Arguments for fun…and….

Arguments run the world. Arguments ruin the world. If Benjamin Franklin had not argued with the mundane, and tried out the iron kite experiment, I would not have been able to pen this blog on a computer that runs on electricity, nor would you have been able to read this on the monitor that runs on it. It was the ‘argument’ that led to this wonderful discovery.
But, weren’t the arguments between powerful nations that led to all those wars???
Are arguments good, or bad?

“This coffee is very sweet. I should have opted for the tea,” my friend, a chronic argument specialist, blurted out at a breakfast table, at the workplace cafeteria.
“How is it going to be different? The tea is going to have the same milk, and hence the same amount of sweetness,” I uttered, casually.
The presence of two sweet looking dames along with us, at our table, called my friend for a show of his incorrigible arguing skills.
“The sugar is put into the decoction. Not the milk,” he said, smiling at me.
“Nope. Sugar is generally put into the milk,” I spoke, recalling the incident when my uncle had requested for a sugarless coffee at a self-service restaurant, the thin bearded ‘coffee-guy’ at the smoke charred corner of the restaurant had scooped up milk and a lot of froth, from a different container.

The smile on the face of my friend withdrew back to a mild frown.
“No, I perfectly know. The sugar is put to the decoction,” he said, now more of an argument. A sweep of my glance at the girls in the table told me that they were getting unnerved as my friend readied himself to another battle.
“I don’t agree. There are two containers in all hotels, one for sweet milk, and one for sugarless. The decoction is placed in a single filter, and it is always sugarless,” I said, firmly this time. I wanted to win this argument. Yes, I had witnesses too, which made the game exciting.
“You don’t know anything about running a hotel. Having sweet and sugarless milk in huge containers is a loss to them. They might as well be maintaining the sweet and sugarless decoctions in small containers,” he argued, now with stronger points, with a try to attack my ego.
“I agree that I don’t know anything about running a hotel, but I know for sure that sweet and sugarless is determined by the milk, and not the decoction,” I refused to budge from my point, not to be towed away by his secondary lines of argument.
He nodded furiously.
It was getting very exciting, and the idea of a perfect kill suddenly erupted in me. “What say we have a bet on this? I will bet you for a hundred bucks on this…..no…no….let us make this a thousand bucks,” I said, trying to trap him, in the presence of the two uncomfortable girls, who had not wanted this, early in the morning.
“Sure,” he blurted out.
And then, he did not drag it further, as would he would have done in normal circumstances, with his regular gyan about general things in life, and many other special things that he knows, that I didn’t knew, etc. He had been cornered. And I had won the argument. And I felt elated.

On a Sunday, at home, “Dad, I need this place free of clutter today,” I told my dad, pointing to a corner in the sitting room, where my father had heaped old newspapers. He was searching for some old articles. “Give me a few days, I will have them sorted out,” he said.
“No, you had already promised a month back that you would free the place from this clutter. Then you went on a tour for a week. The week after that, you were involved in your seminars, and hence I did not tell you to get it done,” I argued. I had the facts with me.
“The tour was very important for me. I had to get stuff done for my photography exhibition next month. I had to go. I met up with a lot of people at the seminars, who are useful to me. Give me one more week, and I promise to have this sorted out,” he said.
“No, I am sure you would come up with some other convincing reason, not to get this thing done,” I said.
“You think that I am giving you reasons?” he was irritated now.
“Yes. They are reasons, and they are convincing enough. But, reasons do not get the work done,” I said. Yes, it was a valid argument.
“Do you think I am lying?” he asked me.
“No. You have very good reasons. But, at the end of the day, reasons do not help me. Action will,” I put in a point, which he was not able to refute.
He just stayed silent.
I had won the argument.
I had been the victor.
He was sad, and angry.
I refused to reconcile, because I was right, and he was wrong. I had just won the argument. How could I be wrong?
But why was the voice in me screaming, that I was wrong?
Why wasn’t I elated after winning the argument?

Now, looking at these two scenarios objectively, in the first instance I was arguing to win, and in the second instance, I was arguing to make my father understand. But, in the second instance, I messed up when I began to argue to win, rather than argue to make him understand.
I had won.
But I had lost.

It is not an isolated case. Isn’t it very general for us to take up arguments because we don’t think that something is right? But, during the argument, we tend to take things personally, get agitated and in result ruin relationships.
Do you remember the last time you had started out in an argument to criticize the Indian cricket team for their performance, and got badgered by the others who supported the team passionately? After a while, the concept of logical discussion disappears, and what are left are the personal insults, victories, and a lot of judgments about each other.


