Look, I get it

My least-favorite phrase

The four short words on the screen made my eyes hurt: "Look, I get it."

Is there a more annoying phrase on the planet? Yet, some people use it constantly. Perhaps, like me, you might wonder why?

Of all things, it was a pitch to try to get me to subscribe to an email newsletter that got me thinking about this phrase. I'll paraphrase to avoid embarrassing them, but it began, basically: "Look, I get it. Your email inbox is already full."

No, I thought to myself, you don't "get it." It's not that my email inbox is full; it's that I don't think your newsletter looks very interesting.

But then, struck by how annoyed I was, I searched for the phrase in my inbox, and across the Internet. It was like when you think about buying a new car, and you suddenly notice dozens or hundreds of those cars on the road.

Again, paraphrased, but just from my own email inbox:

• Look, I get it. You want to get started with multifamily investing, but you don't know how where to begin.

• Look, I get it. You want bigger returns, but you're afraid of the risk.

• Look, I get it. You probably think climate change is the biggest challenge of our time.

• Look, I get it. America puts entrepreneurs on a pedestal and doesn't care about the ordinary worker.

• Look, I get it. You want the best for your kids. But you don't always know what's right.

Over and over and over, each example getting more grating and less effective than the one before it.

Why? Let's break it down, one word at a time.

Word no. 1: "Look."

We start with a rude interjection. No matter what has come before this word, it either stops the conversation or else it serves notice: Look, you're not going to be allowed to speak. Instead, someone else will speak for you--putting their spin on what you might have said.

Word no. 2: "I."

I use the word "I" all the time. You do, too. By my count, I'm up to about 17 instances in this newsletter so far. But if you're trying to sell someone on something, and you find you're mentioning yourself a lot more often than you mention them, it might be an issue.

Word no. 3: "Get."

"Get" is used as a stand-in for "understand," here, but think of the connotations: a casual, shorthand, amorphous type of understanding. It's the shortest syllable you can use to suggest this thought, and it signifies only comprehension (maybe), not empathy or concern or respect.

Word no. 4: "It."

"It" does tons of work in this phrase; it's a pronoun that doesn't even reference anything. I suppose we'll find out: "it" might mean "your objections," or "your concerns," or else, "why you don't want to buy my product." But, he or she who cannot even articulate your feelings is probably less likely to understand them.

What comes next...

As bad as "Look, I get it" is, what comes next reaches the heights of absurdity.

Because, in almost all cases, "Look, I get it" is an antecedent for a straw man. It introduces a weak argument, formulated by someone who wants to overcome it, in a way that makes it a lot easier to defeat.

But, it means that the entire premise of "Look, I get it," is almost always inherently untrue. Even worse for our purposes, it's woefully ineffective:

Look, I get it. Allow me now to argue against a tangential, deficient, weak objection that would be a lot easier for me to defeat than your real objection (which I might not even understand).

It might make the person saying it feel better for a fleeting moment, but it's unlikely to help them reach their goals.

Life is full of little annoyances and verbal tics. Few of them merit a full examination. But when it comes to "Look, I get it," I think there are two reasons to pay attention:

1. First, if you find yourself using it, it's a red flag that you're formulating a weaker argument than you think you are. It also means that you're sending a signal that you lack confidence in what you have to say, since you're putting it up against a straw man.

2. Second, when you see and hear others use it, it's a red flag that they don't have a stronger strategy. Either way, that tells you there might be opportunities for you to leverage their weaknesses in any further negotiation.

By the way, what's the simple alternative to "look, I get it?" Instead of claiming that you "get it," ask smart questions:

• "Can you help me understand how this looks to you?"

• "Would it be too much to ask what stops you from taking advantage of this offer?"

• Or maybe even better, more open-ended: "Tell me what you're thinking."

Speaking of which — Why not do that today, in the comments?

---

7 other things …

• The U.S. Supreme Court’s approval rating remains underwater, with a near-record low of 43% of Americans saying they approve of the way the court is handling its job and 52% disapproving. Approval of the court fell to its lowest point, 40%, in September 2021 and has not risen above 43% in the five readings since then. (Gallup)

• The Army is seemingly having buyer's remorse after an $11 million marketing deal with the United Football League and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. The high-dollar, high-profile deal likely didn't lead to a single new Army recruit and may possibly have had a negative impact on finding new enlistments, internal documents and emails reviewed by Military.com show. The service may even seek to get some of its money back. (Military.com)

• Norah O’Donnell is being dumped as anchor of CBS Evening News, according to reports. She will remain until after the November elections. A new anchor will appear after New Year’s. O’Donnell has had good reviews, but her show runs third in the ratings after ABC and NBC. Now that CBS has been sold as part of the Paramount deal to David Ellison’s Skydance, it was probably understood that the CBS Evening News would get a revamp. (Showbiz411)

• The largest wildfire in the U.S. swelled to over 600 square miles (1,550 square kms) on Tuesday night, bigger than the city of Los Angeles, fire officials in California said, as more than 5,500 firefighters battled the blaze in a wilderness area 90 miles north of Sacramento. (Reuters)

• A new study has found that people tend to alter their appearances over time to suit their names. Researchers sought to determine whether parents choose a baby name based on what seems fitting for the baby's appearance, or if individuals' facial appearances change over the years to align with the social stereotypes associated with their names. (Phys)

• Amazon failed to adequately alert more than 300,000 customers to serious risks—including death and electrocution that U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) testing found with more than 400,000 products that third parties sold on its platform. The CPSC unanimously voted to hold Amazon legally responsible for third-party sellers' defective products. Now, Amazon must make a CPSC-approved plan to properly recall the dangerous products, including highly flammable children's pajamas, faulty carbon monoxide detectors, and unsafe hair dryers. (ArsTechnica)

• I wrote about Starbucks earlier this week, so let's include an update on how things are going: For the second quarter in a row, Starbucks reported a same-store sales decline (3%) as the Seattle-based coffee chain struggles to attract consumer demand, particularly among its non-regular customers. CEO Laxman Narasimhan said that much of the traffic declines could be attributed to non-Starbucks rewards members, who comprise 40% of the business and are not purchasing Starbucks as much anymore. (NRN)

---

Thanks for reading. Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash. I wrote about some of this before at Inc.com. See you in the comments.