Win Every Disagreement Using This Simple Principle | Jocko Willink | The Debrief 

I clicked on the video just to say, shouldn't the video say to "resolve" a disagreement, not to "win" it.

The point of a public disagreement is to sway the onlookers to your side.

Pretty sure the "win" in the title is to appeal to the egotic narcissists who really need to see this video. That's ethical clickbait.

But also you could make a point that the only way to actually win an argument, is together. Because it is never a win when the conflicts goes unresolved. Rather, it would usually be an ill-willed truce. So, the argument is over, and therefore a collective victory (remember that the people arguing are allies) when a consensus is reached.

This is only sometimes true. That's because some arguments arise from a difference of opinion between two parties that ultimately have the same exact goal. but other disagreements arise because different parties have divergent interests: i.e. The argument is not about who has the better technique to get what you both want, but which of you is going to get what you want and which of you is not. The overwhelming majority of politics, especially in the liberal Democratic west, are arguments that are actually of the second variety but are masquerading as the first. that is, people are too scared to admit that they have genuinely different things that they want than other groups within their own countries, and that one policy or decision will favor one or the other, and so they devolve into this endless spiral of technique and principle.

good luck using that advice with a maga type

I used to do this about my current boss... Now I know she's just a bottom of the barrel hire.

Thats a variation on the Socratic method.

Sounds like a waste of time. With some people it's immediately obvious they're wrong.

@@managerialelitetoaster3456 What makes you so sure?

Yes, in any organization, whether as small or two people or a huge group, this depends on the ability of _both_ people to exercise these skills. A divorce, for example, only takes one partner who wants to leave the tent regardless of how hospitable and skilled the other person is.

Part of the “problem” is that women don’t think rationally to begin with.

6:03

@@lfcbcfcsullivan It's all part of what I'm talking about. Was there a particular point of contention you'd like to make?

Plenty do.​@@Thirtiesguy

This.

I think you mean that forced compliance leads to compliant and malicious individuals?

. @internetcancer1672 - I do not believe that it is malicious in the sense that most people understand. The compliance itself runs the risk of becoming malicious because the sense of morality has been destroyed through a well known process. The great danger is teaching obedience to authority without teaching the skills to critically examine the moral principles behind those orders. I came to this understanding after thinking over a recent sermon which mentioned people searing their conscience. ... It is accomplished one small violation at a time. Parents begin the process by teaching obedience to their children, without teaching the principles or purposes behind the given orders. The question "Why" needs to be answered often enough that a child learns the underlying principles and purposes behind the orders. Absent this understanding they will not obtain the mental skills necessary to function in their lives based on moral principles. Another part of searing the conscience is teaching children that truth comes from authority. The natural consequence of thinking that truth comes from authority is a belief that those in authority are right because they said so. Another part of searing the conscience is rewarding obedience instead of achievement. This can be a "tight rope" to walk as achievements can be done under orders. The principle is that obedience for the sake of reward teaches children to ignore their conscience when rewards are offered for small violations of their conscience. Given enough time and following enough orders to violate their own conscience, the searing is complete and the child grows up to become a clone soldier. Obedience to authority will become their definition of "good". Disobedience to authority will become their definition of "evil". This process creates someone with an extrinsic morality, which is easily manipulated by someone in authority because the clone soldier has no intrinsic moral boundaries. Clone soldiers will follow evil orders while thinking that they are doing good, because they are following orders

@@internetcancer1672No I think more like, to use a Nazi example, how an average SS soldier in the 1940s committed heinous acts not because they wanted to but because they were told to do so by authority. They knew in their heart of hearts it was wrong but they did it anyway because they were instructed to do so, that's malicious compliance.

​@@djjazzyjeff1232 Malice is the intent to do harm. I normally hear the term "malicious compliance" used to mean that a person complies very literally, in a way that is intended to backfire, to cause the order to work against the person who gave it. For example a frustrated boss yells "don't knock on my door or bother me when I'm talking to my girlfriend!" So the subordinate does exactly as they are told. They sit quietly, not disturbing the boss, when the boss is with his gf and the boss's *wife* pulls up. If the order is "get as many as you can!", the subordinate gets a ridiculous number of whatever, causing problems for the boss. Or "ugh! Whoever is ringing the doorbell, tell them to go away" - so they dutifully open the door and tell the CEO who flew in from Seattle "the manager said go away". :)

Wish more people shared your tenets.

