One such example comes to mind: my own interaction with a local bank representative. I went to the bank to inquire about credit cards. I was interested in a specific type of card, and since I had done my homework I knew the card was offered by the bank. When I talked to their customer service representative, I explained what I was interested in. She enquired why that type of card, and I explained that the stores I normally did business with only accepted that card. She responded: "That is not true. When I do my grocery shopping, they take any card." I explained that I did a lot of international travel and that different countries had different rules regarding the use of credit cards. She again responded: "That is not true. I have also travelled abroad."
What was wrong with that response was that the customer service representative was saying that something someone else (in this case, me) had experienced was not true. She could not really attest to the authenticity of the experience, so she was not in a position to use the TNT statment. What she should have done, instead, was to use a phrase such as: "My experience has been somewhat different" or "Maybe we have shopped at different places, because in my experience..." In other words, all she could be assertive about was her own experience, not someone else's. To tell someone else "Your experience, as you recount it, is not true" is arrogant and insulting, to say the least.
The TNT phrase may still be a valid option when we are among friends, and we are talking about facts that are in the public domain and cannot be refuted: historical documents, videos, audio recordings, common knowledge, and anything that can be proved as true or false is fair game. But in a business setting, or in a situation where we want to be nicer, more polite, and people are talking about personal opinions or experiences, the TNT is not the best choice. There several options we can use instead to express a different viewpoint, for example:
"I understand what you're saying. Now, what I'm saying is..."
"I see your point. How about [insert another point here]?"
"Well, there are different ways to look at it. For example..."
"Another way to look at it is..."
"We may have different backgrounds, and that may be why we see things differently. In my experience..."
"That's one possibility. Another possibility is..."
"That's one opinion. Some figures I have here indicate..."
In all those cases, we concede that the view expressed by our interlocutor may have some validity for them considering their background, situation, previous experience, etc., but at the same time we are expressing our view that a different option may be true. In those situations, the goal is to build towards a constructive, mutually enriching exchange, where both participants benefit from the experience.
Now, if we are talking about a political debate, that's a whole different story.
I was watching an art expert discuss how everything is a construct of reality, how we're always making our own interpretations, and how even facts get organized to accommodate our own views. He admitted that there's some inner truth in things but mostly out of our reach, as we can't avoid but to taint everything with our own views,opinions and experiences.
ReplyDeleteI like your posts.
Borges used to say that each time we read a book we read it differently, even when we read the same book a second time. His point was that we, as individuals, are constantly interpreting those written words, applying all our previous knowledge, preconceived notions, etc. So when we read the same book a second time, we are not the same person anymore: we have had new experiences, new interactions with new people, and all that would make us interpret the same book differently. Our interpretation, in the end, is our reality. (He may have taken those ideas from someone else, not sure about that).
ReplyDelete