Part of a Dad’s job is to pass along helpful insights and observations
to their children, advisatorial “life-lesson” nuggets culled from years of
experience such as:
“You can pick your friends. You can pick your nose. But you can’t pick your friend’s nose”, though, hopefully, a little less disgusting.
Two other “WOW’s” – “WOW” being an acronym for “Words of
Wisdom”, because when you here them – or possibly some time down the line – you
drop your jaw in a gesture of amazement at your amazing understanding of the
way things are and go,
“WOW!”
As in,
“I have some smart father!”
Two “WOWS” come to mind at the moment, both of which, unlike
the aforementioned indisputable advice concerning nasal intervention, are, I am
ready to concede, open to dispute.
The first one is, “Sarcasm is the dialect of losers.” (Check it out. The purveyor of the causticity – do they have
any actual power?)
The second “WOW” – and I referred to it not long ago in a
post:
“It’s not just ‘what’,
it’s ‘how.’”
Remember when I said that?
I don’t. I just remember it happened, and that I was
happy about it, because I have always meant to pass that “WOW” along to you, as
I consider you too in a way to be my …no I don’t.
What I am emphatically suggesting here is that what you do –
an action you take, for example –is important.
But equally, and on occasion, even more
important is the method you employ undertaking that action.
I am thinking about a certain revolution whose execution was
handled so destructively that the “what”
of that revolution remains forever tarnished by the “how” of its implementation.
That may apply to all revolutions,
now that I think of it. What they got
needed to be gotten. But to quote a line
an emotionally abused brother said to his abuser/slash/benefactor older sibling in Mr. Saturday Night:
“You could have been nicer.”
The “what” may be
beneficially achieved. But some people at least have not entirely
forgiven the “how.”
So that’s my view.
And that and fifty cents will get you a “Senior Ticket” on the Santa
Monica bus line.
Why do I evaluate my pronouncements so negligibly? Because the message has been communicated and
received – and I bear the emotional scarring to prove it – that, with the
exception of half-hour sitcom writing, I am unqualified to speak
authoritatively about anything.
Somehow, this dismissal of my opinions due to lack of
credentials annoys me. And it apparently
always has.
More than forty years ago, I wrote and performed a short
sketch on CBC (“Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation”) radio where I played two parts:
a CBC
Interviewer, and his guest on the program – a man who knew
where fish go in the winter.
After the introductions, the interview got right down to
business.
“What universities did you study at where you learned where
fish go in the winter?”
“I didn’t study at any university.”
“What specific research did you do on the subject?”
“I didn’t do any research.”
“Well which experts did you consult with?”
“I didn’t consult anybody.
I just know where fish go in the winter.”
And just as he was about to reveal where that was, the CBC interviewer abruptly announced that
the interview was over, offering first, an apology to his audience, followed by
this explanation:
“We cannot continue this conversation because, though our
guest may well know where fish go in the winter, he is not qualified to know. Thank
you, and good night.”
That’s what I wrote in the early ‘70’s, demonstrating that
the issue has been sticking in my craw for numerous decades. The sketch encapsulated the problem in a
nutshell: The interviewee’s “what” may have been accurate by every
standard of scientific certainty. But
his “how” – the way he arrived at
that conclusion – invalidated his credibility.
An unacceptable “how” can debilitate in various ways. It can detract from your ultimate achievement. Or it can deny you a seat at the table. Ergo, and in conclusion:
Pay attention to the “how.”
Just my view, and maybe my view only, thought I. And I was
happily willing to live with that.
And then…
In the recent “Sunday Review” section of the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni argues,
in a piece about Pope Francis that, though the Pope has, to date, made no
radical pronouncements, through his symbolic actions and his statements
involving a realigned emphasis on the poor and the questioning of his right to judge
others:
“He {the Pope}
understands that tone trumps content – that it’s everything, really.”
Well I don’t know about “everything.” Still, it’s nice to see the “how” getting legitimate attention.
It’s in the Times.
People will listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment