LIFE LESSONS ON MANAGING YOUR SELF
Persistence
It usually takes considerable time to master the techniques of Concept R&D and the use of the lists of concepts in the MindMap. The best tactic is to practice every day – especially with things you read, or encounter in your activities. Another good source of material is the coverage of the mass media, in all its forms, with all of the material presented – news stories, sports, advertisements, weather, etc. Look for what is missing in all the information you encounter. What will be missing? Some of the premises, or questions, or inferences that are relevant to a good understanding of what is going on. For instance, when it comes to knowledge aspects, if the facts are emphasized, some of the relevant ideas will be ignored, or visa versa. By spotting these gaps, you get a more balanced view, AND you realize that other discussions, or individuals, or groups are not using sufficient knowledge to achieve credibility.
Hostility
Individuals, groups, or institutions can often give quite a hostile (perhaps even threatening) response to anyone questioning their actions, policies, or understanding. This is part of the social or political context within which we all live – it is NOT a good idea to jeopardize your existence or wellbeing just to prove yourself “knowledgeable” or even “to do the right thing” (i.e., to tell the truth or describe the facts). The policy of conceptual pragmatism recognizes that those with malevolent agendas may prefer propaganda to information, and so would the practitioners of this policy. It is not necessary to “tell all” or to “set the record straight” regardless of the personal satisfaction that might bring – the wise strategist has the tactical good sense to choose which battles to fight and which to forego. It is not an individual’s sole responsibility to rectify the wrongs of this world – look for situations you can improve, nothing more.
Disagreeableness
Does the above advice on hostility preclude using the MindMap whenever anyone might disagree with its content or implications? Not at all – it is possible to disagree, but it must be done strategically (with care) and diplomatically (with tact). It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and in many situations this is a good approach to take. How is this done? First and foremost, with good humour – do not present in a self-righteous or blaming manner. Make it clear you are not criticizing a person, group, or institution - that what you are offering is a further improvement on an already good or promising idea. What if you really think that what you are responding to is not good? Say it is anyway, and then make your suggestion for improvement, even if it is 180° opposite of what is there or what others have proposed. AND develop a rationalization for why, even if it appears different, it really does improve the idea in some way that is consistent enough to qualify for consideration.
Authenticity
Does the above advice begin to sound more manipulative than “honest”? If that happens (and it very well might), that is the point to “step back” and remind yourself that knowledge work of any kind requires the practice of Constructivism (inventing ideas if needed), and the rejection of Fundamentalism (taking a narrow, uncompromising position on issues). You have to be flexible. What might be interpreted as “the truth” from one perspective, can be just another view from a different perspective. What you need to consider in cases where such behaviour is required, is “what are the implications and consequences?” Don’t catastrophize! What will likely happen, and what can you realistically do?