is important when one makes time for it.

Think carefully about what you make time to do versus what you find time to do. The essence of time management is to prioritize.

Witty Comebacks and Smart Responses for Nosy People

March 25, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

When somebody asks an invasive question that makes you feel offended, you’re never obligated to respond. Consider these smart responses.

A curious cousin: “I like your car/purse/home. How much did it cost?” Smart response: “Perhaps a tad more than I expected, but I like to pamper myself once in a while.”
Your inquisitive uncle: “How much do you make at this new job?” Smart response: “I do OK” or “I’d like to make more.”
Your snoopy coworker: “What was your doctor’s appointment for?” or “I heard you called in sick yesterday?” Smart response: “I’m just fine. Thanks for asking.”
The chatty visitor: “You’ve accomplished so much for your age! What are you? 30?” Smart response: “Still young at heart” or “I’m aging fast just thinking about it.”
A sneaky partier trying to estimate your age: “When did you graduate from high school?”Smart response: “When I heard Lucille Ball remark that a “man who correctly guesses a woman’s age may be smart, but he’s not very bright.””
A zealous coworker who can’t stop talking about God: “What do you do on Sunday mornings?” Smart response: “I do non-work things.”
An office busy body suggests a date: “Do you think you could ask her out? I know she’s single.” Smart response: “I don’t know. I’d have to think about mixing work and relationships .”
A prying friend: “When are you getting married?” or “Are you guys trying for a baby?” Smart response: “I’m kinda private and would rather not talk about this.”
A wanna-be Judge Judy wants to solve your parents’ problems: “When are you going to move out of your parents? When will you get a real job?”Smart response: “When my parents start talking to me about it directly.”
An intrusive colleague who’s just learned you’re getting married: “Are you going to invite the deputy manager?” Smart response: “It’s up to me and my fiance.” You could add, “Actually, we’re having a small wedding. Just family and a few close friends.”
A nosy new neighbor: “What heritage are you? I mean, are you mixed race?” Smart response: “Good question. I’d like to remain mysterious.”
A perky lady in your yoga class: “You look great, how much do you weigh?” or “Have you lost weight this summer?” Smart response: “I don’t know—each time I step on the scale, it reads, PERFECT.”
A snooping friend asks you to share a secret: “What were you and Sally nattering about?” Smart response: “Can you keep a secret?” and when your friend says “yes,” sneer and say, “So can I!”

You can try to redirect the attention or leave the conversation by saying: “Let me refill my drink.” But some people just don’t get a deflection.

Responding snappishly but firmly will imply that that the issue is not open for further conversation. “Why do you need to know that about me?” or “Why do you ask?”

If somebody continues to badger you, assert, “it’s personal and I won’t discuss it. Please stop asking.” Be as concise as possible. You shouldn’t feel compelled to give an explanation or justify your unwillingness to talk about sensitive matters.

Idea for Impact: Don’t Feel Rude about Quelling Impolite Boundary-Violators

Most meddlesome people often lack self-awareness. Others may just be making friendly conversation and may not realize that they’re being tactless and prying. Yet others tend to over-share the personal and inappropriate details of their lives and assume it’s OK to expect you to too. We live in a “do ask, do tell” society.

Often, though, people just assume enough rapport to be able to ask delicate questions. Spending some time with friends and coworkers creates a false sense of affability and trust that really isn’t there. We’ve all made that mistake!

The Data Never “Says”

March 1, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The Data Never

Data doesn’t say anything. Indeed, data can’t say anything for itself about an issue any more than a saw can form furniture, or a sauce can simmer a stew.

Data is inert and inanimate. Data doesn’t know why it was created. Data doesn’t have a mind of its own, and, therefore, it can’t infer anything.

Data is a necessary ingredient in judgment. It’s people who select and interpret data. People can turn it into insight or torture it to bring their agenda to bear. Data is therefore only as useful as its quality and the skills of the people wielding it.

Far more than we admit, subjectivity and intuition play a significant role in deciding how we collect, choose, process, explain, interpret, and apply the data. As entrepreneur Margaret Heffernan warns in Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril (2012,) “We mostly admit the information that makes us feel great about ourselves, while conveniently filtering whatever unsettles our fragile egos and most vital beliefs.”

In the hands of careless users, data can end up having the opposite effect its creators intended. All data is good or bad depending on how it’s employed in a compelling story and what end it’s serving—neither of which the data itself can control.

