Reflecting on yesterday’s post about logic bullying, I found myself questioning what gets me so charged up during such interactions. I most often don’t go in with an agenda to change anybody’s mind, so what accounts for the passion I work myself up to in a matter of minutes?

I realised that one key thing that spikes up my blood pressure during such disagreements is the narrowed view I get, as a result of the time and energy I have invested already in the back-and-forth arguments, that this decision is a make-or-break one. When in reality, barring a few instances in life, most of our decisions are not irrevocably life altering.

At such times, I have found that taking a step back and viewing the impact of the event relative to the sum of a person’s enter life experiences, calms me down almost instantly. Second, human beings have been proven to be bad at estimating the effects of their decisions on their future. We usually only see the benefits and fallouts from that one aspect of the decision, not the whole entourage that comes before, after or along with it. Also, I have come to realize that while we try to control what we can in life, there is a far bigger part that we can’t. Finally, from personal experience I know that in the long run, I have benefitted far more from my wrong decisions than I have from the right ones. The former teaches us lessons that we otherwise wouldn’t probably learn. So, why do I assume that it won’t be the same for others too?

The next time I get worked up in the process of convincing someone to not take a wrong decision, I will take a step back and ask myself: Is this really a make or break decision?