Clarifying Expectations

In the recent post, Start Where You Stand, I stated the following:

I tend to subscribe to the notion that, when I attempt something new, it's not possible to be “ready” or “fully prepared.” It's been my experience that I'm much better off “jumping in” and getting my “feet wet.” Should I expect my initial performance to be flawless, however, I will likely disappoint myself.

At first glance, this may appear to be flat wrong. How is it that we can't be “ready” for something? After all, have we not prepared, and been “ready” for things in the past? And why shouldn't we expect the best from ourselves? Doesn't the expectation of mediocrity contribute to mediocre results?

While these objections are not necessarily incorrect, they do miss the point of what was said. When I say that it isn't possible to be ready or fully prepared; or that expecting one's performance to be flawless will likely result in disappointment, I do not mean that one can never be ready or fully prepared, or that one should never expect the best from oneself—full stop. What I mean, rather, is that one cannot be ready or fully prepared—nor should one expect a stellar performance—the very first time they attempt to do something. Of course a person can be ready or fully prepared to do something if they have done it before. It is the very fact they have done it that enables them to understand what preparations are necessary, and it is at such times when a person ought to expect the best from themselves.

The reason I maintain that a person should never expect to be “fully prepared” when they first attempt something new, is because such expectations often jeopardize their ability to begin. In other words, they end up postponing action, because they don't feel that they are yet “fully prepared.” But, how can a person actually be “fully prepared” for something if they have yet to actually do it? How can they even know what they are prepared for, if they haven't done it yet? Hence, it is not necessary to be “fully prepared” in order to begin, it is better to just “jump in.” On the other hand, if a person does act, but acts with the expectation that they are “fully prepared” or that their performance will be stellar—and especially if they are emotionally committed to that expectation—they will very often find themselves emotionally hijacked if things don't go as planned. Whereas the person who is not caught off guard by an initial lackluster performance is able to maintain composure and can therefore more effectively work to improve. (It should also be noted that an expectation of mediocrity is entirely different from a lack of expectation of perfection.)

In short, we can only truly be prepared to do something if we have done it before, and we should only expect the best when we are qualified to expect it.

What Is Leadership? Part II

This is the second post in a series on leadership. If you have not read the first post, I encourage you to do so before continuing.

In the previous post we explored the essence of leadership, which can be summarized as follows: Leadership is influence exercised on the basis of voluntary consent. This summary provides us with a working definition for leadership, but while this definition encapsulates leadership in its most fundamental form, there is still more to consider. Our next step will be identifying and explaining the things that must exist in order for leadership to exist. In short, we will attempt to answer the question: What (if anything) does leadership presuppose?

One thing that leadership must clearly presuppose is an acting agent, the leader himself. Obviously the notion of leadership cannot exist apart from a leader. Nor can it exist in the absence of potential followers. Without people to influence, there can be no leadership. None of this is very surprising. But it helps set the stage for a more important question: How does a leader exercise his influence?

Leaders exercise their influence through their actions. That is, through the things they say and the things they do. Put differently, leaders influence others by example of character (which is revealed through the things they say and do). Yet some actions are more conducive to leadership than others. It is always better to take personal responsibility, for instance, than it is to blame others. How, then, do leaders know which actions are more leadership-friendly? Do they possess a kind of natural knowledge of “what to do” in order to lead, or must they learn such things?

Many people believe that a person's leadership ability is tied to some inborn personality trait. But while it may be true that some of us have what seems to be a natural ability to lead, it would be wrong to assume that, without such natural abilities, a person cannot be a leader. Some people possess a great natural aptitude for mathematics. But if a person should lack such a mathematical aptitude, does this mean they cannot learn mathematics? Of course not. Leadership itself is something that, though characteristics of it may be possessed naturally, can nonetheless be learned. It is a skill that can be acquired by anyone—provided, of course, they are willing to learn and apply themselves. For the most part, leaders don't “just know” what to do in order to lead, they must learn such things from those leaders who have preceded them. In other words, before a person may become a leader, they must first become a student of leadership. In order to lead others, they must first lead themselves, so to speak. Thus, it seems that leadership must also presuppose a certain amount of personal development. As the saying goes “leaders are not born—they are made.”