Don’t let data drive your conclusions. Let data inform your conclusions.
Don’t declare, “The data says,” (as in, “the stock market thinks.”) Data by itself cannot have a particular interpretation.
When you find data that seems to support the case you wish to make, don’t swoop on it without caution and suspicion. Data can be very deceptive when used carelessly.
Be familiar with the limitations of your data. Investigate if your data informs any other equally valid hypothesis that could propose an alternative conclusion.

Idea for Impact: Beware of the risk of invoking data in ways that end up undermining your message.

People Feel Loved in Different Ways // Summary of Greg Chapman’s The Five Love Languages

February 15, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The ‘Five Love Languages’ is this notion that people express love differently, and people feel loved in different ways. The term was familiarized by Greg Chapman’s The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate (1992.)

Chapman identifies the types of expression and perception as in an interpersonal relationship as the five “love languages:” (1) words of affirmation, (2) quality time, (3) receiving gifts, (4) acts of service, and (5) the physical touch.

The Five Love Languages gives several case studies to show that your sweetie will feel loved when you express love in a language that is natural to her. If love is expressed in a different language, she’s unlikely to receive your message of love.

Each of us has a primary love-language (and often secondary and tertiary ones.) Couples seldom share the same preferences. Learn to speak the language of your sweetie. You may be showing your love regularly, just not in the way your sweetie wants to receive love.
Chapman believes love-language-preferences tend to be fixed throughout our lives.
To help identify your love-language, focus on the way you most frequently express love. Often, what you give is what you need. “We speak and understand best our native language.”
Determining which love-language your sweetie speaks can be challenging. If in doubt, just ask. Try out different ways of expressing your love and be sensitive to what gets a better response.
Be more observant of your partner’s preferences. Get better at reading them—be mindful of how your partner may be showing you love. “People tend to criticize their spouse most loudly in the area where they themselves have the deepest emotional need.”
Even in close relationships, individuals are afraid to ask what they want. They feel vulnerable—or don’t want to appear needy.
All individuals have a “love tank” that needs to be topped up frequently by their loved ones in different ways.
Exploring the love-languages with your sweetie can spark a more in-depth conversation.
Become fluent in all the five love-languages. The framework can also improve and illuminate all kinds of other relationships—with parents, children, friends, and perhaps employees (professionally and platonically, of course.)

Recommendation: Quick-Read through Greg Chapman’s The Five Love Languages. It’s a convenient formulation, and it’s simple, and it’s relatable. You may find the book’s tone a tad preachy and hinting at Evangelical Christian attitudes (Chapman is a Southern Baptist pastor and holds a Ph.D. in adult education.)

Nonetheless, The Five Love Languages is a practical approach. This framework isn’t a cure-all to marital and relationship issues, but it is a stepping-stone toward breaking communication barriers.

Chapman’s guidance is convenient given that most people aren’t comfortable expressing their likes and dislikes. And, in return, they hate struggling to guess their partners’ likes and dislikes.

Idea for Impact: Relationships are a lot of work. Prioritize your loved ones. Doing nothing is not one of the five love-languages.

Negotiating Without Giving In // Summary of Roger Fisher’s ‘Getting to Yes’

February 1, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In (1981) by Roger Fisher et al. is a best-selling manual used in everything from marriage counseling to international negotiations.

Citing examples of all sorts of conflicts, the authors build the case that there’s a far greater chance of agreeable resolutions when parties aren’t bogged down in intractable positions. The tome helps highlight how the commerce of relationships is rarely ever simple and hardly ever so fair.

Behind opposed positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones. We tend to assume that because the other side’s positions are opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed. If we have an interest in defending ourselves, then they must want to attack us. If we have an interest in minimizing the rent, then their interest must be to maximize it. In many negotiations, however, a close examination of the underlying interests will reveal the existence of many more interests that are shared or compatible than ones that are opposed.

The book has its roots in the Harvard Negotiation Project. This interdisciplinary consortium started when Harvard realized that students from such faculties as law and business were ill-equipped to tackle conflicts effectively.

Negotiation Need Not Be a Zero-Sum Game

Getting to Yes: The Best Little Book on Win-Win Negotiations At its core, Getting to Yes focuses on what the authors call “principled negotiation”—it’s emphasizing what’s essential to you and why. In contrast, “position negotiation” is merely making demands and offering concessions until a compromise is reached. When you clarify why something is important to you and heed why things are essential to the other party, myriad solutions in your interests and theirs present themselves.

