Tag Archives: proactivity

The Philosophy of Armitage-Shanks.

06 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in General, Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on The Philosophy of Armitage-Shanks.

Tags

, , , ,

In my ‘smallest room’, I like to keep a book handy for those longer visits where I can fill my mind while emptying other parts. As you may have surmised from the tone and content of my posts, I don’t like wasting time, and as my income and laziness have not yet stretched to having a door-mounted TV in there, reading is a great substitute.

Today, rather self-indulgently, I selected an old copy of The Seven Habits Workbook, something I buy from time to time to reinvigorate myself with some self-analysis. (I never seem to get to the bit on interpersonal communication, for some reason. Maybe that’s why I never listen.)

In the first pages, the book asks the reader to explore an event where their paradigms were changed because their first impressions were realigned when new information came to their notice.

My favourite example was the day I challenged some kids for throwing litter. Local shops suffered from youths ‘hanging around’ which resulted in repeated calls to police, which in that capacity I used to attend. Off duty one day, I was walking past a small group of teens when I heard a can hit the floor. I challenged the youths to pick it, probably quite brusquely, and they declined the offer. It was only as I stood there facing them down that I realised that the nearby litter bin was overflowing, and it was exceptionally windy.

They hadn’t dropped the can. Nature had.

I realised then, in my own AHA moment, what a paradigm is and how it affects our thinking. It is the way we see things, the lens through which we see and interpret what is happening. And like many lenses, it alters our vision. A lens can correct our vision, or warp it.

Yesterday, a politician was challenged for ‘something he said’. The reports outlined how he had insulted people who died in the Grenfell Tower disaster as ‘lacking common sense’. The funny thing was, he didn’t say that. People with an interest in challenging the politician – and the media, who can never let a fact get in the way of a good story – decided that ‘lacking common sense’ was what he meant.

You can see what he actually said, here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT2z-TtgElU

(You can also look up a previous post from 2016 about The Donald on this site.)

The aim of today’s post is not to tell you what to think. It is to remind you that we ‘think’ through a lens created by our history, our references and our values. And, importantly,  so do others.

Which means that when we are told something by someone else they, too, are telling us through their paradigm of the way they see things – which means that what they are saying may – emphasis may – be based on a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, or even on mischief.

It’s not always easy to spot, and if you consider that adding our lens to their lens may warp things even further, perhaps the lesson here is to be really careful when starting to espouse your opinions on ‘what just happened’, too.

The other thing I felt about this incident was how our ‘enlightenment’ on matters which should be dealt with ‘sensitively’ (i.e. less than truthfully?) has resulted in a massive increase in tolerance.

“You should be more sensitive, you ignorant fascist bastard!” Irony.

Isn’t it amazing just how thoughtful you become after reading a book when sat with your trousers around your ankles?

And on that image, I’ll let you go. Another toilet metaphor. I could go all day……..

I would have killed him, but …….

18 Thursday Dec 2014

Posted by in Discipline

≈ Comments Off on I would have killed him, but …….

Tags

, , , ,

“Test the principle of proactivity for 30 days and see what happens. Make small commitments and keep them.” Stephen R Covey

And that, ladies and gentlemen, ain’t easy.

For those unfamiliar with The 7 Habits, proactivity is where we exercise our self-awareness, creative imagination, independent will and conscience in the gap between something happening to us, and our responding to that stimulus. Note – response, not react. Reacting is instinctive and occasionally results in snapping, retorting, or arguing instead of contemplating, cogitating and considering the appropriate response.

T’other day I was driving along, minding my own business when a lunatic turned across my path, nearly wiping us both out. My instinctive response was to start chasing him/her, which is an example of reacting without consideration. But after about 500 yards or so I exercised the aforementioned endowments and decided that I hadn’t actually been hit, that there was nothing I could do if I caught him and I was more likely to have another bump if I kept up. I took the next roundabout and turned off. (I later called the police, it was that bad. And if he’d actually collided…… who knows.) Despite the adrenalin rush, I chose wisely.

But it wasn’t always so. In a similar incident I pursued and offending driver for about 3 miles, nearly losing control of my car at one stage. That incident taught me the lesson I applied more recently.

Proactivity works.

In terms of the second half of the quote, one of the commitments you could make to yourself for 30 days is to exercise proactivity whenever something happens that would cause you to bite, pause in the gap between that stimulus and your response, and decide instead to do something ‘better’. For example, when your partner says something you would like to correct or even attack, use the gap to decide whether any response is even necessary, or if it is, what response would not make the situation worse while still allowing you to retain your self-esteem.

Like I say – not easy, but really worth it.

Change yourself before asking others to do so.

03 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Character and Competence

≈ Comments Off on Change yourself before asking others to do so.

