Principles are ways of successfully dealing with reality to get what you want out of life.
Ray Dalio, one of the world’s most successful investors and entrepreneurs, cites principles as his key to success.
In 1975, Ray Dalio founded Bridgewater Associates, out of his two-bedroom apartment in New York City. Over forty years later, Bridgewater has grown into the largest hedge fund in the world and the fifth most important private company in the United States (according to Fortune magazine), and Dalio himself has been named to TIME’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world. Along the way Dalio discovered unique principles that have led to his and Bridgewater’s unique success. It is these principles, and not anything special about Dalio, that he believes are the reason behind whatever success he has had. He is now at a stage in his life that he wants to pass these principles along to others for them to judge for themselves and to do whatever they want with them.
Life Principle
Appreciate the art of thoughtful disagreement.
When two people believe opposite things, chances are that one of them is wrong. It pays to find out if that someone is you. That’s why I believe you must appreciate and develop the art of thoughtful disagreement. In thoughtful disagreement, your goal is not to convince the other party that you are right—it is to find out which view is true and decide what to do about it. In thoughtful disagreement, both parties are motivated by the genuine fear of missing important perspectives.
To do this well, approach the conversation in a way that conveys that you’re just trying to understand. Use questions rather than make statements. Conduct the discussion in a calm and dispassionate manner, and encourage the other person to do that as well. Remember, you are not arguing; you are openly exploring what’s true. Be reasonable and expect others to be reasonable. If you’re calm, collegial, and respectful you will do a lot better than if you are not. You’ll get better at this with practice.
To me, it’s pointless when people get angry with each other when they disagree because most disagreements aren’t threats as much as opportunities for learning. People who change their minds because they learned something are the winners, whereas those who stubbornly refuse to learn are the losers. That doesn’t mean that you should blindly accept others’ conclusions. You should be what I call open-minded and assertive at the same time—you should hold and explore conflicting possibilities in your mind while moving fluidly toward whatever is likely to be true based on what you learn. Some people can do this easily while others can’t. A good exercise to make sure that you are doing this well is to describe back to the person you are disagreeing with their own perspective. If they agree that you’ve got it, then you’re in good shape. I also recommend that both parties observe a “two-minute rule” in which neither interrupts the other, so they both have time to get all their thoughts out.
Some people worry that operating this way is time consuming. Working through disagreements does take time but it’s just about the best way you can spend it. What’s important is that you prioritize what you spend time on and who you spend it with. There are lots of people who will disagree with you, and it would be unproductive to consider all their views. It doesn’t pay to be open-minded with everyone. Instead, spend your time exploring ideas with the most believable people you have access to.
If you find you’re at an impasse, agree on a person you both respect and enlist them to help moderate the discussion. What’s really counterproductive is spinning in your own head about what’s going on, which most people are prone to do—or wasting time disagreeing past the point of diminishing returns. When that happens, move on to a more productive way of getting to a mutual understanding, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as agreement. For example, you might agree to disagree.
Why doesn’t thoughtful disagreement like this typically occur? Because most people are instinctively reluctant to disagree. For example, if two people go to a restaurant and one says he likes the food, the other is more likely to say “I like it too” or not say anything at all, even if that’s not true. The reluctance to disagree is the “lower-level you’s” mistaken interpretation of disagreement as conflict. That’s why radical open-mindedness isn’t easy: You need to teach yourself the art of having exchanges in ways that don’t trigger such reactions in yourself or others. This was what I had to learn back when Bob, Giselle, and Dan told me I made people feel belittled.
RECENT USER EXCHANGES
I would be interested in learning how to to navigate disagreements where people assume you have a siloed perspective therefore considering you as incapable of leading. When your role is not one of leadership but you just want to help build a collaborative culture, how do you shift mindsets so that diversity and inclusion becomes the norm?
The problem you face is that you’re in a bad culture. Any group of people working together should have agreed upon principles of how they will deal with each other. That’s what creates an organization’s culture. Few do. Most organizations just do work without these principles and it’s culture being clear. If you’re a leader of an organization it’s easier for you to have this sort of discussion that will make choices that will accomplish that goal. If you’re not in a leadership position you can only encourage the leadership to do this. If it doesn’t happen and if the organization you are in doesn’t have the culture that is good for you and good for it, you should try to move to another organization that has what you’re looking for. Otherwise your personal growth will be stifled and your life will be less good than you want it to.
If you have disagreement with your leader because your leader wanted you to follow his instructions, under the condition of not leaving any written proofs which could act as the testimony to protect you if there’s any issue in the future. How could we deal with this?
You and your leader have to be clear on the terms of your relationship and the logic behind it and you both have to be clear that it’s consiatent with the rules of the organization that you are operating in. If they’re all aligned, great. If they’re not aligned. A separation of the relationship is warranted. Dont stay in a relationship in which you can’t operate in a way that you believe is best. The only reason not to move is fear. Your greatest fear should be staying in a bad relationship.
I think you are right and logical, but I don’t think I can be at Ray's level.
You only have to be radically open-minded and triangulate well with believable others to find out what to do and then have the courage to do it. Once you can get past your ego and blind spot barriers so you can get what you should do from wherever the answers come from realizing that they don’t have to come from you, you will have the best thinking about what to do (rather than be limited to what you can come up with). Then you have to do it. In this way you will not be limited by your own limitations.
How do you change an environment where people believe what they believe and ignore others even when the accuracy of their information is uncertain?
You can create an environment like this by reviewing how you should be with each other and then be that way with each other. For example, when you are disagreeing and it isn’t going well I suggest that ask for a pause in the disagreement to together reflect on how you should do it well. I have suggestions in my book about how to do it well, though the main things are to follow protocols for hearing each other’s perspectives (like the “2 minute rule” and saying their perspective back) and for resolving the disagreement (like mutually agreeing on a person who will hear your perspectives and decide). Of course the protocols depend on who has what responsibilities and other factors covered in the book that I can’t get into here. However, the main point I’m trying to get across is that when you aren’t disagreeing well, together step above the disagreement and agree on how you should do it well, and then get back into it doing those things.
Do you think that once you can recognize your own issues and become more active and receptive to other people's help, you can easily achieve your goals?
Habit has enormous power so it’s desirable to teach yourself the right habits.
Do you agree that for this to work both parties have to seek understanding of each other and be as honest as possible and not have the other party ignore blatant facts and be dismissive?
I agree with you that people who want to fight and not have thoughtful disagreement with each other can’t make it work - and that it takes both sides to make that happen. I don’t want to have much to do with such people and I find it hard to support such people because such people are unable to make decisions well and are likely to more abusive than reasonable.
Does it seem almost impossible to achieve this unless all parties are aligned on this mentality from the top down?
That’s right. Some people can have thoughtful exchanges to try to figure out what’s true and what to do about it while others will either fight, not listen or lie to each other, and most people are not able to have thoughtful disagreements. We can’t change that. We can only decide who we want to be with.
Thoughtful disagreements usually lead to friction which is a good thing, so a current idea can become superior to the original idea, right?
Right! Some people can have thoughtful exchanges to try to figure out what’s true and what to do about it while others will either fight, not listen or lie to each other, and most people are not able to have thoughtful disagreements. We can’t change that. We Dan only decide who we want to be with.
Life Principle
- Be Radically Open-Minded
Appreciate the art of thoughtful disagreement.
Any person or organization can adopt Principles to better achieve their goals.
Learn what Principles are and how they are applied at Principles.com