In traditional position-versus-position bargaining, the other must lose if you have to win and vice versa. With principled negotiation, you cultivate a supportive approach, “work side by side, and attack the problem, not each other.” Rather than stake out unwavering positions, you explore all possible “options for mutual gain” and present the other side with “yesable” propositions.

Separate the People from the Problem

To focus on underlying interests, the parties should try to get inside each other’s heads and consider the emotions involved—the desire for security or a fear of losing status, for example. “The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as that may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess.”

An illustrative anecdote cites President Nasser of Egypt being interviewed in 1970. His negotiating position was that Israel must pull its troops out “from every inch of Arab territory,” with no Arab obligation in return. The interviewer switches from positions to interests by prompting Nasser to consider what would happen to Prime Minister Golda Meir if she went on Israeli TV to reveal such a capitulation. Nasser bursts out laughing: “Oh, would she have trouble at home!” His compassion for Meir’s public perception transcends one of the most intractable geopolitical crises of our times.

Recommendation: The Best Little Book on Win-Win Negotiations

Must-read Getting to Yes (1981; reissued 2011.) It’ll change your general conception of negotiation by showing you how to benefit by seeing the world in terms of mutually beneficial transactions. This simple-but-practical guide to negotiations is full of useful tips on negotiating effectively without giving in or jeopardizing your relationship with the other party.

Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.

Some of the book’s techniques seem naive, and the authors tend to oversimplify bargaining positions. Moreover, not all conflicts can be solved as discrete judgment-based conciliations without having one party benefit only at significant cost to the other. Nonetheless, Getting to Yes teaches helpful lessons on understanding oneself and others, compromising, and searching for “win-win-win” solutions.

Idea for Impact: To persuade, focus on fairness and mutual interest, not on insisting on bargaining positions and winning the contest of will.

Tribalism Needs to Self-Destruct

January 20, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Big Tech’s recent rush to repress provocative content has expanded the debate on free speech and the social-media algorithms’ raw power to preside over how people see the world.

Democracy and free markets aren’t supposed to function this way. Overall, capitalism works because it typically rewards players for being right and penalizes players for being wrong. If you’re an investor and you’re wide of the mark about something, the market will penalize you.

That used to be valid with journalism too. Traditionally, if a mainstream news outlet got something wrong, it’d face disapproval, retractions, and embarrassment. If the outlet was wrong often enough, its circulation would shrink, and advertisers would drop.

Sadly, this feedback loop has gone. Our media consumption has become so segmented and tribal. For instance, Fox News could assert whatever it wants its audience to believe, and the market won’t punish it. Indeed, Fox News could even be rewarded with more significant viewership.

Tribal media consumption is especially manifest with social media because the platforms’ business model is driven by tribe-segmentation, engagement, and clicks. Social media reward fanaticism, emotionalism, and hyperbole. There’s no natural self-regulating market apparatus any longer.

All told, tribalism and hyperpolarized filter bubbles have taken their toll. They’re contributing to society’s intellectual decay.

Idea for Impact: This isn’t as much a freedom-of-speech issue as it is a distribution issue. Yes, everyone should be free to express themselves without the interference of editors or other filters. But what does—and doesn’t—surface for consumption needs to be moderated. Gate-keeping must be done in a way that doesn’t devalue truth and ignore the counterevidence. Technology needs to pivot to help society break through the mental barriers of tribes.

Couldn’t We Use a Little More Civility and Respect in Our Conversations?

December 9, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The New York Times recently had an article about a Smith College-class that addresses America’s burgeoning addiction to contempt.

The power of mindful conversation to change minds

The lecturer, reproductive justice-activist Loretta J. Ross, is highlighting the ills of call-out culture. Her class challenges the proclivity to persecute every presumed infringement against morality and represent the victim as somebody intolerable to decent society.

Ross doesn’t believe people should be publicly shamed for accidentally misgendering a classmate, for sending a stupid tweet they now regret; or for, say, admitting they once liked a piece of pop culture now viewed in a different light, such as “The Cosby Show.”

What I’m really impatient with is calling people out for something they said when they were a teenager when they’re now 55. I mean, we all at some point did some unbelievably stupid stuff as teenagers, right?

Call-out culture has taken conversations that could have once been learning opportunities and turned them into mud wrestling. “It really does alienate people, and makes them fearful of speaking up.”

