In our daily lives, conflicts and misunderstandings are often resolved by dialogue. But sometimes, dialogue only ends up making things worse, with people going off in tangents with their argumentation.
Even when two arguing parties are sincere, objective and diligent, they can fail to reach an agreement because of differences in underlying deep-rooted personal priorities.
In this article, we look at different forms of personal priorities endowed by nature, that I have observed across disparate conversations. Before we start off, I would like to put one form of conversation out of reckoning. This is the conversation driven by delusion. Sometimes, people have deep-rooted beliefs that they are either not aware of how it is colouring their arguments, or are unwilling to question them. Those kinds of conversations are out of the question here-- because, they don't represent argumentation or debate-- just a delusional power game.
Among the sincere argumentations, there can still be dissonance formed due to variegated forms of personal priorities. I call them the "Pradhans" or the "principal drivers" of our argumentation. Here are some of the pradhans I have noticed:
Karma Pradhan: For these kind of people, the primary objective of argumentation is to decide on a course of action. They are the executives who wish to get things done. Karma pradhans are the achievers who like to reach goals. They see argumentation as some form of a necessary evil, that wastes time, but sometimes helps in building consensus so that the entire team can work more efficiently.
Bhoga Pradhan: For these kind of people, the primary objective is to experience something. They seek to deeply experience different emotions and embody these experience. They would argue that unless we experience something (like say a tragedy), we have not really understood it, and would just pay lip service in our argumentation. Bhoga pradhan people tend to become talented artists, performers, sportspersons, travellers, service personnel, builders, etc. Their goal is not the action and the objective consequences it creates, but the subjective experience it brings. They don't do things to chase metrics and achieve goals like the karma pradhans, but for the experience it brings.
Rakshana Pradhan: For these kind of people, the primary objective is to protect or preserve something that they hold dear. It may be their life, their culture, their source of wealth, their nation, whatever. For them, argumentation is an exercise in vigilance. Their radars are forever looking for potential threats that may subvert what they hold dear. Rakshana pradhan people tend to gravitate towards roles like policemen, detectives, military strategists, bureaucrats, etc. A number of people in business, academia, administration and industry are rakshana pradhan. They form the bureaucracy that keep the institutions and nation running. Often bureaucrats are rewarded for what they achieve or what new things they do, but a much more complex activity that they do day in and day out, is to preserve what is already there. This is so routine, that it appears positively boring to others, and is often ignored.
Jnana Pradhan: For these kind of people, the objective of argumentation is to obtain knowledge by developing more clarity and understanding. Their personal priority is to understand the universe, and they are driven by an insatiable sense of curiosity. They seek not to experience or to achieve, but to learn and understand. They do not make good executives or performers, because, after a while, the experience and action stop giving any new knowledge (which is seen as unproductive, in the jnana pradhan universe). The jnana pradhans are often greatly misunderstood and misjudged by the other pradhans. They appear to be "weak" because they give up on the action or experience midway. They appear unreliable to the rakshana pradhans because the jnana pradhans may start questioning the fundamentals and thus, endangering that which is sought to be preserved.
But it is the jnana pradhan who would probably notice the different pradhans in the first place! For all the other pradhans, they are too busy focusing on action, experience, or vigilance, that they may not even realise that there are different priorities driving our discourse!
Jnana pradhans make good teachers, advisors, and visionaries. They often get snubbed because their vision is not followed up by action. Recently I heard a quote that said: "The universe rewards action-- not thought" which is such a karma pradhan conclusion! The kind of rewards action brings is very different from the kind of rewards that the jnana pradhans seek. Jnana pradhans often seek to be detached from the world, so as to keep their spirit of inquiry unhindered by worldly issues. While the karma pradhan seeks to engage with the world and get things done and achieve something.
In a leadership position, each of these pradhans would focus on very different things to lead their team. Karma pradhan leaders set clear, measurable goals and expectations, and push the team to achieve great heights (great heights according to the karma pradhan universe!). Bhoga pradhan leaders would focus on endurance, personal transformation and growth, in their people. They don't mind if their people don't achieve great things, but they want their people to care deeply and bring about external impact via internal transformation. The rakshana pradhan leader focuses on discipline, vigilance, loyalty and fitness. They want their people to be fighting fit in order to boldly face any challenge or crisis, and not buckle under pressure. The jnana pradhan leaders are the most difficult and confusing for the rest of the pradhans. They agree for the need for action, achievement, transformation, vigilance, discipline, etc. but treat none of them with primary emphasis. Instead, they treat all of them as tools and supporting mechanisms for us to collectively learn something and realise something we didn't know earlier.
I once heard a motivational speaker say this about discipline: "Discipline is like a boat that you can use to cross a river (an obstacle), but after crossing the river, carrying the boat on your shoulder makes your further journey harder." Usually, motivational speakers say the opposite-- that discipline and structure can take us anywhere. While, a jnana pradhan leader like say, Richard Feynmann says this:
Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible. You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing. --Richard Feynmann
No comments:
Post a Comment