CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home

 Total visits to this poll: 16094

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
AllThis Forum

Do you think it's more effective to be for or against something or someone?

Something else — what?

Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls
Return to Today's Poll

Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 539 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Patricia Pomerleau CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (12/11/2017 12:41:02 PM)
     Message ID #295051

View All Related Messages

When faced with a question to which you must speak your mind, do you find you are more persuasive when you are for or against the question?

    Does it matter whether the decision is internal or external?

    For example, if you are deciding whether or not to take a new job or to make an investment (internal), do you approach your analysis any differently that deciding who among a slate of candidates to support (external)?
Often we think we have to influence others.
    We face family decisions, policy issues, deciding for whom to vote.

    Does the audience dictate your tactics?
Do you find it necessary to counter every argument you hear?
    How hard is it to be against something (or someone) and not be seen as negative?

    Or are there advantages to smiling and nodding and leaving your position ambiguous?
What does it take for you to change your position on a question?

Editor's Note:
Comments Policy — We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
Civility — Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what ‘sort of person’ someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
Relevance — Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
Ponder before you post — It’s bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.

Message edited by user at 12/20/2017 7:47:24 PM

2. Noel Meyer
     (12/30/2017 4:36:32 AM)
     Message ID #295850

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #295051 )  View All Related Messages

Do you think it's more effective to be for or against something or someone?


2. I'll borrow the tag line of another contributor, " It Depends"
a. If all are for something, I agin it.
b. If all are against something, I try to play devil's advocate and contribute 'what if' down the road.

3. Americans (IMO) are tired of the Republican 'not just "NO", but "HELL NO"' attacks AGAINST any and all things not of their own.

4. Americans and the world WANT leadership, can't prove a negative, can't lead when you don't support something.

5. Whether company spirit, team spirit or what have you, its MORE effective when you FOR something you can build upon. Anything else is disruptive when you are against something you still have to be for something else.

6. An ASSASSIN is against something or someone == A BUILDER is for something. Is it harder to be for something? You betcha. Its easier to be against -- Against change, Against mercy for others, Against helping other "JUST SAY NO" or "HELL NO" like the Republicans do.

7. Did America win WWII by being against something (GERMANY) or for something (TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY)?

8. Seems the answer comes from 'Are you the king of the world or are you just one of many?' If you are a hammer, then being AGAINST things comes naturally, if you are a solver, then being for something is where and how you approach your solutions.

9. Ying and Yang -- it depends comes in when you think --"Am I really paranoid, or are they really out to get me?" If you don't trust democracy then being against things is your bag, If you do trust the founding fathers, then being for America rules your life.

3. Noel Meyer
     (12/30/2017 4:43:00 AM)
     Message ID #295851

This message is in response to Noel Meyer ( message id #295850 )  View All Related Messages

"In the movie World War Z, one of the characters described something called "the Tenth Man Rule." After several disasters that NO ONE thought could happen, the Council decided that if a vote was unanimous against a possible outcome, one member would act as if it was ABSOLUTELY going to happen, and trying to prevent it."

1. yeah its a movie

2. don't mean it isn't of value

3. when everyone else is voting one way doesn't mean they're right just look at WMD in Iraq.

4. D Robb
     (12/30/2017 8:20:56 AM)
     Message ID #295852

This message is in response to Patricia Pomerleau ( message id #295051 )  View All Related Messages

There's no question in my mind. Opposition shows division and we are much stronger united, together. Abortion is an example. If we all worked together to reduce the need for abortion we could accomplish something. Cutting the social safety net, reducing access to contraception makes the problem worse. Together we stand.

5. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/30/2017 8:30:01 AM)
     Message ID #295853

View All Related Messages
Strategic decisions or choices have to be made without emotion, tactical reactions are all emotional. We have seen that played out with the never-Trump movement.

An NBC employee screaming at a Disney animatronic of Trump disrupting a family venue. That about sums it up.

It's never a question of like, but rather a question of will it succeed. I've been a CEO for many years, and the one thing I can say, you cannot get emotional. That part is hard. There are many days when you have to have ice water running through your veins. As Bob Kraft always said, "you can't fall in love with your players". Because that time to part ways is inevitable.

Being "for" or "against" is irrelevant. Making choices is simply logic, pros v. cons, cost v. benefit. In business, as in life the only constant is the rate of change. The dynamics of your environment are constantly changing, something you cannot control, but you can adapt and always look to see what is coming.

Every decision can be broken down to it's base parameters, once you eliminate emotion.

Last fall, the choice was Moral Outrage v. Dishonest Corruption. Did I admire Trump? No. But dishonesty is morally wrong, and that made it a logical choice.

Great question!

Message edited by user at 12/30/2017 8:30:34 AM

6. Thomas C CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/30/2017 8:36:42 AM)
     Message ID #295854

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #295852 )  View All Related Messages

Robb, a perfect example of what I am talking about...100% emotion.

Making strategic decisions does not mean one lacks empathy, in fact in most cases it demonstrates a core of values. Tactical thinking is short term, you can never put all the fires out. Strategic thinking is preventing the fire.

7. D Robb
     (12/30/2017 8:47:19 AM)
     Message ID #295855

This message is in response to Thomas C ( message id #295854 )  View All Related Messages

Please explain the ‘logic’ in trump’s foreign policy. What does the US gain withdrawing from international agreements and isolating itself? What did the US gain by vowing to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and having the entire Security Council vote against the US? What does the US gain when the bone spur guy acts like a school yard bully against NK instead of being calm and logical? Explain the logic of the border wall? Walls don’t work and the Texas representatives with districts along the border don’t want it. I have never heard trump described as logical. He is all emotion, and divisive.

8. D Robb
     (12/30/2017 9:06:26 AM)
     Message ID #295856

View All Related Messages
This link is for Kevin, but anyone who wants to read a factual, logical, scientific explanation of climate change instead of an ignorant emotional reaction is welcome to read it. This is question 4, there are 12 questions about global warming that are answered.
How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?
This one is nailed down.
Hard evidence, including studies that use radioactivity to distinguish industrial emissions from natural emissions, shows that the extra gas is coming from human activity. Carbon dioxide levels rose and fell naturally in the long-ago past, but those changes took thousands of years. Geologists say that humans are now pumping the gas into the air much faster than nature has ever done.

9. D Robb
     (12/30/2017 9:09:54 AM)
     Message ID #295857

View All Related Messages
You want logic, facts, figures instead of emotion? This is a good article for you:

10. Tams Bixby CEOExpressSelect Member
     (12/30/2017 9:11:35 AM)
     Message ID #295858

View All Related Messages
I'm gonna borrow from Noel's Post #2 and use his Point #2.

"It depends." And "it depends" on each person's cognitive makeup, experience, education and general knowledge. Each person perceives each given scenario, question or situation in a different way and sometimes that scenario, question or situation is more easily "supported" and sometimes it is more easily "opposed" or "confronted" ... from and by their POV.

The overall "effectiveness" of that support or opposition is solely dependent upon the validity of the points presented in their resulting argument.

Message edited by user at 12/30/2017 9:15:32 AM
  1-10 of 539 11-20 >>  Last >