It's quite possible that I might be wrong. Or maybe not.

It can be really easy to see people, not you of course, since you are wise enough to be reading this post I know you get it, but all those other, silly people that might not possibly agree with you or insist of thinking or acting in ways not necessarily aligned with your genius as not getting it, or worse, having a disastrous lack of vision or even some shady morals.

We're seeing this constantly here in the USA in the spectacle that currently passes for political discourse these days. Mostly, philosophical disagreements or even simple policy impasses are escalated to massive proportions, and eventually result in, (or rather degrade to), a schoolyard style round of name calling followed by a 'I am taking my ball and going home' deadlock. Case in point from outside of the political sphere, and one that hits much closer to my heart - the ongoing National Basketball Association labor negotiations. This train wreck so far have been notable only for a lack of progress leading to the cancellation of the first two weeks of regular season games, and the slightly more interesting but also unfortunate dalliances by current NBA stars with leagues and teams in Europe and Asia. How are the locker rooms in Turkey, D-Will?

Maybe it is a by-product of the 24/7 news cycle, the explosion of online outlets for everyone and anyone to get on their soapbox, and the milliseconds after anything happens reaction, and re-reactions on social media, but the frequency and intensity of arguments seems more prevalent and acute than ever before.

I think there's also a bit of the instant expert phenomenon at play here as well.  I loved how this week on social media 'I once rented a DVD' equated to 'I am expert on Netflix' business model and am fully qualified to tell them how to run their business via Twitter.'

I am sure it is naive, (and boring), to write about by-gone days where we could disagree without questioning each other's fundamental being or integrity or where we could have honest differences of opinion absent the passive-aggressive character assassination we see sometimes (maybe more than sometimes), online. But we can, and should do better I think, and try and compartmentalize these disagreements into the typically smallish buckets where they usually belong.  And even if the disagreements are kind of big, well as the great songwriter/philosopher Sting so eloquently suggested so many years ago, even the Russians loved their children too.

But  I don't mean that phony, politician-style faux-respect that usually starts with, 'I am sure Jim-Bob is a really good family man', but then proceeds into a lengthy and scathing rebuke of everything Jim-Bob has ever said, all the things he stands for, and how every single decision he has ever made in his life is foolish and wrong. I am thinking about the kind of honest disagreement that can really only come from having just a bit of perspective and at least the sliver of empathy. The kind of thinking that can only be present if we can be big enough to admit we might possibly not have all the answers. And the kind environment where we feel reasonably safe from attack if we take what might be an unusual stance or an unpopular position.

The kind of place that allows me to freely admit that in fact, I do still like Sting.

Hockey Fan (it's not me it's you)

'It's not you, it's me.'

The classic break up line used mainly by guys who want to weasel out of a romantic relationship with the least amount of prolonged discussion or lengthy drama. The 'it's not you, it's me' position attempts to effectively stifle dialogue by making it impossible for the 'you' in the debate to effectively counter-argue.NHL Winter Classic 2011

'But I can change'

'It's not you, it's me'

'I can be more understanding'

'It's not you, it's me'

'I can get rid of the cat', (ok, that one never happens)

'It's not you, it's me'.  You get the idea.

But often in the real world when we are trying to convince people of the value or excitement of a sport or hobby, the merits of an artist, or even a point of view on weightier matters like political, social, or economic policy'; we erroneously apply the 'It's not me, it's you' argument.

A simple (and certainly unimportant) example can be seen in how fans and aficionados of professional ice hockey tend to discuss their affinity for the sport, particularly with people that do not share their interest and enthusiasm. Often you will see hockey fan say things to non-fans like - 'You need to invest some time and get to know the game', 'You just don't appreciate the skills of the players and nuances of the game', or 'You really need to attend a game live and in-person to truly appreciate the sport', and so on.

And sometimes those kind of arguments come of as a little condescending, similar to the way connoisseurs of wine or abstract art can sound when expounding on the value and virtues of their interests.  It's fantastic to be engaged, proud, and excited about your passion, it sucks to back-handedly denigrate the rest of us that may not share those passions.

And since most of the convincing we need to do in our work is arguably more important than wrangling up a few more folks to watch the Winter Classic, I think we (myself included) would be well served to remember some simple truisms.

The better way to get people to buy in to your idea, adopt your proposal, read your blog, or subscribe to your worldview is not to try to convince them that they have a problem or are somehow lacking in intelligence or insight. But rather to realize that perhaps your point of view is the unusual one, the one that does not have obvious or inherent value to your audience, and is possibly too radical a departure from the norm to be easily adopted.

I am not a huge ice hockey fan.  And no number of 'You just don't get it' arguments will make me more likely to tune in.

In conclusion, you may have found this post to be dull, uninformative, and wholly not worth your attention. For that I apologize.  

Trust me, it's not you, it's me.