Tags

, ,

“We can never really change someone; people must change themselves.” Stephen R Covey

But that doesn’t stop us trying, does it?

One of those ‘things’ that I find wearing about other people (and which they probably find wearing about me) is when they try and impose their autobiography onto yours. This occurs during many conversations and is CERTAINLY the one that directs much of what passes for debate on tv. You know the one: “A (insert profession) once treated me badly OR was charged with a crime so THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT.”

Despite the fact that the protagonists in our conversations either have no personal connection to the incident OR that they do, but it’s only one incident through which they elect to judge everybody, they will insist on arguing the point. Any attempt on your part to argue the opposite or, grace forbid, to try and suggest a bit of objectivity, is seen as an attack on the former’s integrity and so the argument, based on a false premise, goes on.

We have to acknowledge that what happens to us may be true in the moment, but it is not necessarily true all of the time – it is not necessarily a ‘principle’ that youths hanging around a shop are trouble, for example, even if they occasionally can be.

Many years ago I was a ‘street cop’ and one problem we had outside one shop was a youth gang who were just a nuisance. We would be called incessantly, and move them on only for them to come back. (One effective method I had was to drive up at speed, slam on the brakes and open the door. The gang would run off and I wouldn’t even have to get out of the car. It was fun.)

One day, off duty, I was approaching a shop past a couple of teenagers, and just after I passed I heard a coke can fall to the floor. I testily challenged the youth, “Are you going to pick that up?!”

“It’s not mine,” he replied. It was only then that I noticed a bin, full to overflowing – and the heavy wind that had evidently blown a can off the top.

That was my ‘Aha!’ moment, when I realised that I (we) tend to judge people not so much by what ‘is’ as by what ‘we believe’.

I still do that – it’s nature. But we do have the option of using our proactive mindset to pause and ask ourselves if what we think we saw actually happened.

And so to the people of Ferguson and all those others protesting things they didn’t witness, ask yourselves whether what you’re being told by people encouraging you to damage YOUR OWN COMMUNITY is true. And, even if you conclude that it is, ask yourself why your punishing  EVERYBODY for something ONE PERSON DID is any different to what you’re saying they did to someone you never met?

(And here’s a thought – the two biggest international community backlash protests over police killings have been where the community has gone nuts over a dead criminal – not an innocent. Why IS that?)

Opinions – influenced by falsity?

27 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in Rants

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

On a theme of ‘being lived’, another question arises. Is the media to be believed?

In the UK, there is a lot of press attention being given to one particular party at the moment, one which is pro-British and which some take to be racist in intent. I am not considering whether it is or is not. Parties, like any other organisation, are made up of people and if they all thought the same they wouldn’t need committees, so the occasional nutcase will always come out and say something stupid, or contrary to a popular ‘ism’. Again, I do not want to get into that – it’s too dangerous.

What I DO intend to get into is this – can we trust the media, and if so, to what extent?

The Press have done some wonderful things – but.

They expose corruption that we should know about, but they sensationalise misconduct that we really shouldn’t give a toss about. They keep us informed about the facts, but they also twist and exaggerate using adverbs and adjectives which are theirs, and are not necessarily designed to support the facts as much as they are intended to sell newspapers. They expose the ‘surveillance society’ and then take pictures of holidaying ‘celebs’ and focus on their cellulite, or camp outside people’s houses harassing them into submission. (All the time demanding private investigators be licenced for doing far less, but that’s my focus group and I’ll say no more!)

I am amazed by how often, at 6am in the morning, I buy a newspaper that tells me that I (aka ‘the public’) am outraged by something that I don’t know about, yet. So – is that true? Is the public ‘outraged’, or do they just want us to be so we’ll buy their rag?

The BBC is now in the habit of having one journalist report a headline, only to turn to another reporter to interview them – giving us the impression that the latter is an authority on the matter, as opposed to another journalists who has a bit more information than us but is otherwise just as uninformed as us. That air of authority warps our opinions because like it or not, it comes across as authoritative opinion – which it patently is not.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the papers reported “just the facts, ma’am”? No emotive language, no sensationalist descriptive terminology – just tell what is true and leave us to decide whether we care or not. Perhaps then we’d start living in a world where the opinion of the press was no longer relevant, or that there was at least a clear distinction between the facts and the fluff?

I say all this because whether we like it or not, if we are not properly proactive about deciding whether what we hear is accurate, or not, we will allow ourselves to be influenced by things which are INTENDED BY OTHERS to influence us, not things that SHOULD influence us.

Which will really annoy the advertisers!

(Have you noticed how, despite the media’s insistence that their channels are about entertainment and information – all the adverts seem to come on at the same time so you can’t avoid them by channel hopping? )