While living an active personal and professional (social) life, you encounter all kinds of people and experiences. During my own long years of social life, I have met and dealt with thousands of individuals, with many admirers and detractors too. But the individual referred to here embodies a classic study with attributes of cognitive dissonance i.e. a deeply complex-ridden and insecure ego wrapped in an armour of hostility. Driven by an insatiable need for recognition and supremacy, he operates with a cheap and ill-tempered volatility, so often transforming routine conversations into uncalled for battlegrounds where he must emerge victorious at any cost.
For this man, dialogue is not an exchange of ideas but a zero-sum game; he relentlessly steamrolls alternative perspectives, treating understanding and compromise as defeat while maintaining a desperate, fragile illusion of absolute correctness all the time. Yet, the supreme irony of his disposition lies in his profound lack of genuine self-esteem and awareness: Even as he berates, belittles and tirelessly argues with those in his orbit, he unironically claims them as his close “friends and brothers,” too, flattening relational intimacy into a toxic dynamic where camaraderie and harmony is demanded, but respect and goodwill is genuinely seldom reciprocated.
As far as I am concerned, I personally choose to ignore antics of such individuals socially on an individual level. However, whenever their conduct or actions began spoiling the atmosphere collectively of the entire group, I usually choose to intervene, even if it involves risk of enduring personal inconvenience, opposition, or adverse publicity. This attribute or temperament has been part of persona since early days as I can readily recall how I had confronted the rowdy elements with due courage and success even at risk of physical injury, who were bent upon to spoil a group of research scholars’ peaceful living during my stay in the university hostel.
Throughout my social life and long professional (administrative) experience, I had crossed paths with few difficult and narrow-minded individuals (including some of my own seniors) and learned a great deal by navigating those tough situations. I am summarizing those learnings below to deal with such person; perhaps some people may find it useful.
- Never adopt their language in a dispute. They will always try to drag you down to their field (level).
- Do not offer unnecessary self-justifications. It is not your responsibility to respond to every point.
- Maintain own grace and respect but not closeness. Civility and distance can easily co-exist while dealing with difficult people.
- Let your conduct be your counter-response. Time often makes it clear who is the source of light and who is merely searching for blemishes in someone else’s shine.
The following rather longish phrase aptly addresses this situation:
“One who finds it difficult to reach the moon can resort to counting its blemishes;
yet, counting blemishes makes no one’s own sky any bigger.”
The Art of Strategic Silence:
In the foregoing analysis, I have briefly summarized my observations and approach in dealing with people obsessed with cognitive dissonance. This is social and individual stigma, and anyone can find oneself trapped in a situation with a similar person in conversation that suddenly turns hostile. The other man isn’t listening and throwing a barrage of silly, nonsensical arguments, or allegations, bypassing or twisting your words, and escalating the heat to force you onto his emotional turf.
In such eventualities, the natural impulse is to fight back defending yourself, by clarifying your point or proving them wrong. But a truly sensible person, focused on long-term wisdom over short-term reactions, would know that entering every battle offered to you is not only unproductive but also a terrible waste of capital. When you find a person offering inane and non-sensical arguments or allegations, bypassing or twisting your words, seeking only to drag you into endless arguments; in my opinion, before further spending your mental energy, you must endeavour to pass through the following rather punchier queries as diagnostic filters:
1). Is this person really interested in truth, or only keen to win an argument?
A genuine person asks questions to comprehend and learn or cogently puts forth his point to make the other understand, while an arrogant and egoist asks questions to trap, provoke and ensure he gets the final word. Remember engaging with such a person is a bad investment, without any dividend, and only exhaustion.
2). Does this person possess the capacity and willingness to change his mind?
You must observe his wits and open-mindedness. If he is so rigid and entirely incapable of shifting own perspective regardless of the evidence presented with good intent, continuing the dialogue with him is not an exchange of ideas; it is an exchange of noise and sheer wastage of time.
3). Am I speaking out of good intent in peace, or simply from a hidden desire to prove myself, right?
This is the most difficult question because it demands your own internal honesty and truthfulness. In an honest introspection, if you realize that you, too, are driven by the hunger to “win” or settle the score, you have already fallen into exactly the same trap. Hence it ceases to be a meaningful bilateral interaction devolving into a clash of egos, a battle that is futile in true sense.
The following two imageries reflect on; a) Choosing Your Strategic Battles; and b) Opting for Inner Sanctuary of Silence.
Following the aforesaid 3-Point Diagnostic Protocol, the first image below visualizes the moment you decide not to engage in the futile duet, choosing wisdom and foresight over impulsive actions. The person stands contemplating with a clear crystal sphere, which symbolizes clarity and foresight aligning him to true core of the situation.
The second image below represents your inner sanctuary of silence, where you preserve your own mental peace and tranquillity instead of indulging in an endless duet with a person suffering from the cognitive dissonance. Here the image captures silhouette of a person sitting in deep contemplation. The symbolic soft blue and white light radiating from within represents mental tranquility arising from the victory of silence.
The Key Takeaways:
- .Your own silence and complete peace of mind are the ultimate counter-moves and answer to your opponent’s intellectual stupidity.
- Remember, while dealing with intellectual bad faith, the walking away isn’t surrender: In fact, it is a tactical dominance.
- The person who argues in bad faith feed on your nerves and reactionary tendency. Your recurring defense only gives credence to their absurdity. By withholding your engagement, you simply starve him the conflict of oxygen.
- As a matter of fact, silence is not the absence of an answer; it is the ultimate response to the intellectual stupidity.
- Protecting your mental peace and tranquillity is far more valuable than winning a trivial point in argument. When you refuse to play on a rigged board, your opponent is left playing against himself or other similar stupid people.
317 total views, 56 views today
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel