First of all, thank you for identifying yourself. That means a lot to me and I am more comfortable engaging in a conversation. It is just my preference. Nothing against you.

Second, it is not my intention or never my intention to discount what you are saying. I already told you that your views are appreciated.

One can always read a lot between the lines and you are definitely one person who reads a LOT between the lines

Some of my thoughts for your consideration:

* You have used a story to demonstrate a flaw in my decision to not engage. The problem is that the story is flawed. Think about it. If this story repeated 1000 times, in how many instances would a cashier say “Oh that’s your problem, NEXT!” – just doesn’t make sense. Basing an argument on a fictional story that is flawed does not provide much grounding. I have written extensively about using such stories. They are fun to listen but they don’t add any meaning to the conversation. You have rightly characterized it as a funny story. If you will kindly search for “Harvard MBA and the fisherman” story on my blog you will see an example of this.

* You also assume that I dismissed something. It is interesting to notice how quickly you come to conclusions without knowing me well enough. Earlier, the equation was not right. You knew almost everything about me and I knew nothing. Now that I know you are a partner at Deloitte, I know who I am talking to. Yet, I won’t make assumptions about how you learn, how you engage etc. without knowing you well enough.

* Lastly, your quote is misplaced. You say “It is the enemy..” – when I don’t think you are an enemy

Steve, I am always open for learning and growing. I am fortunate to be surrounded by great teachers and mentors. That said, everyday is a learning experience and I enjoy every bit of it.

Thanks again.

Best,
Raj

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

No offence taken(or given). One small clarification. Simplistic and Simple are not my concepts and I do not own anything.Views are just views nothing properital about it. I have revealed my identity, now does this make any difference?

When the word “argue” is used it brings about what is called “Transformational Grammar” as Noam Chomsky says and connotes a negative meaning.

There has been a clever use of the word side-track again to backfire against me, but then I take it in the right spirit and diffuse the inuendo by cognizing it. The moment a move is cognized the air is let-off.

I appreciate your humility when you say “Life is a life-long university”(Tautological nevertheless).

I also appreciate your abrupt statement that “I don’t plan to respond to it as they are your view” This brings a funny analogy here: A man went to a bank for robbery and showed the gun, at a cashier who was busy counting her cash. The cashier perfunctorily looked at him and said “Oh thats your problem, NEXT!”

You might have guessed what happened “Next”.

Verbally, one tends to dismiss certain things when one is not ready to change intellectually even after cognizing a concept this is psychologically called “Reactive dissonance” You do show traits on this. Maybe you should make some research on this.

Further, than this, I do not intend to extend this thread anymore, unless you make another statement which might kindle my grey cells again to respond(not react) back intelligently.

“It is the enemy who can truly teach us to practice the virtues of compassion and tolerance.”–Tenzin Gyatso Lama
And this case, “Intelligence and some broadening of views” too.

Thank you so much for your comments and feedback. I take all feedback seriously. Life is a life-long university.

Just so that you don’t think I am sidetracking here again – I got your feedback about simplistic and simple views. It’s locked in my head now

And, I don’t plan to respond to it – as they are your views and you own them.

On several other items – like whether to argue or not to argue, emotions etc. – we disagree and let us leave it just at that – as it may sidetrack the issue

Thank you Sai and have a great morning there.

Best,
Raj

Thankyou very much for the comments.

First, One need not reveal one’s identity to express certain logical views. This is a ‘logical distractor’ on your part to refer to this and sidetrack the main issue of simplistic and simple.I would say, you are rather clever here.

Second,You should not judge a mindset of a person who reads beforehand by thumrules. I was just using Debono’s Blackhat thinking and viewing critically the article. I use all the Thinking hats and while donning the Yellow Hat(optimistical hat) and reading the article, I did find the practical merit and the concept looked easy to understand.However, a critical look also is warranted to tweak the concept a bit.

Third,by using words “not wasting people’s time” you betray your inner intentions by politely again side-tracking the issue, diffusing it and then covertly persuading me to stop based on the charisma of your blog and jiffle(and also menaing “please do not wasste my time). I would say this attitude would cost in the long run huge as one must be open to criticism and know how to handle it unemotionally.

Fourth, Constructive argument is a win-win situation especially when you do not involve emotionality. I think you have a lot to learn in this area.

To argue one need not be bothered about one’s background and intentions. Those are purely subjective and spoil the logicality and quality of the outcome

With due respects and no hardfeelings,

Sai

Thankyou very much for the comments.

First, One need not reveal one’s identity to express certain logical views. This is a ‘logical distractor’ on your part to refer to this and sidetrack the main issue of simplistic and simple.I would say, you are rather clever here.

Second,You should not judge a mindset of a person who reads beforehand by thumrules. I was just using Debono’s Blackhat thinking and viewing critically the article. I use all the Thinking hats and while donning the Yellow Hat(optimistical hat) and reading the article, I did find the practical merit and the concept looked easy to understand.However, a critical look also is warranted to tweak the concept a bit.

Third,by using words “not wasting people’s time” you betray your inner intentions by politely again side-tracking the issue, diffusing it and then covertly persuading me to stop based on the charisma of your blog and jiffle(and also menaing “please do not wasste my time). I would say this attitude would cost in the long run huge as one must be open to criticism and know how to handle it unemotionally.

Fourth, Constructive argument is a win-win situation especially when you do not involve emotionality. I think you have a lot to learn in this area.

To argue one need not be bothered about one’s background and intentions. Those are purely subjective and spoil the logicality and quality of the outcome

With due respects,

Sai