Another thing that leadership presupposes is goal directedness. That is, leadership is always directed toward some end or goal. By definition, a leader leads or influences in a specific direction or toward a specified end, without which, leadership cannot exist in the first place. As discussed above, leaders exercise influence (lead) by virtue of their actions, which in turn, produce results. But these results are only intelligible because they are directed toward a specific goal or purpose. This explains why leadership is said to be results-focused. Whether a leader is leading a community of people, or attempting to influence a single person, their actions must necessarily be directed toward a specific result. What influence can a person have if it is not directed toward something?

Confidence and Guts

A few days ago Seth Godin posted the following piece on his blog:

Too many MBAs are sent into the world with bravado and enthusiasm and confidence.

The problem is that they also lack guts.

Guts is the willingness to lose. To be proven wrong, or to fail.

No one taught them guts in school. So much money at stake, so much focus on the numbers and on moving up the ladder, it never occurs to anyone to talk about the value of failure, of smart risk, of taking a leap when there are no guarantees.

It's easy to be confident when you have everything aligned, when the moment is perfect. It's also not particularly useful.

I agree with these sentiments, though I will add a couple. First, I think “MBAs” could easily be replaced with “people” (in general). Obviously not all people enter adult life with “bravado and enthusiasm and confidence.” But even if you don't, what Seth says is worthy of consideration. Second, his understanding of the word confidence seems to be more narrow than my own. This may be a little “nit-picky” on my part, but Seth appears to be referencing what I would call a “lower-level” aspect of confidence. That is, equating confidence with mere faith in oneself and one's abilities. While he is right to use the word in this way, I would go a step further. In my view, confidence presupposes a complete understanding of failure and adversity, and as such I would say that confidence is more qualified, that is, it would by definition include what Seth calls “guts.”

Guts, which he rightly defines as “the willingness to lose, to be proven wrong, or to fail,” are an essential part of life. In other words, if you are not willing to take risks—to lose, be proven wrong, or fail—you probably won't do a whole lot. This is good advice. It is also an essential characteristic of true confidence.

Haircuts and Change

“You look like a hippie,” my wife said.

Now, my wife, who no doubt sees herself as a kind of guardian angel when it comes to my personal appearance, was simply trying to let her poor husband (me) know that he needed to get a haircut. But before anyone starts to think that I may have actually looked like a hippie, allow me to mention that my hair might have been two inches long on top. Still, this week I somehow managed to find myself paying a visit to my local barber.

Now, my barber, who has been a barber for about 30 years and who I happen to be on good terms with, is in the process of moving his business. This week he informed me that as of May 1^st, he will be barbering from a new location, about five miles from his current shop, and will be reducing his workload to part-time. Naturally I was curious about whether or not openings were available in his clientele. “Of course,” he said. He then proceeded to explain a bit about how the barber business works.

He told me that when a barber moves his business, even if he moves it “next door,” he immediately loses about a third of his clientele. He can expect to retain a third as loyal customers. And this leaves him with a remaining third to account for. He told me that the last third of clients is made up of people who are curious about “what is going to happen.” “Gawkers,” as he put it. They might show up at his new location for a haircut or a shave, but only to “check up” on the proprietor, probing around to see if he's going to “make it.” After they have satisfied themselves, they either stay on as customers, or mysteriously disappear. When the “gawking-process” is over, about half of them remain. All in all, if and when a barber moves his business, he can safely expect to lose about half of his clients.

But why? Isn't this little scenario somewhat odd? After all, it's the same barber. It's the same equipment. It's the same service. Yes, the location is different, but unless the barber has moved an unreasonable driving distance, why is it almost guaranteed that he will lose half of his client base? One word: change. People don't like change. Change is something that we tend to fear. Some of us manage it without much difficultly. While others are terrified of it and will do almost anything to avoid it. The prospect of change requires us to face a fear of the unknown. It requires that we step out of our comfort zone, which is an action we human beings are not especially fond of.

But this outlook, though widespread, is deeply irrational. Go ask someone whether or not their life is perfect. If they are honest, and unless they happen to be insane, they will surely reply that it is not. Most everyone will admit there are areas in their life that they would like to improve. But improvement itself presupposes change. Change is a necessary component of progress. Without change, we cannot improve ourselves or our circumstances. Yet, most of us are terrified of it. Is it possible that our fear of change is working against us? Is it possible that such fears are preventing us from bettering ourselves or our circumstances?

Fortunately for my wife, I will continue as a client after my barber moves.

Companion reading: Lesson VI: Fear and Action.

