People feel the need to validate their own choices. For this reason, when other people ask them for advice, they tend to recommend “do things like I do things.” It’s completely understandable, but wrong.
Everyone has their own set of beliefs, their own life experiences, their own preferences, their own dislikes. Because of this, often major decisions can be made completely differently by two people in the same situation, and both can be the correct decision. The key is that when someone comes to you for advice on a situation, you have to disassociate yourself from the decision. It’s not what’s best for you, it’s what’s best for them. Of course, if they knew the answer already, they wouldn’t be coming to you for advice, right? Well, that’s true, but it’s important to help people come up with their own decisions, rather than pushing your own perspective on them.
After having read that, you’re probably thinking that I have a specific incident in mind, where I asked someone for advice, and didn’t get it. You’d be wrong though. I can’t think of a specific incident, though I know it’s happened. What tends to happen though, is that I’ll get that form of “advice” from someone once, and then not ask them again.
I used to give bad advice to people on computers. I remember being asked to recommend computers to people, and recommending Amigas. Don’t get me wrong, they were great computers, but in the instances I’m thinking of, the people who were asking my advice would have been much better served by buying a PC (which they all ended up doing anyway - thankfully nobody listens to 12 year old kids ;)) There were a lot of people who could have benefitted from buying an Amiga, but those weren’t the people asking my advice.
So, having realized that I used to give really bad advice, I’ve tried to reform myself. The end result is that I tend to give much less direct advice. I’m far more likely to point people to a resource to do more research than I am to say “Take the job.” or “Buy a Panasonic DVD player” (Sorry Jason - had to get a mention in there somewhere.) I wish I could be more concrete with an example, but it’s just one of those things that I’ve been thinking about casually for a while now, and I’m left with mental impressions and not much else.
Simpson’s quote of the day: “Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.” - Homer- no comments
(2) vs.
(6) - Calgary is starting to gain momentum, and they’re playing really well. At this point in the playoffs though, everyone has won two series in a row. It’s possible to squeak into the second round, but not many teams fluke into the third. San Jose will be a true test for the Flames, but likewise, the Flames will be a true test for San Jose. Nabokov and Kipprusof are both excellent goaltenders at controlling rebounds, but unfortunatly for Nabokov, Iginla puts the first shot in, so there’s no rebound to control. I like the fact that the Flames were playing too high tempo of a game for the Red Wings to keep up (the OT in game 6 was particularly telling, Hatcher looked like he was wearing concrete skates) If they play like that against San Jose, they will come out ahead. I pick Calgary
(1) vs.
(3) - The Flyers just came off of a physical series with Toronto. Eche looked good, but the leafs have a habit of making goalies look good in the playoffs. Khabibulin is having a phenomenal playoffs, and the whole team is very well rested after a sweep of Montreal. For those reasons (and the fact that Tampa was 4-0 in the season’s series) I’m picking Tampa Bay