The antidote to that outrage cycle, Professor Ross believes, is “calling in.” Calling in is like calling out, but done privately and with respect. “It’s a call out done with love,” she said. That may mean simply sending someone a private message, or even ringing them on the telephone to discuss the matter, or simply taking a breath before commenting, screen-shotting or demanding one “do better” without explaining how.

Calling out assumes the worst. Calling in involves conversation, compassion and context. It doesn’t mean a person should ignore harm, slight or damage, but nor should she, he or they exaggerate it. “Every time somebody disagrees with me it’s not ‘verbal violence.'”

Debate the issues, Avoid gratuitous name-calling

The recent election has underscored that we continue to be a deeply divided nation. Americans are ever more passionate about their beliefs and committed to their causes. Ideological affiliation is increasingly a matter of tribal identity. Presenting facts can sometimes backfire. In the narrow-minded pursuit of “goodness,” our society has manifested a disgraceful habit of dismissing people with differing attitudes as less than human, “deplorable,” and not worth consideration.

Differences of opinion are natural and healthy facets of any community. The various issues that we face are complicated, affecting different people in different ways. We must be able to express and accept our differences with civility.

Listen to the other in interpersonal confrontations. Put yourself in the other’s shoes and mull over a perspective you hadn’t considered previously. There may be a well-founded concern that you weren’t aware of, and you could soften your position and, perhaps, lead you to different conclusions.
Don’t approach debates as “take no prisoners” battles. Build bridges with your ideological opponents. If you never earnestly consider others’ opinions, your mind will shrink and become its own little echo chamber.

Idea for Impact: You can’t change minds by damning your opponents

Be civil and respectful of others’ views. As President Obama has reminded, the world is “messy” and full of “ambiguities,” and “if all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.”

Before trying to change others’ minds, consider how difficult it is to change your own.

How to Minute a Meeting

September 28, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

How to Minute a Meeting If you’re the unlucky minute-taker tasked with recording a discussion for the benefit of posterity, remember that minutes are expected to contain essentially a reliable record of what transpired at the meeting, key decisions taken, and action items.

In principle, meetings exist for people to inform and decide, but, in reality, lots of what people say in meetings will be trivial, pointless, and unhelpful. Unless specifically required by the forum, you don’t have to scribble down each and every pearl of wisdom that ensues. Per Wikipedia, the term “minutes” derives from the Latin minuta scriptura (“small writing,”) meaning “rough notes.”

The BBC political satire Yes, Prime Minister (1986–88; prequel Yes Minister, 1980–84,) that masterly class on politics, manipulation, and being manipulated, has particularly handy advice on meeting minutes. From the ‘Man Overboard’ (clip) and ‘Official Secrets’ (clip) episodes,

A minute is a note for the records and a statement of action, if any, that was agreed upon.

It is characteristic of all discussions and decisions that every meeting member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member’s recollection of them differs violently from every other member’s recollection. Consequently, we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have officially recorded in the minutes by the officials … if a decision had been officially reached, it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials.

The purpose of minutes is not to record events, it is to protect people.

People frequently change their minds during a meeting. Therefore, what is said at a meeting merely constitutes the choice of ingredients for the minutes. The minute-taker’s task is to choose, from a jumble of ill-digested ideas, a version that represents the [powerful person’s] views as he would, on reflection, have liked them to emerge.

Minutes do not record everything that was said at a meeting. Minutes are constructive—they are to improve what is said, to be tactful, to put in better order.

Minutes, by virtue of the selection process, can never be a true and complete record. Minutes don’t constitute a true record.

You’ll have to maintain a Zen-like focus on why everybody disagrees with somebody and how nobody agrees to do what anybody could have done. But you don’t have to work hard to keep yourself awake either.

As soon as you’ve circulated those minutes and got them approved, you can file them away. Nobody may ever actually read them in the future.

Flattery Will Get You Nowhere

August 11, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Flattery has had a bad name since the Greeks. Over 2,000 years ago, Publilius Syrus, the Latin writer of mimes and dramatic sketches, warned, “Flattery was formerly a vice; it has now become the fashion.”

Flattery continues to be an obligatory weapon in all manner of political and personal influence. Richard Stengel’s A Brief History of Flattery (2000) lists over 200 synonyms for “to flatter” and “flattery.”

A trio of marketing professors conducted a set of experiments using a sunglasses kiosk. The sales clerks flattered customers either during the sale, after the sale, or not at all. Then, researchers asked the shoppers to evaluate the trustworthiness of the clerks.

