Thanks Jolly and Bluenote. But if you think that is fantastic, wait for what I have proposed next ...
PMCCORD and everyone;
After discarding no less than 6 drafts, I finally started to terms with my greatest fears. I was beginning to believe that there was no effective way on a forum to forward what is known and accepted as true in the sales profession as apposed to having concepts ending up in the “agree to disagree” category when clearly they should not.
If smart people believe things, “why can we not argue them successfully?” This was my thinking.
There are some basics about sales that we, the so-called experts, should be able to agree upon. And, as both Paul McCord and I fall into the well trained sales people category, you can see why I was getting so frustrated, as he and I have struggled over basics. Though part of this is do to different fundamentals causing us to focus from different directions.
It was during the height of my frustration that a creative idea came to me. And, honestly, I think this could be the most exciting event ever in connection with salespractise.com. There is no doubt in my mind that everyone can look forward to this too, as I hope Paul will agree.
I already know Jeff Blackwell is excited. In fact, he’s already done some preparation!
The idea came from some research into a philosopher, as I sought a way to convey truth. To that end I looked up the greatest in history at doing this, a man who died some 2,405 years ago!
He developed a method of handling the forwarding of information and developing of ideas, of establishing the difference between what is known, unknown and what is merely opinion. He “is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy.” <quote from Wikipedia.com>
His name? Socrates. The technique he used? Socratic Method. It is, of course, a debate.
What I like the best about this form of debate is the participants in the debate did not take it personally because they knew, way back then, what we seem as a society to forget all too easily today. And that is, none of us know everything, and; “it does not matter how you learn, as long as you do!”
Before I explain further what I am trying to convey in this last quote let me explain how this special kind of debate is done. “It is a form of philosophical inquiry. It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection.”
I other words, I can say “Cold calling works”. Paul can argue why it does not. But it is more interesting by far than this simple example!
Each participant argues a different side. Since Paul and I do come at sales from different sides, this is no problem. And, the object is to establish minor points that lead to a central point. To prove what makes sense through simple series of establishing the truths, weeding out the falsehoods and what were merely opinions not based on fact.
Those who practiced this did not mind when they themselves discovered they had been arguing the wrong side of one minor point or another because, in the whole, what was known was advanced. In other words they were learning.
I for one would rather risk greatly, live with passion and argue what I believe, even if I am found too be wrong, if it makes me better. This is far superior than always being afraid we will hurt another’s feelings and therefore leaving things unsaid and, more importantly, undiscovered.
The truth is not about feelings.
Even if you believe something today that is found not to be true tomorrow, is that hurting you or anyone with such a belief? After all, men once believed the world was flat. To discover it was not was simply a new fact, not something that was embarrassing to anyone who believed to the contrary. So, I propose we treat sales the same way and begin our forwarding of the world’s greatest profession.
In order to do this I asked Jeff Blackwell to set up a thread where only Paul and I could post. With Jeff acting as the moderator should either of us break the rules of engagement, so to speak.
In order that the “audience” has an involvement, a separate thread can be used. This allows for questions of a clarification or understanding nature to be inserted into the debate from this "outside" thread at the moderators discretion only. And, thus, a high tech example takes the place of the convention in the day of Socrates.
We will post no more than once every 2 days to give those following the thread a chance to read, follow and post questions.
The central focus will come from threads on this forum, from the very postings of each participant. Minor points will be established before we begin, as these are the building blocks of the arguments. Additional minor points can be added after we begin but only at the moderator’s discretion and only from the suggestion to the moderator directly by either of the two debating participants.
Finally, to win, either the central point and the minor ones, an “opponent must contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point” or recant a portion of what they have stated before.
How about it Paul? Do you want to prove that you know sales better than I. Or more importantly, do you want to learn more about yourself and our awesome profession? I do.
Jeff is ready for us. I am ready. Just send me an IM if you are game. And, let me close by saying - this will be fun!
Moderator, please LOCK this thread.
