Today I have a story for you.
When I went to India earlier this year, I was expecting to do a lot of the cooking. Why? Simply because when our group had met for a quick Zoom get-together nobody really volunteered to cook so I said I’d be happy to cook for the group.
But turns out, we had a person who actually cooked for a living but they were just shy to talk about themselves on the call. So naturally the responsibility of cooking went to that individual.
This person had a particular personality of being very outspoken and what one might call “controlling”. Moreover due to the expertise this person had in the domain of cooking they wanted to be in full control of the cooking process.
We were supposed to take turns participating in the different processes of cooking. But since this person held control, it became more and more difficult for the turn taking to take place because every attempt would just end in admonishment about how they know more therefore others need to listen to them.
You see, this gave me an interesting observation. This kind of a personality trait somewhat makes them invincible. Because it generally funnels the other people around them into two choices:
- The results are good? Then the individual can take credit for the good result because it was only possible due to their deep involvement (like micromanagement and constant overruling of other opinions).
- The results are bad? Then the individual can blame others for the bad result because it would have been avoided if others had listened to them.
In both cases, there is zero blame to be had for the person themselves. Sometimes we would have a situation where they are not involved at all and the results are good, and they can respond with “if I had been part of the process it would have been better”. If their involvement and our cooperation lead to a bad result, they respond with “my intent was good but the execution by others and the environment were lacking”.
How I came to observe this was, I thought this person’s cooking wasn’t really anything to write home about. Some of the recipes, I thought I would make it taste a bit more flavorful so I would suggest some of my ideas and I noticed none of them were actually being entertained by them.
This kind of a thinking cycle is so difficult to break because logically it has no downsides. What’s good is good thanks to me, what’s bad is bad because I wasn’t there. It’s frustrating for people around them but it’s practically impossible for them to break out of this perfect argument.
I spoke about this to my Buddhist teacher Dr. Robert Buswell, and he told me something that stuck with me:
I remember when I first went to Thailand to ordain, I noted (like you) that not all Buddhists seemed to be serious about their practice. I was sternly warned to watch other people 10% of the time and yourself 90% of the time, which proved to be a good lesson for me.
This has two implications for you.
One, it’s easy for us to note the flaws in other people but it’s very difficult to see if I have this exact tendency because well, I live in my brain.
A great way to see if I have this kind of a tendency is to consider this simple question: how often do I find myself genuinely in the wrong? If the answer is practically never, then it may be some time for introspection.
Two, we may be surrounded by other people with all sorts of tendencies. So it is important for us to be happy regardless of who we are surrounded by and remember that every life around us is a great miracle of a treasure.
The title of this writing is misleading. Defeating the perfect argument? Well, the answer is… There is nothing to defeat.
Billy Seol
July Life Coach
julylifecoach.com