Arguing to win

Drawing a clear distinction between the two types of arguments, I would say that ‘Arguing to win’ to be treated as a game. In a game, some teams win, and some teams lose. But both the teams are better off than where they were prior to playing.
In a game, if you win you feel good. But if you lose….. c’mon… it is after all a game. Don’t forget the learning, though.

When you win, while ‘Arguing to Win’, it also becomes your job to respect the losing side. It is because of the other side that you got a chance to play this game. It is very possible that there could be another chance to sharpen up your skills, if the losing side picks up another argument. This is only possible if the losing side is given due respect after losing the argument. Hence, an ambience for a lot of arguments open up, which fosters clarity of thought process, share of knowledge and quick thinking. More the arguments, merrier are the surroundings.
To exemplify,
“Ram Jethmalani is my idol,” a friend told me sometime back.
“Why?” I was curious.
“Wait, I will forward you the interview that he had with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN,” he said, and sent me an excerpt of the interview. After going through the interview, I felt that it was a waste of time. Karan and Jethmalani had been loitering more time in personal insults, rather than discussing real issues dealing with the esteemed lawyer representing Manu Sharma. Manu Sharma is the prime accused in Jessica Lal murder case that is rocking the Indian media currently.
“Budd, did you make Ram Jethmalani your idol after going through this interview?” I asked my friend.
“Yes, he is a great lawyer. If he can get Manu Sharma out, he can get anybody out,” he said.
Ah! This was a great opportunity to ‘Argue to win’.
“What is there in the interview that makes him a great personality?” I asked him.
“He was able to answer all of Karan’s answers back in the same way he received it. He almost slapped Karan, the hardest of all TV interviewers,” answered my friend.
“Jethmalani has been a supreme court lawyer for more than 50 years. He has been arguing even before Karan was wearing chaddis. Do you really base your idols on this kind of logic?”
There was no response from my friend for a while.
“Budd,” I continued, “I think that this interview is a big waste of time. There is nothing of importance discussed but a mutual exchange of personal insults. A great TV interviewer against one of the top lawyers of the country…and they come up with this??? I am no smarter after reading this interview.”
The bubble of my friend seemed to have been burst.
After a while of silence, “Let’s discuss this after lunch,” he said.
The topic was never discussed again.
The next day, I sent him a message, “Don’t take our arguments personal, I was just arguing for the sake of arguing.”
After all, he did have the right to make anybody his idol in this world.

In this approach, you can get down and dirty in the arguments, where you can try to manipulate the interpretations of the facts, and present them to support your case. This would more resemble the reality shows on TV, in front of a hidden camera, where the TV crew irritates the general public. Then, when the reality is revealed, the targets end up with a smile.
An open mindset in very essential for this, to accept victory or failure with a smile. Victory or failure should not be taken personal, but just as a part of the game. So what if you lost this time, it is a game. You can always win it the next time.
No, it doesn’t require a different ‘YOU’ to win the argument. Just better preparation. ;-)
Just remember the part about ‘respecting the losing side’. A very essential point, to prevent the relationship from going haywire, after the argument.

Arguing to understand

There are no wins or losses in ‘Arguing to make one understand’. There needs be understanding between the participants of the arguments, irrespective of the result of the argument. This type of argument is more to understand each other, and move towards a better future together. The readiness to accept defeat on being proved wrong logically, for the greater good of the relationship is to be borne in mind. Deliberate misinterpretations of the facts in this scenario, would not only ruin the relationship, but also would prove detrimental in the move towards progress.
The move should be more towards understanding, rather than arguing.

In the context of difference of opinions, it becomes your job to find different methods of making the other person understand what you mean. Also, you will need to address the deep-rooted fears that are driving the individual to come up with his/her opinion.
If you would go on these lines of thoughts, whether you win or lose, you would definitely move towards the better future of each other.

But, does it mean simple surrender of beliefs?

No. A big NO.

How can you convince the other person of your point of view?