@@michaelbanks2303 I didn't have this mentality until I was into my 30's, so it's only been the last decade or so where I purposefully developed this mindset. Listening to those early Jocko Podcasts helped solidify it for me. So while it was a few decades later than I could have adopted it, it's also a sign that there is hope for others who don't yet share that mentality.

What if its someone that doesn't matter to you?

I like how you did everything you could to follow the protocol and asked for an explicit order. Be care through, as following an order that is wrong does NOT absolve you of moral (and should be legal as well. We need a police ucmj so following bad orders is a crime like the military) responsibility for the action if it is against the Constitution. Not saying that happened in your situation, just pointing out that happens, like like Uvalde, which should have resulted in criminal prosecutions against the officers who let people and kids die.

Sometimes you can't reach agreement. I agree. I also saw that in the military. Often there is no sultion except discontinuing agression.

Yes, it's not a good thing looking back and realising several people have taken advantage of you over the years because of your inherent character predispositions..... ask me how I know........

@@michaelsimpson9779 I am interested :)

Guess I’m not alone in this either. Maybe we’ll get straight on the next round.

Follow up: I went to an existing client with a proposal. The tent: You pay 120k + 10% on increased sales, and I will double your sales from 2m to 4m in 12 months. I then took the proposal to 2 other businesses and sold the same. How? I am the programmer of an ERP and can change how everyone works. In the past, people just bought a mod. Now, I operate as a freelance CTO. the trick here has been to re-write the rules and be willing to make the obvious points. 'I can set your business model in any way we can imagine' whereas previously people only improved a segment of operations.

Don’t leave the tent works until you get dragged out of it…

But then he says you do the mission but mitigate the risk. How depends on the mission, but he specifically said "you go down in the cellar and drink wine," which means you kinda do the mission, but not take the risks they would have wanted you to take.

Yeh, but dude, those chili beans from last night... You gotta leave sometime.

Better inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in !

There is no black and white here. You can at any moment go back into the tent. The road has no power over you, you are the one deciding to continue walking in the wrong direction with each step. And every single one of them is an opportunity to correct the situation. It takes the will of two people to complete an order.

Longstreet will always be a whipping boy for Lee worshippers. Pickett's Charge was a disaster from the moment Lee conceived it. If Longsteet had jumped to the task, Pickett's division would have just died sooner. Not to mention there was a preparatory artillery barrage going on during his so called hesitation.

I like this. So often I try to understand and people take an immediate defensive stance. Must be how I present myself. I try to come off the way I intend, the response from others says I am not coming off like I intend

He probably wouldn't find his way off the stage...I mean, out of the tent.

I know, Trump is so problematic. "TROTH SENCHAL, Nikki Haley caused J6, etc etc." The guy can't even keep the names of his children straight. It's sad.

I think you raised a really good point about selecting the right type of potato for a fry. It depends on the style of the cut.

Heading toward? Lol and apparently he's gonna run again. Arrrgh

Happily there are improvements in testing and treatment. Document incidents and reach for qualified medical professionals. This is no joke. For anyone.

It is hard to find mature leaders who will carefully listen to dissent. It's much easier to find leaders who have a human ego and will enjoy explaining their decision, to a subordinate who wants to be fastidious about doing exactly what the leader wants, and to understand the leader's thinking. Both subordinates are seeking to have the leader think through the decision more carefully and to thoroughly discuss the situation. One of them has a much better chance of succeeding in making that happen. "I'm not sure if I heard and understood everything right, and I want to be sure to do it the right way. What should we do if it turns out the delivery is delayed by a few days?" Vs "ugh that would only work if the delivery is exactly on time - and it's never on time. Dumb."

That when you go in the basement and drink wine. You must’ve missed that part.

@@MrSmallie you must’ve missed the part about context…

It's part of the world. It was in print, it was in radio, it was in TV. It's nothing new. Businesses need the bait because MOST people DO NOT want the straight truth. They can't handle it.

That is a legitimate wrinkle in this plan I have faced myself. Not sure how to break through. Even the most obvious evidence is powerless in this scenario.

Just roll with it. Stay in your lane and ALWAYS HAVE A PAPER TRAIL. Also, try to make friends with HR.

If you can’t listen to your coach and do your best for the team then you should quit the team.

It's true, many people are simply not in a position where they have the ability or the right to disagree. I think in this case the tent is metaphorical and this technique is specifically about unit commanders who have a disagreement with a higher level commander, that is someone who at least in theory should be empowered with decision making.

