In a recent newspaper editorial a man asserted that banning assault weapons would be wrong. He said people kill people, not weapons, and we need to deal with the problem of mentally ill people -- not ban guns. Then he continued to say that background checks on people purchasing weapons was also wrong.
Wait a minute! my thinking about thinking friends. Would not background checks find some of the "people problems" before allowing certain people to own guns who might kill kids at schools?
We have a governance issue before us. How best can we devise a society that permits great liberties while preventing abuse of citizens, often the citizens with the least power. The NRA (National Rifle Association, called by a few the National Retarded Association) wants to blame people for shooting people -- but turns around and wants to prohibit the kinds of governance that helps us screen out people who are more likely to hurt folks with weapons. They say, as it were, "I want it both ways!". I think they add , "Dammit" to the end of their plaintive cry.
I believe that is silly thinking. What do you think? Can you have it both ways and make any sense at all? Leave a comment and let us know.
Thinking about thinking. Thinking about issues. Thinking about possibilities. Thinking about what others are thinking.
Al Lustie
Thinking with Al
Friday, March 22, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Ambivert?
"The
best approach is for the people on the ends to emulate those in the center. As
some have noted, introverts are 'geared to inspect,' while extraverts are
'geared to respond.' Selling of any sort – whether traditional sales or
non-sales selling – requires a delicate balance of inspecting and responding.
Ambiverts can find that balance. They know when to speak and when to shut up.
Their wider repertoires allow them to achieve harmony with a broader range of
people and a more varied set of circumstances. Ambiverts are the best movers
because they're the most skilled attuners." . . . Daniel H. Pink, "To Sell Is Human"
Some authors and artists insist that a person will do her/his best work if she/he is "out there", at the edge, almost a screaming lunatic. Be extreme, they say. Take a stand that everybody hates, they insist.
But Daniel Pink seems to think that a "delicate balance" works better for most people most of the time. I would agree. Know when to speak, when to listen. Know both how to respect and how to push. Understand when to be alone, and when to be with others. Know when to get your primary signals from within yourself, and when to get your primary signals from others.
Don't just be an introvert, or an extrovert. Train yourself to act as an ambivert.
What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Musing about Toxic People - part 2
I ended part one of this musing like this: What shall we do with toxic people? Cut them out of our lives? Learn
to ignore their foolishness and appreciate their good points? Lock them
up?
I am not wondering what society should do with toxic people. I am wondering what thinking people, people like you and like me, should do? I even wonder if there is one answer that fits all situations, or it this requires pondering, puzzling over, and serious thinking.
I have to wonder how our government would work if all the toxic people who are elected, and who influence elections, were locked away where they could not speak to other and could not spread their poisons.
But who decides? To many Abraham Lincoln was a toxic person who advocated for a larger role of the Federal government, for war, and for emancipation of slaves. To many others Abraham Lincoln was not a toxic person, but a man who cautiously embraced change for himself and for his country. Who decides? A committee? An individual like John Wilkes Booth? Voters?
I know individuals who are extremist right wing bigots who advocate being ready to overthrow our United States government by force. Yet individually many are kind to dogs and children, and pleasant to be around. Others are violent and scary. I have to ask what makes a person a "toxic person"?
What do you think? How would you define for yourself what a toxic person is? Our next part in this musing will explore ways to interact positively with toxic people.
I am not wondering what society should do with toxic people. I am wondering what thinking people, people like you and like me, should do? I even wonder if there is one answer that fits all situations, or it this requires pondering, puzzling over, and serious thinking.
I have to wonder how our government would work if all the toxic people who are elected, and who influence elections, were locked away where they could not speak to other and could not spread their poisons.
But who decides? To many Abraham Lincoln was a toxic person who advocated for a larger role of the Federal government, for war, and for emancipation of slaves. To many others Abraham Lincoln was not a toxic person, but a man who cautiously embraced change for himself and for his country. Who decides? A committee? An individual like John Wilkes Booth? Voters?
I know individuals who are extremist right wing bigots who advocate being ready to overthrow our United States government by force. Yet individually many are kind to dogs and children, and pleasant to be around. Others are violent and scary. I have to ask what makes a person a "toxic person"?
What do you think? How would you define for yourself what a toxic person is? Our next part in this musing will explore ways to interact positively with toxic people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)