Do you like irony?
Here it comes.
When people say: “If they were smart, they would do x”, I think they are trying to demonstrate how perceptive they are.
However, they are likely demonstrating how oblivious they are.
At least, that’s how I read it.
The Use of a Useless Fence
There’s a concept called Chesterton’s fence that says “If I can’t see the point in something, seek to understand it before condemning it.”
So, when people say “If they were smart …” they are actually starting from a place of assuming that the action the person took wasn’t smart.
“If they were smart, they wouldn’t have built such a useless fence.”
In other words, you’re telling me you’re oblivious to the use of the fence.
See the irony?
The Silly But Useful Fight
Applying this a bit more concretely, I have caught myself seeing people bickering childishly and thinking to myself “Why would they fight over something so silly?”
It’s not really a question.
It’s a condemnation.
Of sillyness.
However, to dismiss it as silly is to similarly commit the “If they were smart” fallacy.
Why?
Because, for most people, conflict is unpleasant.
And even the least intelligent of us don’t actively seek out unpleasant experiences unless there is some expected pay-off.
OK, so two silly people are arguing over something silly for some pay-off.
How does that apply to me and my compulsion to point the silly finger?
Rhyming, not Repeating
While I may not repeat the exact pattern of perceived sillyness, I’m pretty sure my patterns of sillyness at least rhyme with the argument above.
For example, when I zoom out far enough, two people fighting over loading the dishwasher might rhyme with an argument I had over boundaries not being respected.
Not an exact match, but enough of a rhyme that now allows me to relate to the seemingly silly argument instead of responding with a facepalm.
And when I can relate, I can learn for myself, and, possibly, provide better support to the combatants to help them through it.
This is not to say that we need to understand the context of every dispute we come across. However, it may mean that there is room for us to be less judgmental about what people seem to be quibbling over.
So, if saying “If they were smart, they would do x” is a useless condemnation, what could we replace it with?
What about: “That’s a pretty challenging situation. I imagine there is a bit of a tension between factor A and factor B. It makes sense that they would do arguing over y. If I were in their situation, I’d like to think I would do x.”
Or is that too many words?
Let me know your favourite method for keeping your hubris in check, hit REPLY.
Also, it sounds like last letter really struck a chord so hope you’re enjoying these hard-won lessons in the domain of human connection with a little bit of decision-making and journalling thrown in!