In this reflective monologue, Dr. Jeffrey Edwards recounts a recent disagreement with a respected colleague that quickly escalated into an internal judgment that the colleague was "dumb" for not sharing his viewpoint. He examines the human tendency to equate disagreement with a lack of intelligence, using the example of political figure Donald Trump to illustrate how such assumptions can lead to underestimating an opponent’s strategic acumen. Edwards argues that labeling dissenters as unintelligent is a flawed shortcut that hampers genuine communication and learning. He advocates for pausing, recognizing the merit of opposing perspectives, and approaching disagreements with curiosity rather than contempt. Historical references to Einstein and Feynman serve to highlight how great thinkers engaged in respectful debate without disparaging each other's intellect. The talk concludes with a call for self‑examination of our own biases, emphasizing that respectful, optimistic dialogue is essential for personal growth and effective leadership.
Chapters
Good morning. So, um, let's talk about, uh, something that's been on my mind, um, ever since I had a conversation with a colleague yesterday. And, um, the conversation went well Except for we disagreed on a couple of things. And, you know, I— when we disagree with certain things, we have a tendency to take it to kind of another level, and we make an assumption and a conclusion that I think in, in many cases we shouldn't make. Um, so it was a person that I respect and that we have discussions, you know, pretty often, you know, kind of debates, but not like a, like an at-your-throat debate, but just kind of discussions. And so we were discussing some things, and, um, I, you know, I disagreed with him on, um, on a couple of topics, and immediately, without, without, uh, thinking about it, I kind of disparaged him a little bit, you know. I kind of, in, in my mind, not to him to his face or anything like that, but in my mind I thought, you know, how dumb can you be? Um, and that point right there was kind of the, the, the point where I crossed the line in that I disparaged him for not agreeing with me. And it wasn't the fact that he didn't agree. It was the fact that I didn't feel like he understood where I was coming from. And that lack of understanding represented a level of knowledge around a specific topic that I felt he should have known, but maybe he didn't. And it may not have even been the level of understanding. It could have been the way I delivered it, could have been his assumptions around it. But But the conclusion that I came to was, you know, just, are you dumb? Are you crazy? Are you stupid? Um, in my mind. Um, but even in my mind, that was not the right thing to do. And I think that, that we get to a point now where when we disagree with people, it is a representation, or we think it's a representation of their knowledge, and thereby if they don't have that requisite knowledge, then you think of them differently. You think of them not being as smart as, as you had hoped they were, or not being smart at all. But debate, disagreement, seeing or having an opposite opinion should be the point where you start the communication, not where you end the communication and start to get defensive or disparage the person. And so I see how easily it is to do that, even with someone that I respect and someone that I know pretty well. Um, so how do we react When it's someone that we maybe initially disagree with at the beginning, with their stance, with their thoughts, with their actions, we immediately put them in the they don't know what they're talking about category, or they're dumb, or they're stupid, or they're just, you know, an idiot. But are they? Are they truly that person that you characterize them to be? Or is it because you disagree with their stance and thereby concluding that they have some deficit in understanding or smarts or intelligence or whatever you want to say? Um, this is probably going to get a little controversial, but you know, uh, politics tend to be. But say for instance, you know, our president Donald Trump. You know, he said some some disparaging things, and the first thing that you might want to you know first response that you might want to say is oh he's an idiot he don't know what he's talking about you know or he's stupid he's dumb da da da da da. But I think that that's probably a far stretch because to be quite totally honest. Um, he can't be that deaf to not understand what he's doing because he does it so well and he has a following. And then now you can say all his— all of his following is— is they're dumb and stupid. Um, but again, are we disparaging the person for not being consistent with our thinking? And is our thinking totally right and the opposite is totally wrong? So those are the things that, you know, you might want to think about when you're disagreeing with somebody, um, or you disagree with a certain topic, or you start out, you know, on the opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to a discussion, a topic of knowledge, or an understanding. That you don't disparage the person and put the person in a category of non-intelligence or not understanding, because it could be just the fact that it's how you approach the problem and their perspective on it, which may not be necessarily wrong. It just may be a different perspective than yours. And if that's the case, then what is wrong about having a different perspective than you? So, I mean, it kind of goes deep. And, and, you know, sometimes, like I say, we, you know, I could, I could use Donald Trump as the lightning rod to say, hey, you know what, he's stupid. He don't know what he's talking about. He's dumb. You know, he says all these things and they're inaccurate and wrong, but