Start Where You Stand

Sometimes you have to start doing something to actually learn how to do it. Sure, you can convince yourself that you need “more time” or “more practice” or that you have “more to learn” or “aren't ready,” but sooner or later—if you really want to do something—you have to get down to doing it: you have to act.

I tend to subscribe to the notion that, when I attempt something new, it's not possible to be “ready” or “fully prepared.” It's been my experience that I'm much better off “jumping in” and getting my “feet wet.” Should I expect my initial performance to be flawless, however, I will likely disappoint myself. Such expectations have largely proven to be foolish. But by acting, without the expectation of perfection, I provide myself something to work with. I provide myself with a foundation to build upon and improve. Had I not started, I would still be “sitting,” “practicing,” or “planning.” But by acting, I am able to correct myself as I go.

Start where you stand. Use the tools you have at your disposal. You may surprise yourself how quickly you can learn and improve.

Understanding Your Tendencies: Lesson V

At the end of each lesson in The Catalyst of Confidence there is a short section entitled “understanding your tendencies.” These sections are composed of a series of questions designed to help the reader understand and apply some of the information that was conveyed during the lesson. What follows is my commentary on these questions from Lesson V: Action and Habit.

1. Have you ever found it hard to change?

If you haven't, you should probably check your pulse. The difficultly of change is a result of habit. This doesn't mean that “change is difficult” because we have developed a “change is difficult-like” habit. It means that change is difficult because the very things we wish to change are almost always related to our habits.

2. Have you ever tried to stop doing something, but can't seem to stop?

Although changing a habit is a simple thing to do—it is not easy—and at times can be extremely difficult. One thing to keep in mind is that you should never try to just “stop” doing something. Rather, you should do something other-than whatever it is you want to stop doing. Instead of attempting to “will” a habit to disappear, it is always better to work to replace a habit with another habit. This issue is also addressed in a previous post.

3. Do you ever say you are going to do something, but don't seem to do it?

This is an issue of discipline, which I define as simply “doing what you commit to do.” This is discussed at length here.

4. Are there things other people do that really “tick you off”?

This question gives us a glimpse into the world of emotional intelligence, which will be discussed later. Suffice it to say that the reason we get “ticked off” in response to things that other people do is because we have developed the habit of doing so. Sure, we might disagree with something to the point that our blood boils, but most things are not worth getting so angry over.

5. Do things which once seemed hard now seem easy?

We normally struggle the first time we attempt to do something. But when we continue to perform the actions necessary to do it, over time, our struggle begins to disappear. If we continue further, over time the action itself becomes second nature—it becomes a habit. Realize that beneficial habits are almost always difficult to develop in the early stages. But once they are developed, you can benefit from them for the rest of your life.

What Is Leadership?

What exactly is this thing we call leadership? According to Dictionary.com, leadership refers to “the position or function of a leader,” “a person who guides or directs a group,” “the ability to lead,” or “an act of leading.” On this account, it seems that a “leader” is a person who “leads” others, while the term “leadership” simply describes the ability or function as such. But many would argue that such definitions fail to convey what leadership actually is.

Leadership is one of these subjects that, in recent years, has enjoyed a surge in popularity. If you visit the business section of your local bookstore, you'll find the number of books written on leadership is quite intimidating. And if you browse through a few of them, you'll find that the so-called experts don't even agree on the specifics of what leadership is! But more often than not, and despite varying terminology, they do generally agree that leadership is something very much akin to influence. This may explain why author John C. Maxwell, in his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, says that “leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less.” On this view, leading a person is synonymous with influencing them. Whether a leader leads (influences) one person or millions, they are still embodying leadership, albeit on different levels.

But isn't Maxwell's definition a little extreme? Isn't equating leadership with influence an unjustified oversimplification? I don't believe so. One reason is because a distinction can be made between a “leader” and a “position of leadership.” Very often, leaders tend to be associated with the latter. In other words, if a person holds a position or title which provides them with authority over others, people often assume they are a leader. But this is fallacious. It's true that a person in a “position of leadership” may very well be a leader, but it's also true that regardless of a person's position or title, if they have no real influence with people, they won't have any followers. It's also true that a person could have no position or title at all, and yet have an enormous amount of influence with their peers.