Turns out that the customers could see through it. Flattery, whether it comes during or after the sale, reduced the customer’s perception of the clerk’s trustworthiness. Without conscious reflection, flattery made the customers distrust the salesclerks:

Our findings show that even when it was obvious the compliment didn’t serve any underlying sales motive, the participants didn’t trust what the sales agent had to say.

In a way, it’s sad that the marketplace has become so suspicious, but it seems that when someone flatters us, we get our back up even if it’s not called for. It’s the consumers’ default position to react negatively to what is perceived as an attempt to manipulate them.

Idea for Impact: Don’t try to sway anybody by unsavory flattery and ingratiation.

Flattery is an inducement that seems great initially but leaves a horrid aftertaste. People will eat up your flattery if they’re starving for affection, but undue adulation isn’t as appealing as honest, sincere appreciation.

Surrounded by Yes: Social Media and Elsewhere

June 18, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Social-Media Impose “Censorship” Through Recommendions and Filters

Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other media companies have built unbelievably powerful tools for collecting and organizing personal data. They’re developing and perfecting algorithms that track your activities and accumulate repositories of seemingly-trivial social media data.

They know whom you hang out with and what you like. And they can make extraordinarily good deductions about your demographics, social influences, political partisanship, social and economic preferences, and everything else. They’re influencing not just what content you see, but also which sites you visit in the first place.

These companies’ intentions are modest enough: to feed you the news you’re likely to want and to expose you to the kind of products and services you’re likely to respond to. The pages you’re shown are tailored for who you are, where you live, whom you interact with, and what you’ve previously clicked on.

The purveyors of the internet make money from advertising and paid subscriptions. Their goal is stickiness: they need traffic to thrive and prosper. Their success depends on their ability to draw you, keep you longer, and persuade you to return before you choose to leave.

Recommender systems have an enormous influence on the discourse you’re exposed to.

There’s a dangerous consequence here. What you should realize is that Google, Facebook, and Amazon have become gatekeepers of everything you see on the internet. Their content filtering and recommender systems are substituting editorial judgment. They’re not neutral and, given their economic objectives, often serve to amplify your biases.

The problem with filtering and recommender systems is that everybody likes them. The content you’re fed with is, in a sense, an endless stream of affirmations that you’re right—you’ll see more of what you’re interested in and associate with others who share your viewpoints. The consensus view is reinforced—the world seems to agree with you. Everything feels more normal!

On a broader scale, as people converge to likeminded people in virtual neighborhoods, you tend to operate in an intellectual bubble. Left to all these devices of today’s information-consumption patterns, much of your opinions and judgments are subjective, imprecise, incomplete, narrow-minded, or utterly unapprised.

All this has made it difficult for you to seek out contrasting views even if you feel so disposed. When you do venture out, all you’ll see are trolls who get offended by the slightest of disagreements—any attempt to challenge their beliefs is taken as a grievous insult. These trolls resort to bumper sticker-rhetoric, name-calling, demeaning attacks, and ill-informed declarations.

Idea for Impact: There’s Great Value in Listening Carefully and Charitably to Ideological Opponents.

Reach out. Consider alternative world-views that may cause you to philosophize differently. Find well-intentioned, respectful people who can challenge your viewpoints. Associate with ideological challengers who can help you improve your understanding of conflicting perspectives.

In On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not (2008,) neurologist and author Robert Burton argues that certainty is an emotion just like anger, passion, or sorrow. Once you develop a “that’s right” disposition about a subject matter, your brain subconsciously protects you from wasting its processing effort on problems for which it has already found a solution that you believe is good enough, and is continuously reinforced. In other words, your cerebral laziness could subconsciously lead you to “do less” by simply embracing a cast-iron certainty rather than re-examining your assumptions.

Don’t be lazy. Doggedly examine your biases and prejudices.

Conversations

Wondering what to read next?

Idea for Impact: Don’t Feel Rude about Quelling Impolite Boundary-Violators

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Negotiation Need Not Be a Zero-Sum Game

Separate the People from the Problem

Recommendation: The Best Little Book on Win-Win Negotiations

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

The power of mindful conversation to change minds

Debate the issues, Avoid gratuitous name-calling

Idea for Impact: You can’t change minds by damning your opponents

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Social-Media Impose “Censorship” Through Recommendions and Filters

Recommender systems have an enormous influence on the discourse you’re exposed to.

Idea for Impact: There’s Great Value in Listening Carefully and Charitably to Ideological Opponents.

Wondering what to read next?