I am indebted to Timothy "Tim" Hanni who contributed material for this
conversation.
I have a friend who's something of a
wine
expert - at least she considers herself to be. She's prone to saying
things like "This is a great Cabernet.". She may be right.
She may not be. Who knows? But what she doesn't take into account, is
we each have our own unique tastebud configuration (if you
will). That means we each taste differently ie we each taste
physiologically differently. It's a scientifically proven
fact. She can say it has a great taste for her. That's totally
valid. Indeed that's what's
true
for her. But it may not be
true
for everyone else. When she says "This is a great Cabernet" without
factoring that in, she's talking taste, a subjective experience, in
absolute terms. So she comes across as over-bearing to people who
disagree with her
wine
assessments, especially to those with less
wine
experience than she has.
If you gave me a pink shirt as a gift (or any other pastel color for
that matter), here's what I would do with it: I would either politely
decline it, or I would accept it and then earmark it to donate it to
Goodwill later. Look: I'm appreciative of gifts, but I'm
just not a pastel color guy. I'm
black and white
and bold. "But it's a great color,
Laurence.
You'll look good in pink" you protest. I say "That may be valid for you
ie it may be valid in your perception. But in mine, it isn't a great
color for me.".
We each perceive colors differently - or said more rigorously, we each
perceive colors physiologically differently. More than that, we're each
complemented by different colors, and in particular we're
each complemented by different color clothing. And there's not one
single universally great color for shirts that complements everyone,
any more than there's one single
wine
that tastes great for everyone. It's all subjective. Ask any
color-coding clothing consultant: what looks good on one person may not
look good on another. Pink works for Jack Nicklaus. No kidding! Jack
looks great in pink shirts on the
back nine.
But they're not for me.
"We're going out for dinner tonight,
Laurence.".
"Great! Where are we going?". "There's a new Indian cuisine restaurant
in the city. Their curry is the best in the Bay Area.". "Oh, thanks but
no thanks. I'll pass.". "But why?". "I'm sorry, I'm just
not into hot and spicy.". "But you don't understand: it's the
best curry in the Bay Area.".
The trouble for those who consider themselves to be experts in matters
which are purely subjective (in fact for more than merely self-styled
experts: for anyone speaking subjectively about anything) starts when
they unknowingly omit adding three words to their assessments. The
three words are "... in ... my ...
opinion".
Look: adding these three words usually as a suffix ("It's a great cab
in my
opinion",
"Pink is a great color in my
opinion",
"It's great curry in my
opinion")
doesn't make their assessments any more (or any less) accurate. That's
not the focus here. What it does do is make them more
listen-able.
So I cut to the chase: "Wait! You forgot the three magic words.". "The
three magic words?". "Yes, you forgot to say 'It's the best curry in
the Bay Area in my
opinion.'.
Your 'It's the best curry ...' doesn't negate my 'I'm not into hot and
spicy' so don't push it. It's rude and inconsiderate. It makes you come
across as over-bearing.".
When you impose your
opinion
on my different experience as
"The Truth",
you're not listen-able. Suffixing it with "... in my
opinion"
(thus creating space for listening given it truly is an
opinion)
grants me the space to consider your
opinion
or not, without having to be emphatic and / or defensive about my own.
That's the way you set up yourself and your subjectivity to be
listen-able, regardless of your point of view, regardless of your
opinion,
regardless of whether you agree with me, or not.