Rule Of Three
// Filed in: post
Rule of Three
It has been my experience that the personal connection to something can be divided up into thirds, in a group setting or a personal setting. If we take a piece of music, a book, a type of food, or anything at all, we’ll see ones connection to it in a break down of thirds: one third of the people will favor it, one third will be neutral and one third will dislike it. What does this mean?
Well first we can look at the way we experience something new. For most of us we have a very distinct pattern to engaging something new. I call it the three “R’s”. When we listen to a piece of music for the first time we React. The newness has us reacting to the introduction to make sure the new music is not a problem for us. The second listening will produce the second R, or a reduction in our Resistance. This is where we begin to be more open to the piece. Our third time listening to the music has us Responding.
I find that this same pattern will repeat as much with food or anything else really. I React the first time I try a new food, or try on a new pair of shoes. By the third time my protection mechanism has be reduced enough to let me Respond in a way that is more grounded, more open, more in alignment with proper discernment. If I find that after the third time eating brussle sprouts I still do not like them, I probably do not like them
I find you can do deeper into this. I find that on any topic, death penalty, nuclear war, rap music, you will find about 1/3 of the people in favor, 1/3 neutral and 1/3 will dislike the given topic. What is so interesting about this pattern is that almost invariably the third that likes pop song A, will try to convince the third that do not like pop song A to like it. One has to wonder why, when there are 2/3 of the people who will either favor pop song A or are neutral about it.
I find it fascinating that the biggest arguments are to be had amongst those who are never going to change their mind about a given topic. What is more interesting is how much energy is spent by those on one side trying to convert those who diametrically oppose them. It never occurs to the zealot that they have 1/3 of the populace on their side and a whole lot of neutral folks who may be favoring them. There are few if any arguments to be had with the neutral folks, and only arguments to be had with the diametrically opposed. Yet, the conquest seems to be the goal in those arguments, submission is the real pursuit.
If you read my work on Insecurity, you would know that those who seek to beat the opposition into submission are the insecure and not the secure. So in some ways, the neutral folks are the most balanced.
Conclusion here: When you see a battle of opposition, ignore it. When you try something new, try it three times before you reject it.
It has been my experience that the personal connection to something can be divided up into thirds, in a group setting or a personal setting. If we take a piece of music, a book, a type of food, or anything at all, we’ll see ones connection to it in a break down of thirds: one third of the people will favor it, one third will be neutral and one third will dislike it. What does this mean?
Well first we can look at the way we experience something new. For most of us we have a very distinct pattern to engaging something new. I call it the three “R’s”. When we listen to a piece of music for the first time we React. The newness has us reacting to the introduction to make sure the new music is not a problem for us. The second listening will produce the second R, or a reduction in our Resistance. This is where we begin to be more open to the piece. Our third time listening to the music has us Responding.
I find that this same pattern will repeat as much with food or anything else really. I React the first time I try a new food, or try on a new pair of shoes. By the third time my protection mechanism has be reduced enough to let me Respond in a way that is more grounded, more open, more in alignment with proper discernment. If I find that after the third time eating brussle sprouts I still do not like them, I probably do not like them
I find you can do deeper into this. I find that on any topic, death penalty, nuclear war, rap music, you will find about 1/3 of the people in favor, 1/3 neutral and 1/3 will dislike the given topic. What is so interesting about this pattern is that almost invariably the third that likes pop song A, will try to convince the third that do not like pop song A to like it. One has to wonder why, when there are 2/3 of the people who will either favor pop song A or are neutral about it.
I find it fascinating that the biggest arguments are to be had amongst those who are never going to change their mind about a given topic. What is more interesting is how much energy is spent by those on one side trying to convert those who diametrically oppose them. It never occurs to the zealot that they have 1/3 of the populace on their side and a whole lot of neutral folks who may be favoring them. There are few if any arguments to be had with the neutral folks, and only arguments to be had with the diametrically opposed. Yet, the conquest seems to be the goal in those arguments, submission is the real pursuit.
If you read my work on Insecurity, you would know that those who seek to beat the opposition into submission are the insecure and not the secure. So in some ways, the neutral folks are the most balanced.
Conclusion here: When you see a battle of opposition, ignore it. When you try something new, try it three times before you reject it.
