Try Honestly to See Things from the Other Person's Point of View

Part 3: How to Win People to Your Way of Thinking — Principle 17

“Stop a minute to contrast your keen interest in your own affairs with your mild interest in anything else.” — Ken Dyke

The Radical Premise

Carnegie makes a claim in this chapter that is radical in its implications: if you had been born in exactly the same circumstances as the person you are trying to influence—with their parents, their childhood, their experiences, their fears, their ambitions—you would think and behave almost exactly as they do.

This is not a moral claim. It is a psychological one. Most bad behavior, most frustrating resistance, most annoying habits—when you trace them back through someone’s actual history, they make sense. They are not irrational; they are logical responses to a particular set of experiences and circumstances. We just don’t know those circumstances.

The practice of genuinely trying to see things from the other person’s point of view is not about agreeing with them or abandoning your own perspective. It is about understanding them well enough to communicate with them effectively—and about having the moral humility to recognize that your own perspective is not the only reasonable one.

The Letter That Began with “Why”

Carnegie gives the example of a tax man named Vermylen who needed to collect an overdue tax bill from a businessman named Doe. The previous letters from the tax office had been cold, legalistic, and demanding. Doe had ignored them all.

Vermylen decided to try something different. He wrote a letter that began by acknowledging how busy Doe must be, and expressing that the last thing he wanted to do was add to the burden of running a business in difficult times. He said that he had been wondering whether there was some reason for the nonpayment that the office had missed—some dispute or difficulty that could be addressed. He asked Doe to let him know if there was anything the office could do to help.

Doe came in that week. He paid the bill. He said it was the first letter from a government office that had ever treated him like a human being.

Nothing in the tax law had changed. The amount owed had not changed. What changed was the frame: instead of the government pursuing a delinquent, it was one person trying to understand another person’s situation. And that shift—from judgment to curiosity—transformed the interaction.

The Power of “I Wonder Why They Did That”

The most useful question you can ask when someone frustrates you is: “I wonder why they did that.”

Not “How could they do that?” (which is a rhetorical expression of judgment) but “Why would a reasonable, intelligent person act this way?” Because the answer to that question almost always reveals:

When you find the answer, you have the key to actually changing the situation—not by demanding different behavior, but by addressing the underlying reality.

Dr. Gerald Nirenberg’s Method

Carnegie cites Dr. Gerald Nirenberg, an expert in negotiation, who observed that the most effective negotiators in history had one thing in common: they genuinely wanted to understand the other side’s position before trying to change it. They were not pretending to be interested in the other side’s concerns. They were actually trying to understand them.

The result was that they could often propose solutions that genuinely served both parties—because they actually knew what both parties needed. Less sophisticated negotiators, focused only on their own position, could only trade concessions. Great negotiators found options that weren’t on the original table.

Empathy as Strategy

Empathy—genuinely trying to understand another person’s inner world—is often taught as a virtue. Carnegie endorses it as a virtue, but he also presents it as a strategy. The person who can accurately model another person’s perspective has an enormous practical advantage:

This is not manipulation; it is the difference between a mediocre communicator and a great one.

Seeing from the Other Side

One of Carnegie’s most practical suggestions is deceptively simple: before any significant conversation or negotiation, write down the other person’s position as accurately and charitably as you can. Not your version of their position—their actual position, as they would articulate it. Include the reasons they have for holding it. Include the things they are afraid of. Include what they would say in response to your best argument.

This exercise is humbling. Most people discover that they cannot accurately articulate the other person’s position—which means they have been trying to change a position they don’t actually understand.

The Position Exchange

Before any difficult conversation:

  1. Write down your own position and the reasons for it
  2. Write down the other person’s position—not your caricature of it, but the most reasonable version
  3. Write the three strongest arguments for their position
  4. Ask yourself: “If I were in their shoes, with their history and concerns, would I hold a different view?”
  5. Identify the legitimate concerns in their position that you could address

Practice: The Other-Shoe Journal

For three conflicts or frustrations you are currently experiencing:

  1. Describe the situation from your own perspective
  2. Describe it from the other person’s perspective—as charitably and accurately as you can
  3. Identify one thing in their perspective that is legitimate, even if you disagree with the whole
  4. Ask yourself what you would need to address in their perspective to make genuine progress

Reflection

Is there someone in your life whose behavior regularly frustrates you? Have you ever genuinely asked yourself—not rhetorically, but really—why a reasonable, intelligent person might behave the way they do? What might you find if you tried?

Key Takeaways

← Previous: Chapter 16 Next: Chapter 18 →