it's being done for a reason. And in that reasoning, it's a pretty intelligent way to do things. Uh, to me. And if you disparage or downgrade his actions, his motives, and his activities, then you underestimate what he's doing, and therefore you underestimate him. And that's the one thing that you don't want to do if you are dealing with someone, is to underestimate, um, their abilities to Um, present a counter-argument that you have based off of your disagreement, and then your characterization of that person being dumb, idiot, stupid, and unintelligent, don't know what they're talking about. Um, because I find it hard to believe that half of the population, or, you know, maybe 40% of the population, or whatever number of population that he has behind him, that they are just dumb. Um, I find that hard to believe. So there's got to be something that is hitting and registering with people that connects with them. And in that connection with people, And to be able to connect with people isn't an easy thing to do. So if you got a rally of people behind you and they are following you, uh, that actually makes you a pretty good leader. Now, the direction, the motive, the moral register for which you use to lead is a whole different story. But if you're a good leader, you're a good leader. Now, what you do with those powers that you have is a whole nother story. And so we get back to, um, the whole point of understanding disagreement and the fallacy that the person who disagrees with you is just automatically unintelligent. Um, we need to examine ourselves in that situation, not the person that we are disagreeing with. Because if we go directly to the— that person is unintelligent, then why were you speaking with them in the first place? They obviously had some merit, some reasoning for you to either have a discussion with, to debate with. And maybe instead of— you know, I've heard this cliché so many times, and it's So true that we should start to try to understand first instead of being understood. So in that sense, when you do disagree, don't go to the they must be an idiot, they're stupid, they're just you know unintelligent, they're uninformed. Da da da da da da da da. You could go down the list. It's easy to do that. But take a break, take a step, take 5, and ask yourself, what was the merit of the conversation to begin with? What is the merit of the person that you're talking to? And is it that they are unintelligent, uninformed, or is it that they just have a different perspective than yours and you feel so passionate about it that any disagreement puts them in a negative light. And if that's the case, you have to really understand where you come from. And it's not wrong, bad to admit that you are passionate about a topic or situation and that a dissent to that topic would make you feel some type of way. But you just have to acknowledge it and then understand what you're going to do about it to be in a different direction than you were originally. So this is all about, uh, how we disagree. And when we disagree, how do we characterize the person that we're disagreeing with? And if we are characterizing that person any way except for being, you know, positive, uh, optimistic, and respectful, then maybe we need to examine ourselves and try to figure out where that comes from. Um, you know, I— it's a learning lesson for me from yesterday to have a slight disagreement, um, you know, with this person and then immediately go to that other extreme of, of they're just totally uninformed about this, because they could be highly informed Um, think about, uh, geniuses in back in the day— Einstein and Feynman and all these geniuses that were out, you know, during, you know, the time of Einstein. You know, there were a lot of people that were debating about certain topics, you know, the universe and things of that nature. Um, I would not call them unintelligent. I would call them as having different perspectives with each other, but they never really disparaged the intelligence of the other person. Because you can't— you can't disparage the intelligence of Einstein about physics because, I mean, he knows it. Um, but you can disagree and have different perspectives and different assumptions associated with your conclusion, your decisions, your direction, and that is not an indication that you are unintelligent. It's just an indication that you have a different perspective. So, uh, you know, our learning lesson for today is basically that we need to make sure that we don't jump to conclusions about certain situations and we don't go to the extreme when we disagree. And I think that the lightning rod in today's, uh, political environment and environment in general is that If you disagree with me, you're an idiot. That's a difficult way to be. Even you know, even you know with the existing president, you know, it's popular now to say, "Well, he's just an idiot." No, he's not. He really isn't. He's very astute in what he's doing. And to underestimate his ability to garner support and garner a mass following is a detriment to your own, um, ability to counter what he may be doing. So to put him in the idiot category would actually be giving yourself a disservice because he's not. Um, now do I agree with him? No, I don't. But that being said, that's a whole nother topic. Um, but is he an idiot? No, not even close. Uh, he's very astute. He very— he knows exactly what he's doing. He knows how he's doing it, and he's got advisors helping him to do the things that he's doing. And though the theatrics around it might be just that, theatrics, Um, it still is for a purpose. And so again, to underestimate person that you're dealing with would be your possible undoing, not theirs. So that's my 2 cents. I hope you have gained something from it. Have a good day.
