For those who don't know me yet , I'm the unnamed Wordmaster in this community .
I often debate with dozens of people at once and I still beat them in speed , no matter if they speak Chinese or English , until I finally lost the interest to debate anymore .
I can do that because I can think of so many counter arguments from various aspects once I made a remark and predict what arguments the counter party will be going with. And the rest is just my typing speed and my knowledge in multiple fields .
With that said , yes , eventually , I'm arguing with myself constantly . And quite oddly , I can win in both side of the argument , if I have picked a direction first .
So , that brings out another line of questions :Is there a "right" opinion ? Is everything just a matter of perspective ? So what's the point of proving something if there are no "right" answers to begin with ?
Somebody might say it's easy to answer : At the end of the day , those who can produce the most convincing argument wins .
OK , now we're getting somewhere . ( look , this is the living proof that I can argue with myself on behalf of somebody else ) .
Wait a minute , who will be there to judge which one is more convincing than the other ?In most scenario , those who applause for you would be the same ones who has the exact idea in mind. Those who disagrees with you , their opinion can only be changed if they believe the same thing as you in their subconscious .
OK , dude , I must be crazy . If that's the case , what's the point of convincing somebody ?
Here comes the best part :You only need to convince those people who can offer you the most once they believe in you .
For a insurance agent , he/she should convince their potential clients to buy insurance policies , because that would bring profit for him/her .
For a politician , he/she should convince the people to vote for he/she , because that would make his/her career .So , what happens to those arguments which won't give you any benefits even if you win them ?
That's a weird question , because like I said before : everything is about perspective , you can't actually win an argument against everybody . Because they would tell you this sentence repeatly "everything is about perspective" . It's always easier to answer a question instead of act on it .
It's in our nature to grab an existing answer to a question because that answer is always the ground for our previous decision . Without that answer , our decision would be wrong from the start . So , what happens to communication if everything is about perspective ?
Perspective can't solve any issue for you , just easier to understand them .
If you can look at things at another perspective in every conflict , then you'll be a very patient and understanding guy .
But does that solve the original conflict and problem ? Well , that's the thing , it doesn't .
Communication should be about improving things , not just about answering and understanding things . Looking things at another perspective will make you ignore the problem , not solving it .
When people looked at the mining cost at another perspective , they become hard core Bitcoin fans , while the mining are still sucking the blood out of them .
When we looked at lack of marketing at another perspective , we become content with marketcap since "no marketing and still get there , think of what will happen if we have great marketing" , and we lose a great window before the bear market .
When we look at lack of prioritizing at another perspective , we'll think it's ok to drop something for a bit , while it wasn't . The end
So , you're saying , words and speeches and answers are some sort of game that doesn't change anything ?
It all depends on how you want to proceed .
If you just want to win an argument , then forget it , because you can always win by looking at another perspective .
If you want to get some opinions and review the effort you're doing , try to argue with yourself first with the opinion from those who oppose you .disclaimer: I had too much coffee tonight .