ozarque: Linguistics; pragmatics; disagreeing without being disagreeable; part 2

ozarque (

ozarque) wrote,
@ 2006-03-30 13:31:00

Linguistics; pragmatics; disagreeing without being disagreeable; part 2
Disagreeing without being disagreeable, when the issue itself is relatively minor

One person's minor issue is another person's matter of principle and grave concern; I understand that. The example I've chosen for this post should be considered by contrast with issues such as abortion, immigration, and whether all religions are equally valid. In that context, I'm confident that it qualifies as a minor issue.

Suppose that the issue is where a third-grade class should go on a school field trip. The principal has decided that the destination should be a local dairy farm; the assistant principal thinks that's an awful idea, wants to go to a nearby aquarium instead, and feels obligated to meet with the principal and argue for that position. For keeping that disagreement agreeable, I have a couple of rules and a brief set (by no means a complete set) of suggestions.

Rule 1 (The It-Should-Go-Without-Saying Rule)
Don't swear, don't use obscenities, don't use name-calling, don't use open insults, don't yell, don't get physical. Be civil.

Rule 2
Follow the language interaction traffic rules. That is: Listen with your full attention when the other person is talking; don't interrupt the other person; don't monopolize the conversation by delivering monologues instead of taking turns; don't have a tantrum.

Suggestion 1
If the other person does monologues at you, follow these steps.

Step 1. Match the rhythm of your body language to the other person's. Blink your eyes at the same rate; breathe at the same rate; nod your head at the same rate.

Step 2: Once your and the other person are synchronized for body language, start synchronizing with the words being spoken, saying something innocuous, speaking -- softly -- along with the other person and at the same speed. Use a phrase like "I hear you" or "Mmhmm" or "I see." Choose one phrase, and stick with it. You're not interrupting when you do this; you're supporting and helping. It's like pulling ahead of a car whose driver is obviously lost, getting the driver's attention, and leading the way to the next exit.

Step 3: Now that you and the monologuer are nicely matched, start slowing down your words and saying them more and more softly. Do this very gradually; let the other person follow you, very gradually, toward silence.

Suggestion 2
Do your best to put out of your mind the Disagreement Is Combat metaphor, where you blow the other person out of the water, tear their case apart, shoot down their arguments, and are obligated to WIN, no matter what it takes. Try Disagreement Is Carpentry instead, or some other non-competitive metaphor of your choice.

Suggestion 3
Do everything you can to remove the personal from your language while you're disagreeing, unless what you're saying can be made unambiguously positive. Don't say "I strongly object to your idea of going to a dairy farm." Don't say "I think you will be making a mistake if you insist on going to a dairy farm." Get rid of "I" and "you" and "your" and "our." Say "When children are around cattle, the children get dirty, and manure on a child's fingers guarantees a case of food poisoning." To make that unambiguously positive, say "As you know, when children are around cattle, the children get dirty, and manure on a child's fingers guarantees a case of food poisoning."

Suggestion 4
Keep your nonverbal communication as neutral as possible. Be especially careful to keep your tone of voice and your intonation -- the tune you set your words to -- neutral.

Suggestion 5
If you feel that you cannot avoid making a critical statement or a complaint or a request for a change in behavior, use a Three-Part Message for that purpose. [Posts on Three-Part Messages are at http://ozarque.livejournal.com/109401.html , http://ozarque.livejournal.com/110486.html , http://ozarque.livejournal.com/109957.html , and http://ozarque.livejournal.com/110211.html .]

Suggestion 6
Instead of "if," (in "If X, then Y" constructions) use "suppose." Don't say "If the destination is a dairy farm, a lot of the children are likely to get food poisoning." Say "Suppose the destination is a dairy farm -- a lot of the children are likely to get food poisoning." [Note: There was an uproar in this journal early on when I recommended this use of "suppose," which is a technique I learned from a wise Laotian gentleman. Many LJers hated it. If you hate it, don't use it. It has always worked very well for me, and for the Laotian gentleman.]

Suggestion 7
Whenever an appropriate opportunity arises, use a metaphor. Don't say: "Willowhaven Dairy Farm is filthy." Say: "Willowhaven Dairy Farm is a giant mudpie."

(Post a new comment)

	(Anonymous) 2006-03-30 02:08 pm UTC (link)
	Great post, I had to link to it from my blog. Stephen http://ethesis.blogspot.com/ (Reply to this)

	lyonesse 2006-03-30 03:16 pm UTC (link)
	suppose the conversation were text-based. how might you apply equivalent strategies there? a lot of 'mm hm I see' messages might come across as a little swarm of mosquitos... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	janetmiles 2006-03-30 03:29 pm UTC (link)
	In IRC and instant message, I generally use "/me nods". (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Response to lyonesse... ozarque 2006-03-31 02:08 pm UTC (link)
	Good point. Because there've been a number of comments about how well the strategies transfer to written language (especially online), I'll try to do a separate post on that topic. (Reply to this)(Parent)

teapot_farm
2006-03-30 03:30 pm UTC (link)

