Sans Fig Leaf
w
"Mr. Know-it-all"
1 May, 2008
Person A: "Byron White is originally from Colorado, where--"
Person B: "It's pronounced cah-luh-RAH-duh."
Person A: "Excuse me?"
Person B: "People from there pronounce it cah-luh-RAH-duh."
Person A: "I was born and raised in Colorado, and I most definitely do not pronounce it that way."
Person B: "I work with several people from there, see, and they all pronounce it cah-luh-RAH-duh. Natives get very upset when newcomers mispronounce the name of the state."
Person A: "I just told you, I was born and raised there. That means I am a native, and I neither pronounce it that way, nor do I take offense if other people don't pronounce it that way. I'm sure some people do pronounce it that way, but that doesn't mean all of us do."
Person B: "Well, a true native--"
Person A: "Are you even listening to me?"
Everyone has encountered someone like Person B: Mr. Know-it-all. Someone who is convinced they know more about the subject at hand than you do, who always has to demonstrate their superior knowledge, and who will not back down when they are shown to be mistaken. Especially vexing is when they don't actually argue with you, but just keep asserting the incorrect information as if they didn't hear you.
Most vexing of all is when you realize that you are being Mr. Know-it-all. Every time I have caught myself doing that, I've felt extremely embarassed and swore that I won't do it again. Over time I believe I have blunted my tendencies in that area--but I've not yet eliminated it.
I've long believed that mental dysfunctions consist of normal, productive tendencies that are out of balance or out of context. For instance, while it's healthy to think about things that might go wrong when planning something, it's very unhealthy to be so cautious that you never actually start the project in question.
Which leads us to part of the explanation of the Mr. Know-it-all behavior. One of the mental forces that counter-balance excess caution is bold self-assurance. Acheiving something often requires us to step out on a limb--to take a chance. In order to take risks, we must be able to step into the unknown with confidence. Sometimes that means ignoring distractions, or pushing forward even if success appears nearly impossible. Sometimes it is impossible, but every now and then we find victory, and it really is sweet. Which gives us incentive to take bigger risks next time.
Having someone cite
evidence to prove that something you just said is not correct may
not sound like a distraction, but imagine for a moment a typical school
gym class. The class has been divided into teams and is having a
tournament. In team competition, sometimes people on the opposing team
will taunt you, trying to break your concentration and/or shake your
confidence. So you learn to ignore someone telling you that you can't
do this thing, that you might as well give up. You're going to try,
darn it, no matter what they say.
Once you've experience
that several times, it becomes a conditioned response. So in some other
situation when you're trying to explain something or express your
opinion, someone interrupting to tell you you're wrong is just like
those people on the other team calling you a loser. You're going to
finish what you started, no matter what they say.
A related mental process
is
the ability to make a decision and follow through. If you never make a
decision, you never accomplish anything. If you don't follow through on
decisions you do make, you still don't accomplish anything. So you have
to cultivate both decisiveness and tenacity. Which is great for getting
projects finished, but not so good if you latch onto a bad decision and
refuse to give it up. This is just as true when you decide
your information is more reliable than someone you're talking with as
it is if you choose to start dating an axe-murderer.
Another way to think about
it is to remember the cliché about getting back on the horse
that throws you. Everyone faces setbacks. We've all been told since
childhood whenever we fail at something to get up and try again. We're
told "nobody likes a quitter," or "if you don't try you can't succeed,"
or "you're not going to just give up on everything, are you?"
Similarly, we're told to
be a good sport when we fail. We're not supposed to sulk, or moan, or
blame other people for our failure. We're supposed to accept defeat
with grace, and come back next time determined to do better.
Again, you can see how
that could feed the Mr. Know-it-all behaviour. So we got a detail
wrong. We'll do better next time, which may be the very next sentence.
So from Mr. Know-it-all's
perspective, what's happening in the conversation is that he's tried
something, but has run into some difficulty. He tries to dodge the
obstacles and press forward. He doesn't acknowledge the mistake because
he thinks that's giving up before he's finished. Or he doesn't admit
there is a disagreement because that would be liking getting into a
shouting match with a player on the other team--and that's not being a
good sport.
Some people will point out
that a conversation isn't a contest, but they would not always be
right. Certainly if you are discussing a topic with someone with the
intent to determine the best solution to a problem, a certain amount of
debating will occur. Ideally, a debate is a competition of ideas, not
people, but it is very difficult for most people to argue with the idea
without also arguing with the person putting the idea forward.
Different people have
different conversation styles. Some people can't really communicate
unless they are dissecting the pros and cons of something. Other people
work better in more collaborative styles of conversation. Both styles
are useful in different situations.
If the person conversing
with Mr. Know-it-all is comfortable with that style of
communication--and the topic and mood are appropriate--it can be a
productive time for both and even foster bonding. Unfortunately, if
the person isn't, then Mr. Know-it-all comes across as a patronizing
jerk who doesn't value anything you say. Which fosters nothing but
resentment.
Which brings us back to my
earlier point about balance and context. No matter how annoying,
exasperating, or infuriating a behavior is, it's usually a a
manifestation of healthy mental process that are necessary in other
situations. Not only can't you stamp them out, you wouldn't want to.
Trying to help the person find a balance, to recognize situations that
don't call for the behavior, and learning to deploy it more
appropriately, is quite possible. But not if you only treat the
situation as a problem to be eradicated.
None of us want to be
Person B in my example. Fortunately, in that particular instance, I
wasn't. I was the native Coloradan surprised to find a discussion about
a Supreme Court Justice hijacked by someone trying to tell me how to
pronounce the name of my home state. At the time it felt as if the
person who was correcting me was out to make me look bad; more likely
she sincerely meant to be helpful.
There have been plenty of
times that I've said something that was incorrect, and someone has
pointed
out my mistake. I hope that most of the time I graciously accept the
correction. Just as I hope that they are meaning to be helpful, and not
assuming that I'm an arrogant jerk uninterested in listening to others.
Because we're all Mr.
Know-it-all, sometimes.
You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
--Will Rogers
.