I consider myself to be a logical, reasonable thinker.  In large part because of my scientific training I like to gather information, and I think I am open-minded when it comes to different viewpoints.

One of the principal pieces of my work - whether it is giving a speech, leading the workshop, or facilitating a planning session - is helping others open their mental filters to new viewpoints.

I stress that everyone believes they think logically, and I maintain that most people do in fact process information logically.  The key question is what information are they processing?

With this framework as a starting point, how do we define unreasonable?  Here in Toronto we are currently experiencing a strike by civic workers, where one of the main issues is the number of sick days the workers can bank and be paid for upon their retirement.  Is it reasonable to be able to do this?  From the point of view of many citizens who don’t have this benefit it is not.  From the point of view of the workers, these are benefits they have experienced for many years, and taking them away would be unreasonable.

When I said at the top that unreasonable people make good challenges, some readers may have thought I meant that it is intellectually challenging to convince unreasonable people to be reasonable.  But in fact I meant that they challenge me to examine my own thinking and why I judge them as unreasonable.  In the case of the civic workers strike, logical and justifiable arguments can be put forward on both sides.

One of the things I often say in presentations is that I learn at least as much from people I don't like as from people I do like.  Most of us dislike people who are "unreasonable."  And yet by challenging ourselves to examine our thinking and why we judge them to be unreasonable we can gain a better understanding of our own thinking.  By understanding our thinking we can decide if it is working for us and leading us to the results we want, or not.

Of course none of that happens if we follow what is often are first instinct and block whenever the unreasonable person is saying. So the first challenge is to consider their viewpoint. Next, I can try to determine why they might think it is reasonable. Then I can identify why my first impression is that they are unreasonable.  Finally it comes to the choice for me - is the viewpoint I have held up until now effective for me?

Step-by-step, this looks like:

1. What is their viewpoint?
2. Why do they think this is reasonable?
3. Why might I think this is unreasonable?
4. Would it be useful for me to modify my viewpoint?

Sometimes I decide to modify or change my viewpoint. Often my decision is not to modify my viewpoint; in some cases the act of considering their viewpoint reinforces my own opinion. Even when this does happen, if I have truly considered where they are coming from within the exercise is worthwhile.

So the challenge of stepping into someone else's shoes and considering where they are coming from can often lead to a more accurate, more valuable view of the situation.  And that to me seems pretty reasonable.