andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2006-02-04 10:55 am
andrewducker) wrote2006-02-04 10:55 am
Things my girlfriend and I have argued about
I have spent inumerable hours arguing with a variety of girlfriends because I cannot, and will not follow this simple principle (stolen gleefully from Scott Adams' blog:
It's a shame really. But what can I do - I just got to be me.
The biggest relationship mistake you can make is to assume that because you have some special training or knowledge on a topic, that your opinion should be extra important. You could be the world’s most respected expert on insects, for example, but if your mate insists that caterpillars grow into chipmunks, there will be no talking him or her out of it. You could try saying, "I have a doctorate in bugs, I know what I’m talking about" but your mate will hear "I am an overbearing ass pimple who doesn’t know a fly from a suspicious mole."
So forget about how much you know, or how smart you think you are, or how much extra information you might have recently collected. That will not help you. Instead, I offer you the only solution: The WCM Method.
WCM stands for Who Cares Most. If you want your relationship to have a chance, defer all decisions and interpretations of fact to the person who cares the most.
In practice, this will mean that women will make 98% of all the decisions and be "right" 98% of the time. Compared to men, women care more passionately about just about everything. Men mostly scratch what itches and call it good. BOCTAOE.
Many women and some men who read this blog will sharply disagree with my gross generalization. To you I say with all sincerity, "You’re right. I don’t know what I was thinking."
See how easy that is?
It's a shame really. But what can I do - I just got to be me.
LOL ROFL
The underlying problem is - you have to think, as I've said before, if you want to be right more than you want to be happy/to make the other person happy/to not hurt the other person.. (with an element in the formula for how abstractly important what you're arguing about actually IS.)
Re: LOL ROFL