When I was in high school I worked in the meat department at a local grocery store. My boss was the manager of the department. As my manager, he held a position of authority over me, but did this make him a leader? If leadership is based on position, it would seem that it did. But did his position alone ensure that he had the ability to lead? Would his managerial role guarantee that I, or anyone else under his authority, would follow him? Would his position guarantee his influence with me and others? Of course one could argue that his position did make him a leader because, after all, he did have authority over me. Thus, I had to do what he said, and if I didn't, my job would be at stake. But such objections miss the point. Authority and power do not embody the essence of leadership any more than a mere “position of leadership” does. Does a criminal display “an act of leadership” when he forces a citizen to hand over his wallet at gunpoint? This leads us to an additional observation.

True leadership can only exist in an environment rooted in voluntarism. Leadership cannot be mandated, nor can it involve force or coercion. True influence can only be granted to a leader on a voluntary basis. In other words, a leader's followers must follow him willingly. While it's true that a person can be “influenced” to do something via threats or intimidation, no one in their right mind would call such a thing leadership. Thus, I believe Maxwell is justified in defining leadership as influence, but it's worth noting that such influence can only be obtained by voluntary consent. Influence on the basis of coercion is not leadership, but manipulation.

Children and Learning

Q: Do children begin life with a natural desire to learn, or is a desire to learn imposed on them from parents or other external influences?

If you've been around young children, you probably know that they indeed desire to learn. Children have a tendency to ask an unbelievable number of questions about a wide range of subjects. They seem to have a “built in” curiosity when it comes to the “what,” “why,” and “how” of things, and it is this curiosity which we refer to as their desire to learn. But why do children have a desire to learn in the first place? Is it because they want to be annoying? Is it because they learn it from adults? Or is such behavior evidence of something natural?

First, do children desire to learn because they want to be annoying? Probably not. However, it's worth mentioning that, in certain circumstances, with certain people, children may very well display a kind of obnoxious curiosity—just to be annoying. For instance, if you happen to be a rather up-tight person, and respond adversely to such pestering, you may very well find yourself inundated with a group of youthful disciples, gathering around, as it were, just to watch your emotional intelligence (or lack thereof) on display. But as humorous as this may be to contemplate, it doesn't really help us answer the main question.

Next, is a child's “desire to learn,” a learned behavior? It doesn't seem like it is. After all, do a majority of adults sit around all day asking each other random questions about random subjects? Do children sit at the dinner table, quietly observing mom and dad discussing why the sky is blue or where babies come from? If anything, it seems like the seemingly “odd” behavior of adults would stimulate a child's desire to learn, rather than teach a child to desire to learn. Moreover, this question seems to contradict itself. If a child does not naturally posses a desire to learn, then how can they learn how to learn? In other words, if a “desire to learn” were imposed on a child from external influences (parental or otherwise), a child would still have to “learn” to “desire to learn.” And if a child must “learn” to “desire-to-learn,” then it seems no child could, in principle, learn anything. In short, learning itself seems to presuppose a desire to learn, and though external influences no doubt affect us, it seems they cannot be wholly responsible for our desire to learn.

This leads us to our final consideration: do children have a natural desire to learn? In other words, is childlike curiosity “built in” to our existence as human beings? It seems that it is. As previously mentioned, if a desire to learn is not "built in" to human existence, it would be unclear how children—or any human—could learn anything to begin with. Yet, human beings, including children, do learn things. In Book I of Metaphysics, Aristotle tells us that “all men by nature desire to know.” The proposition “all men” would seem to include children. And knowledge itself, which is acquired through the human “desire to know,” is attained through a process of learning. Hence, to further justify our conclusion, we can easily reformulate Aristotle's statement as “all children by nature desire to learn.”

How I Started Reading

I didn't read books when I was growing up. I could have, but didn't. If you've ever met someone who managed to graduate high school without reading a single book—that was me. I saw reading books as a useless activity. “Why would anyone read a book when there are like millions of better things to do?” “Why sit and read when you can go out and do something?” Such was my thought process at the time.

It wasn't until one month before my 20^th birthday that I completed my first book. It was Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People. I remember hearing the title of the book for the first time. “How to what?” “Pffff! “Please—I don't need to 'win friends'—what does that even mean?” I was definitely a skeptic. But I had just heard a speech by a wealthy businessman who promoted the book, saying that it had helped him tremendously, and that anyone who wanted to be successful should read it. “Well jiminy crickets!” “I want to be successful!” Needless to say, I ended up buying a copy.