He didn't commit it, his team did. He owned how it got to that point, however. I can think of lots of military leaders that lead to poor outcomes and deaths, and they don't own their mistakes...

would've been helpful for me too.

That's all fine and good until you try to execute your boss's bad decision and you get to be the scapegoat when it fails. Sometimes you have to leave the tent and not come back. There is no such thing as AWOL outside the military.

@@shawnbottom4769 why would you voluntarily choose to work for auch a person? There is no forced subordination outside the military...

I could not fight for a cause i do not believe in or at least understand

@@ohnoitisnt nor should you. However, I feel that it is one's own responsibility to ensure that you do agree with the cause before placing yourself under any obligation to follow orders. Once you have decided that a cause, or a leader, is worthy do not dishonor yourself by constantly demanding an explanation for every detail. Sometimes, great leaders may ask you to do something counter-intuitive. If you decided that they were worth following already, it is safe to assume that they are worth following even if you don't understand their actions. But this is just my perception. I do my best not to get into business with someone before I understand their values.

@@lawnbear5958 Well said, i agree and can relate especially on doing buisness with people who which i know their values. ATB

This attitude and effort to work through is more common in the "alpha" areas than I ever found surrounded by lefties. I don't mean to be disrespectful to you or your point as I agree. However, empathy in lefty environments only happened if you agree with some of the more crazy lefty positions. I rarely found any empathy coming my way during my graduate program in teaching, for example. Edit: The left wasn't always like this. I used to have principled disagreements based on reality with them where we could still be friends and have a beer. Now they won't even listen to anything outside their hive mind and need counseling for the microagressions that used to he respectful disagreements. They have lost their mind.

​@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle "This attitude and effort to work through is more common in the "alpha" areas than I ever found surrounded by lefties." - My comment did not target "alphas", but conservatives. Of course there is a significant self-claimed crossover between the two, but I chose those separate terms intentionally. However, since you seem to like "lefties" as a designation, perhaps I should clarify that I meant "righties". "Empathy in lefty environments only happened if you agree with some of the more crazy lefty positions." - Vague. Explain what you mean by "crazy". "I rarely found any empathy coming my way during my graduate program in teaching." - Common ground! - I'm a retired English teacher! And that statement is also vague. Provide examples. "The left wasn't always like this." - I could also point out that the right wasn't always like this. But first, define what you mean by "this". "I used to have principled disagreements based on reality with them where we could still be friends and have a beer." - I like beer. But first, define what you mean by "reality". Maybe we just use different tests. Is your test superior to mine? That's a discussion. "Now they won't even listen to anything outside their hive mind" - So the right doesn't have a hive mind? Not MAGA? Not Christian nationalists? How hard have you tried to understand the principles that underlie this so-called "hive mind"? Not as hard as the guys in this video, I would judge. "and [they] need counseling for the microagressions that used to he respectful disagreements." - This is you exercising your powers of empathy? Not stellar. Provide examples of "lefties" you know who needed "counselling" for supposed "micro-aggressions". "They have lost their mind." - Define "they". Have you categorized me as "one of them"? Without answers to these questions, I can't say for sure, but the sum of what you've communicated seems to indicate not that the left is unworthy of your empathy, but that your empathic abilities may simply have hit a wall. You could blame the left for seeking progress that overreaches your capacity to empathize with it. Or you could just try harder. Up to you.

Here you go: www.amazon.com/Leadership-Strategy-Tactics-Manual-Expanded/dp/B0C74TGGGM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=QG0JH8E1PK5B&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.9VZdYQq2BESruo_sg3n_9SNb3Iz0V30Rajlqn3qMnefQDUeAhPx0EP-Gb1lOQYKkUGO013Ss68sB8ybBr6mryVWFNW-Qq9Yo-iqHFossLK_FGZtjAUakql5UeuLOd_yU_D0rw4N76LXzKChgcyfdIHUcXMw6y9s6ArD-gBh--to5oeisJbWUeWnP0T9UR-3kprMtH8CQTbYHtuiNSeTa56seNuYhaxm3Zo0z9aXYPa4.mT1l1gHWyirKnqpVrSkdGdgv_5KBEvface4hXB0Cwo4&dib_tag=se&keywords=leadership+strategy+and+tactics+jocko&qid=1708444374&sprefix=leadership+st%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1

As an army of one you need to work that out.

Ahem, I believe in the military this calls for... FITFO.

BUT - if you are blindsided you'll be unprepared.