Subtle Word Differences to Help Reframe (And Improve) Your Mindset, Part 3

“What we do see depends mainly on what we look for. ... In the same field the farmer will notice the crop, the geologists the fossils, botanists the flowers, artists the coloring, sportsmen the cover for the game. Though we may all look at the same things, it does not all follow that we should see them.” ― John Lubbock

“What am I looking at?” You’ve heard this question before, and even asked it yourself when people attempt to let images, statistics, or an idea speak for itself without presenting any context or giving any explanation. “What do you see?” usually gets “What am I supposed to see?” as an answer. It isn’t the response some people are looking for, but it’s an honest reaction.

Looking, seeing, reacting, responding: all four things happen at the same time, and while each pair sounds like the same thing, they aren’t, they are actually parts of a process. When we treat them as synonymous instead of differentiating them, we lose perspective and insight.

Without using the dictionary (we’ll leave that to you), again, we first go by feeling here as outlined in Part 1 of this series. Afterwards, practically speaking, we can characterize these four words as follows:

Looking can be described as focusing your attention at something, whereas seeing is what you perceive. Reacting as follows is closer to being a reflex, whereas responding is akin to carefully responding to a question. With these characterizations in mind, you can see that this is a sequence.

Here’s an example of this with grant writing, for example. Let’s say you and a colleague are drafting a grant proposal, which will potentially be a game-changer for your projects and your organization. You look at the requirements for the application, and then see what you need to fulfill those requirements and if there is anything missing. You then react to possible challenges that make you feel you may be unfit for the application, then you respond by reviewing how you can catch up or justify what you do have before you apply for that grant with panache.

Another way of explaining this is that your colleague looks at the same application, and sees that it’s not worth your time and resources. He looks at the same thing as you are, and his attention is focused not on what you and your organization stand to gain, because instead he sees what you stand to lose. His reaction is based on his personal experiences and his role in the organization, leading to his opinion, and he responds by voicing his disagreement with you about pursuing the grant and finding instead something more appropriate to match your expectations and capabilities.

Understanding this process of looking, seeing, reacting, and responding allows you to break down each step in the sequence so that you can take another look, see something different this time, and then respond to whatever new comes to mind. Notice that we omitted reaction for the second time here, because a reaction is a gut reflex, and we want to avoid being too impulsive and take measured and thoughtful responses. After all, blurting out an answer leads to putting your foot in your mouth, whereas carefully contemplating it before responding is being fully aware that whatever you say could come back to haunt you later on, especially if a lawsuit erupts.

When you have this insightful mind that allows you to look, see, respect your initial reaction, respond, then take a second look and give an updated response based on what you may have missed the first time, you now have adopted the chess player's mind, which is analyzing deeply and not only considering all options, but reconsidering them as well. If you are willing to consider an idea, you display not only a mark of maturity and sophistication, but a very great leadership quality; and if you can furthermore also reconsider an idea, then you not only have leadership skills, but also distinguished leadership.