Peter Ralston On LOVE - Newsletter Response

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Many of these conversations can lead to breakthroughs and new insights for users. Sometimes we have conversations where it doesn't seem to go anywhere; only to think on it more in our own time and have independent breakthroughs triggered through dialogue.

Sure, that's the point of talking about those matters. What's annoying without doubt is when anyone talks from the need of being right, not from the analysis. It's easy to check it: you can show a mistake in his analysis, if the person reacts defensive, not responding, changing topic (or saying peace brother 😅), it's that is speaking from the ego, but if they answer showing the argument from another perspective, admitting mistakes, then they are talking from analysis.

Sometimes it's irritating read someone who talks with too much certainly, but that doesn't means that they are talking from the need of validation or to be right. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall other possibilities too; sometimes it's just an energy thing, too tired to respond or give the time for thought.  Occasionally distraction happens and we don't return to the proper subject. I know, speaking for myself, more often than not I simply don't have the energy to reply so I tap out. We can't be 100% certain why that person responded how they did. It's why discussions should be in good faith. Without anyone making fun of each other. 

It's when we built up context around users who play the same game over and over, that reasonable assumptions can be made about their ego, or the little stories they tell themselves.