Despite the fact that it was first published in 1936, I found the book unbelievably interesting. I even noticed that I didn't need to force myself to sit down and read it. This was probably my first experience wanting to read something, and it was pretty weird. I didn't get very far, however, before I realized that almost everything Dale Carnegie said not to do—I was doing. It slowly began to dawn on me that when it came to dealing with people, I was a total jerk. I was blown away. I didn't know I was a jerk, I didn't want to be a jerk. And here all this time I had thought I was perfect!

As a result I quickly adopted many of the suggestions from the book. To my amazement, they actually worked! My ability to have conversations with people dramatically improved (I stopped starting arguments), it was like I could suddenly “get along” with almost anyone. Tense situations in the workplace seemingly vanished. It felt like I had learned a ton, and when I changed, it seemed like so many things around me changed as well. “Wow” I thought. “There might actually be a benefit to reading books!”

No sooner had I completed my first book than I was out buying more. Each book I read seemed to lead to more books. For the first time in my life I was excited and thrilled at the prospect of learning something. By the time my 21^st birthday rolled around a year later I had read more than 60 books. Not long after I started buying bookshelves.

A little over a year had gone by and my paradigm of reading and learning had turned upside down. I remember getting phone calls from friends asking what I was doing and if I wanted to go out and do something. When I told them that I was reading they acted like I wasn't doing anything, so obviously I was free to go out! Sometimes I did go out, but I often found myself thinking that I could have been back home doing something useful. I had become the exact person that, only a few years before, I would have viewed with disdain. And to add to the irony of the situation, one day my mom barged into my room while I was reading and exclaimed: “all you do is read, why don't you go out and do something useful!”

One Week Give Away!

From today through March 11th the folks over at CurrClick are running a promotion for The Catalyst of Confidence E-Book. They call it their "weekly freebie." The book will be available as a digital download in PDF format for $0.00. No catch. Details here. At this point the promotion has only been live for a few hours and already more than 50 copies have been downloaded!

Also, the recently released digital-only version of the Life n' Leadership program has also been discounted on CurrClick. It's available for $29.98, down from $49.95. Details here. This discount will only be effective for the duration of the "weekly freebie" event for The Catalyst of Confidence E-Book (March 5th through March 11th).

Understanding Your Tendencies: Lesson IV

At the end of each lesson in The Catalyst of Confidence there is a short section entitled “understanding your tendencies.” These sections are composed of a series of questions designed to help the reader understand and apply some of the information that was conveyed during the lesson. What follows is my commentary on these questions from Lesson IV: Thought and Concentration.

1. Who are you today compared to the person you would like to be tomorrow?

If “who we are” today has developed as a result of the dominating thoughts we have previously held in our minds, then it follows that the person we will become will also result from the dominating thoughts we hold in our minds. Thus, if you desire to change, if you desire to be a better person in the future—in whatever respect—you must change the information you associate with and concentrate upon. At least to the extent you wish to change or better yourself. If you continue associating with and concentrating upon the same information, don't be surprised when you don't change.

2. What do you concentrate on?

If those around you were granted the ability to “look into” your thoughts in the middle any given day, what would they be most likely to find? What things do you think about on a regular basis? What are your dominating thoughts? And perhaps more importantly, are they positive or negative? What consequences might these thoughts have on your actions and behavior?

3. What are you thankful for?

If your answer to this question doesn't start to flow automatically, you should stop immediately and make a list of things for which you are thankful. Why? Because regularly identifying the things you are thankful for gives you an enormous amount of perspective. When you don't stop and consider the things which you are blessed with, it's very easy to get bogged down and discouraged over the little things in life. Depressed-like thoughts result in depressed-like behavior.

4. Who do you see yourself as?

Your opinion of yourself is very important. Perceptions of self lead to reality. What type of person do you see yourself as? Are you an honest person, can people trust you? Are you kind and considerate? Do you see yourself as not being very smart? Are you a slow learner? Are you bad with people? Personal evaluations of self, whatever their nature, have a tendency to become reality. See yourself as the person you would like to be.

5. Do the people you associate with help you become a better person?

Let me clarify that the phrase “the people you associate with” refers to those you voluntarily associate with. We can tell an awful lot about a given person by getting acquainted with their close friends. How do your close friends and associations influence you? Do they contribute to or undermine your growth and flourishing as a human being?