I have a personal example. Let’s see if this helps. J

A wall of a well-lit room in my house had to be painted. Each member of the family wanted his/her colours. My mother wanted a light yellow, sister wanted an electric blue.
This was a well-lit room. Actually, it was a glaringly lit room, and I wanted a dark wall to balance the light in the room.
My mother is against any dark walls, as she believes that darker shades lead to depressive moods. Further, she argued that she was the one who would be staying in the house for most of the time, and she did not want to have depressing shades on the walls.
I had seen the blue coloured dark ‘Armada Blue’ in one of the restaurants I had been to. I had loved the colour, and thought that it would be an ideal colour for the wall.
I put across my suggestion, but was shot down.
On arguing, I felt that I was not moving anywhere. As I did an analysis of my type of argument, I realized that I was trying to prove my point, rather than understand the fears that my mother nurtured.
She had not seen the colour, and hence, was skeptical about it.
She had not seen what I had seen. No amount of explaining would make her see what I am seeing.
Suddenly, I struck upon an idea.
I took out my digital camera, shot the picture of the wall in the room, loaded it in my computer, and digitally added that colour to the wall in the picture. I had my sister and my mother have a look at the picture.
Two days later, the wall stood gracefully, attired in dark ‘Armada blue’. ;-)

In here, argument takes a back seat, but the person/ people become more important. Understanding the other person’s point of view is very essential before putting across your argument. For all you know, the other person may have a suggestion that is better than yours. Accepting the other person’s suggestion should not be considered as defeat, but as a mark of progress.

Hence, irrespective of the result of the argument, you have won in the relationship.

Isn’t that more important?? ;-)

Just to summarize, decide beforehand whether you are arguing to win or arguing to understand. If you are arguing to win, try winning at any cost. If you lose, it is a game. If you win, it still is a game. ;-)
But, respect the losing side.

If you are arguing to understand, don’t try to win. Try to move towards betterment than the present.

Hope you have a great time arguing.

Thejas
(ps: only the examples where I have won the argument have been quoted. There are equal number of instances where I have lost, and many times have been treated with respect after losing ;-) )

King of Torts by John Grisham - a good read

I am one of those law abiding citizens, who has no clue what is the 'law' that I am abiding. I have never appreciated the study of law, considering it to be the job of the 'smoke-coated-lips' old men, sitting behind heaps of stale smelling files, in teak panelled offices. A bloodline of lawyers from my mother's side didn' t make me love the law either, or the study of law by my mother when I was in her womb. Nope, even the 'Abhimanyu' effect didn't happen with me.

But recently, when my friend got into an imbroglio, which may involve legal issues, and no one including himself had thought about consulting a lawyer yet, my overture to take him to the legal counsel surprised me. After the assurances of the attorney, my friend is able to breathe a sigh of relief, knowing completely well that he will win the case if there is a trial.

Thank you John Grisham.

It wasn't a Grisham that I consulted. I just read his novel, 'The King of Torts'.

A typical Grisham literature, a good one at that, 'The King of Torts' talks about a mediocre, limited ambitioned lawyer Clay Karter, working for the Government, suddenly thrust into riches and stardom, due to a tip off by a mysterious man. The mysterious man is a 'fire man’, who helps extinguish financial fires of the corporate companies that land up in disastrous situations.
Together they team up, to settle issues with huge Pharmacy companies, and pull down some others, in the game of mass action lawsuits, where they make millions.
These mass action lawsuits involve the detection of possible victims of bad drugs of some miraculous medicines of huge Pharmacy companies, by the lawyers, enrolling them in a huge group of clients, and threat to sue the companies. The companies that realize that they have screwed up come to the negotiating table, where the lawyers dictate terms, which is more detrimental to the clients than the companies. The lawyers treat the companies only as sources of money, with the main intention to make millions for themselves, rather than get justice to the clients.
The clients end up getting some amount of money, which they would not have expected to begin with. Hence, they are happy. The companies are rid of fear of losing billions in lawsuits, settling for millions, and they are happy. The only people not happy are the lawyers, who, despite getting the best of the deal, pursue their greed of amassing more millions.

This is a revelation to me, who believed that the lawyers battled more in the courts. Clay Karter never goes for a trial at the court, but makes his millions by sheer entrepreneurship, and of course, illegal suggestions by his mysterious friend. The novel details about the tumults that these mass action lawyers (torts) go through, the strategies they employ to bring the companies down on their knees, and they constant battle with their conscience for not getting their clients a fair deal. Also, the novel ventures into the settings of some of these lawyers, suing their own brethren to get justice to the cheated clients.

Clay Karter makes an interesting character, a respectable man in a dicey job, with a drop-dead gorgeous lingerie-model for a girlfriend, but a different woman as the love of his life.

Though the ending lacks the punch that made ‘The Runaway Jury’ by Grisham a runaway hit, ‘King of Torts’ surprises you with the details of a specialized job, that needs different types of skill sets than any other lawyer in his other novels.

It is the story of the rise and fall of the King of them all, the story of the ‘King of Torts’

Have fun reading it.

pictures from Parambikulam, Kerala

most memorable weekend of my life ...in the moist Parambikulam jungles, Kerala.... on the first weekend of Nov 06....