Getting What You Want

About 2 years ago I learned a valuable lesson. I was in a writing class and the professor had misunderstood what I'd written. The professor had misunderstood me because I referred to two different people by their last names, and they had the same last name...so he had to guess which one I referred to, and he guessed wrong.

After class I went up to him and told him about the mistake he'd made. He said "oh, yes, I'm sorry, I misunderstood, let me give you credit."

I was heartened by his agreement, I started to gain momentum, and I started talking. I was very gracious (I thought) and I said "oh, no problem, I can see why it wouldn't be clear seeing as the two men had different names."

As I said this he stopped at the gradebook, looked up, and then he said "well, it's the responsibility of the writer to clarify, since I could misinterpret, you did something wrong."

He put his pen down, gathered his things, and walked off. I stood there dumbfounded, with my mouth hanging, wondering "why in the world did I have to keep on talking?"

I'd already got what I wanted. He was giving me points. And while he's doing this I have to go and talk and ruin everything. I was being accommodating, I thought gracious, and because of that the points ran away from me. If' I'd have just shut my big mouth I would have won the day.

Right after this happened I remember thinking "learn from this, when you've got what you want, when you've won, shut your mouth."

The important thing here is being a good winner. If I'd have said "thank you professor, I'm glad you agree" I would have been golden, but instead I kept on pushing, I gave him an inch and said "I can see why you made that mistake," and I tried to give more evidence for why I was right, and that additional evidence was my downfall.

My problem was this: I strengthened my case by weakening his. Initially he was willing to give me credit. But as I strengthened my position, I diminished his, this annoyed him, he lost face, and to save face, he couldn't give me points (cause that would solidify his error).

I thought I'd learned my lesson, but last week I met with a student professor and made the same mistake. This girl didn't know what she was doing, she didn't know how to write a test, and I went into her office and spoke with her about it.

I asked her for a copy of the test and I read a question out loud to her. I asked her "do you see what is wrong with that question?" She didn't. So, I continued. I said something like:

You give us the options
A) Option 1
B) Option 2
C) A and B
D) B and C
E) None of the above

Now lets figure out which answers each one refers to:

A gives us Option 1. Good.
B Gives us Option 2. Also good.
C gives us Option 1 and Option 2.
D gives us Option 1 and Option 2 through C and it gives us Option 2 again through B. So D refers to Options 1 and 2.

This of course means that both C and D are equally true. They refer to the exact same things. This means that if someone knows the correct answer (Option 1 and 2) then they have a 50 percent chance of getting it right and choosing one of the two correct answers.

She caught on, but I could tell she was annoyed with my tone (and I was annoyed that I had to explain this to her).

I continued.

I pointed out to her her next question. She had asked "What is one critique of Freud's theory?"

The options were
A) critique 1
B) critique 2
C) critique 3
D) A and C

I knew it was A and C when I took the test, but I also knew that she asked for "ONE" critique. So, dismissed the one answer that it couldn't possibly be, and I picked one of the two I knew was right. I figured I'd have another answer with a 50 percent chance (just gone through the last one).

But, she'd wanted answer D. I asked her if she saw the problem there. She didn't. I thought it was pretty obvious, so I (patiently (I thought)) walked her through the question.

I said:
Given your question there are two possible correct answers. B is wrong because it's not a critique of Freud. D is wrong because it doesn't answer the question: you asked for one answer and it was two. So, there were two possible correct answers--you had a 50 percent chance of picking one of them, and with all those options you picked the one answer that is impossible.

I could tell at this point I needed to shut up. I guess I'd lost my patience with her. I didn't get the points I'd lost. If I'd gone in and said "excuse me, is it possible that it could be viewed this way. Would you be willing to reconsider, and maybe give me points" I'd probably have had my test score raised. But instead I made an enemy. I'm such an idiot.

Now this all ties back into what's on my mind today. In January of 1610 Galileo published Starry Messenger. So, it was 400 years ago this year that he first published his observations of the mountains on the moon, the phases of Venus etc. In his honor I'm going to the desert tonight with a few friends and a telescope to observe the same stuff he observed with the telescope he made 400 years ago.

And Galileo had the same problem as me. He didn't know how to work with people. Galileo was horrible at getting agreement. If he wasn't so disagreeable he would never have gone to trial. Galileo's problem was he couldn't settle for being right, he had to make sure other people admitted it...people in power.

The funny thing when you're trying to get something you want from someone in power....you gotta ask in the right way, and let them save face, or they'll reject you....cause they gotta have prestige along with their power...and they can't afford to let some upstart shake the boat. I'm an upstart. Galileo, when dealing with the Catholic church, was an upstart.

Now, I'm no brilliant astronomer trying to revolutionize the way we see the world. Unfortunately, my comparison to Galileo is only as accurate as our disagreeableness. But I think there is something to be learned from our mistakes. Learn how to win and win well. Learn that it's more than just being right, it's also working with other people for the best solution. Pure argument is only persuasive when people are willing to be persuaded. But if you give someone no room to agree with you (maintaining their dignity) then they won't agree with you. It's that simple.

Okay, that's about it. I'll clean this up later. Class is over and I gotta go.