6. Do the people you associate with help you accomplish your dreams?

To begin with, I am not saying that the only people you should associate with are those who directly help you accomplish your goals and dreams. It's not necessary to inform your great grandmother that you'll never see her again because she can't help you accomplish your dreams. Your great grandmother probably isn't going to help you climb Mt. Everest, but she might encourage you. That said, when an individual aspires to accomplish a given thing, oftentimes their friends or family will not support them, and may actually discourage and mock them. Obviously it isn't necessary that everyone support your endeavors, but it is often necessary to have someone close by that supports you.

7. What type of music do you listen to?

See below.

8. What type of TV shows do you watch?

See below.

9. What type of books do you read?

See below.

• Do these associations help you improve, or accomplish your dreams?

Everyone consumes information. The three previous questions simply refer to different methods of such consumption. But all information has an influence: it contributes to one's dominating thoughts which in turn affect one's actions and behavior. Does the information you associate with on a regular basis (music, TV, books, etc.) help you grow and improve personally? Does it help you accomplish your dreams? Many people spend a great deal of time watching TV or reading books that do absolutely nothing for them, save provide some temporary escape from reality. But the majority of the information you associate with should positively affect your life. If it doesn't, it should be changed.

10. What do you think when someone insults you?

Your initial response to an insult can be a great benefit or a great hazard. An insult is obviously negative by nature, but what matters is not the insult itself. What matters is how you perceive it. No one has the ability to force you to think a certain way about yourself. Other people can make “suggestions,” as it were. (An insult would be a negative suggestion.) But you nonetheless choose to accept or reject them. You have the ability to choose how you respond to an insult. Do you let it define who you are, or do you work to better yourself on the basis of it? It's all a matter of perception. As stated in the book, perception provides a person with the ability to change positives into negatives and negatives into positives.

Some Thoughts on Arguments

I agree with Dale Carnegie when it comes to arguments: "The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it." This statement immediately calls for some qualifications. First, people tend to reduce it to something like "don't argue," which, strictly speaking, is an appropriate reduction. However, the word "argue," at least as Dale Carnegie understands it, has a more narrow meaning than most people associate with it. When we think of two people arguing, for example, we tend to think of them disagreeing. And the communication that occurs between two or more parties who disagree just is what most of us think when we hear the word "argue." Thus, "Steve is arguing with Bob," is basically synonymous with "Steve is disagreeing with Bob." But when Dale Carnegie says "don't argue," he doesn't mean "don't disagree" with people, but rather, don't fight with people. A fight would involve things like yelling or screaming in someones face, speaking in a sarcastic, condescending or arrogant tone, eye rolling, saying things like "oh, come on!" or "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!" or even accusing the other person of being ignorant or flat out stupid. Of course, whether we've participated first hand or merely observed, we can easily recall a "verbal discussion" characterized by such things. This is the form of argument that Dale Carnegie advises us to avoid.

But why, exactly? Why shouldn't we get in heated personal debates with people, make snippy remarks and roll our eyes, or even (if need be) call them stupid? After all, isn't that what arguments are all about? To answer these questions, it's necessary to consider the purpose of an argument. In other words, why engage the other person to begin with? What's the point? If the point of getting in an argument with someone is to attempt to make them look stupid, or make ourselves feel better, then avoiding the eye rolling and condescending tones and name calling becomes unintelligible. Such things are exactly what we need to make someone look stupid or make ourselves feel better! But if the point of getting in an argument is to influence the other person, that is, to change their mind or affect their opinion, the picture changes dramatically.

Consider when some other person screams in your face, or acts like they are "above and beyond" your intellect. Recall when someone has called you stupid, employed sarcasm to make fun of you, or referred to something you said as "the dumbest thing" they've ever heard. How do you respond to these things? Do these things encourage you to like or admire the other person? Has the other person gained any influence with you? Are you more likely to turn around and agree with their position? Or do you resent them treating you in such a way? Even if they turn out to be right, are you not more inclined to dismiss them because they have treated you so poorly? The reason Dale Carnegie advises us to avoid arguments is because when we do (argue/fight), people naturally resent it and close their minds to what we have to say. Our position may be the absolute objective truth, but it doesn't matter to them. We have lost influence with them, and what we have to say no longer matters.

If you wish to influence another person, you have to show respect for two things: the other person and their ideas. You have to listen to what they have to say, and the reasons they have for saying it. And you cannot do so by being unfriendly, unpleasant or disrespectful. You can certainly disagree with people. But don't ever, as Dale Carnegie says, argue with them. If you do, chances are that you will lose influence with them, and by doing so, you may forever lose the opportunity to contribute to their life.