80% Of you people on here lately

No! Geico only! I am the lizard king, I can do anything! Bow to the Gecko!

bots are uniquely able to accuse people of doing things because they dont have adrenaline that often causes remembering.

And what if I told you with Allstate you could be better protected from mayhem, like me?

You ARE mayhem @funkmasterrex lol

lol

Skidoosh

Dovedee explained it well. 2 of the most common fundamental communication failures often seen are: Not listening to what the other person is saying and responding ala an actual conversation, but instead just waiting for them to finish so you can say what you wanted to; and thinking that in a conversation or anywhere there are more than one opinion that there must be a “right” and “wrong.”

Person A days the food at one place is the best. Person B says it is the worst. From each of their perspectives this is true but from the other perspective it is false. Of course the food could also be neither best nor worst and simply some things might be better than others or some days you might have a better experience than others. Arguing that you think something tastes bad will not make it taste bad to me if I liked it and vice versa. Discussing what we liked or didn’t like however can help us understand each other better and perhaps have new ways to consider things. But much is relative and a conversation can be just an exchange of ideas without a “winner” or loser.” Another persons opinion doesn’t invalidate our own.

There are times when an opinion could be seen as dangerous. Person A has the opinion that all people of X Race should be subservient to their race for example. To them that opinion is as valid as any other. But.... there might be pressing concern in such a case or a case where an opinion is based on incomplete or untrue facts to try and bring a different perspective to that person. Arguing seldom helps here unless it’s a last resort of a dire nature because arguing tends to make people combative and cement their position simply because they don’t want to be “wrong.”

So the idea of “right” and “wrong” in a conversation can hurt the ability to influence people when it counts. When we as people or a society get conditioned, stuck in a mindset where being declared “right” is put higher on our priorities in communication than discovering the most whole version truth, and a solution to amicable resolution, we stop having exchanges of ideas and it becomes a contest of ones abilities to influence others over the merits of ones position.

To give an example of “truths” in the abstract: if you and another person are standing in a room: above you is hung a giant cylinder lit from several angles. You each can see the shadow it casts but not the shape itself. Neither can see the shadow the other sees. Person A is seeing the view cast from a light shined directly from the rear of the rectangle and will say the shape they see is a circle. Person B sees a view from light cast on the side of the cylinder and will say the shape they see is a rectangle.

Neither is “wrong.” They do see those shapes. BUT: neither is “right” about what the shape really is either. They only have part of the picture. The part they see from their perspective. They can argue all day. It won’t change what the other sees and won’t be what the actual shape is even if one finally agrees the other is “right.” But if they discuss it- they can figure out its likely a cylinder based on what they each see. Truth is like that. There is theoretically one objective truth- but no one human knows it about most anything. Our knowledge is ranted by perception and what details we can see.