#6 is interesting - I would never have thought of that. It seems to me that the "if the destination is X" construction, in the context above, has an implicit "...rather than Y, which I prefer"; whereas "Suppose the destination is X" is much more open ended so far - it implies you're picking out one of many possible examples, without the implication that it's a choice between "If we do what you want" and "If you do what I want".
I can't quite figure out why that is though.
Why did people hate it - or, when was the entry so I can read the uproar for myself? :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Response to teapot_farm... ozarque 2006-03-30 04:39 pm UTC (link)
	I've been looking for the "suppose" kerfluffle entries, but haven't been able to find them yet. When (if) I do, I'll post the URLs. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	The "Suppose" discussion (Anonymous) 2006-03-31 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	You first mentioned the "Suppose. . ." construction (I think) on Dec 5 2004. The entry was titled "Linguistics; Verbal Self Defence; Hedges." I leave the URL stuff to someone more web savvy than me. Lisa (I've read and enjoyed your journal for a long time, almost never comment. Thanks again.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Response to teapot_farm... continued... ozarque 2006-03-31 07:13 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks to Lisa, I now have the URLs for the "suppose" posts and comments: http://ozarque.livejournal.com/49754.html http://ozarque.livejournal.com/50415.html (Reply to this)(Parent)

babalon_it
2006-03-30 04:22 pm UTC (link)

To make that unambiguously positive, say "As you know, when children are around cattle, the children get dirty, and manure on a child's fingers guarantees a case of food poisoning."

My response to this suggestion is anything but neutral. I would react quite strongly to the "as you know" with something like "I know no such thing and stop putting words in my mouth"

"as you know", to me, implies you know my mind better than I do. And if you're disagreeing with me, I would consider it an implication that I'm stupid. (If I really knew these things, I wouldn't have made the decision to go to the farm, would I?)

I just see way too many unspoken assumptions all through these suggestions. Why in the world would children get food poisoning at a dairy farm? These must be some godawful farms to be that filthy... And I certainly wouldn't want to drink any milk from a place where just walking through it gives you food poisoning. Ick. In my experience, dairy farms tend to be extremely clean, moreso than most types of farms.

While I like suggestion 2, the rest mostly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Response to babalon_it...

ozarque
2006-03-30 04:37 pm UTC (link)

"While I like suggestion 2, the rest mostly leaves a bad taste in my mouth."

In that case, you'll want to work out your own set of strategies for disagreeing without being disagreeable. Mine would be useless to you, and the last thing we need in our argumentative culture is useless communication strategies.

I apologize for the bad taste in your mouth; that's a very powerful negative judgment, and I'm sorry to have evoked it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Response to babalon_it... babalon_it 2006-03-30 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	I do hope I wasn't being disagreeable or offensive in my response. I love your writing and your suggestions usually are wonderful. You are incredibly helpful to a lot of people (including me) and I don't want this to come across as anything other than trying to explain how this strategy would backfire with me (or people like me). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued...

ozarque
2006-03-30 06:08 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for posting this; it's a helpful comment. [For example, it helps me muster up the courage to go ahead and do part 3 of the post, which is the really hard one and the one most likely to set off fireworks.] The fact that most of part 2 left a bad taste in your mouth .... that hurt. It stung. Not the fact that you'd said so; I believe in speaking/writing the truth here as you perceive it, and I try hard to encourage that; that was fine. But the fact that that was the reaction the post had evoked did hurt. It helps a great deal to know that that doesn't always happen.

Most of the problem, I think, comes from the fact that there's no way for me to indicate coherently the nonverbal communication portion of the posts that I write about language interactions. With that information missing, I'm seriously handicapped. I'm not sure that it's bright of me to keep trying.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued...

babalon_it
2006-03-30 06:38 pm UTC (link)

Actually the nonverbal would be no help at all for me since I have Asperger Syndrome. The words themselves is *all* I go on. Think of me as "culture-blind".

I used to get in trouble all the time for my tone (huh? what tone?) and my body language (huh? what body language?) because I had no idea that other people were taking these things as some kind of communication. I've had to learn the hard way to keep a neutral tone (even what a neutral tone is) and to sit *back* (consciously avoiding leaning forward) even when I'm enthusiastic about something because otherwise I intimidate people. (I'm only 5'5" and slim-built, so it's not my size that's intimidating.)

So - for me, your writing is useful in figuring out what "neurotypical" (NT) people mean. And it helps me to figure out ways to say things in ways that won't hurt them or freak them out unintentionally.

Please do continue.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again....

ozarque
2006-03-30 06:59 pm UTC (link)

That's truly interesting. Especially for someone like me who is both NT and hearing dominant, so that the intonation and tone of voice -- which are almost totally missing from written English -- are in many ways the most crucial part of communication for me.

In this context, I guess it might be useful to mention that negative statements involving the senses of smell and taste are so likely to hurt (or at least startle and annoy) the listener/reader that it's safer to avoid them. I think this is because they evoke the semantic domain of spoiled food, rotting garbage, sewage, bodily waste, and similar distasteful associations.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again....

babalon_it
2006-03-30 09:35 pm UTC (link)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have actually picked up on that one. 43 years of trying to decode a foreign culture (that I just happen to have grown up in) has taught me a few lessons. But it's always surprising to find out where I have blindspots.

And perfumes especially tend to be very personal. I tread VERY carefully when talking about scents, for example, because I am allergic to many perfumes and cleaning chemicals. It's hard to approach someone and ask them to avoid wearing that particular perfume in the office - I always try to explain that I like the scent but unfortunately, it's setting off my allergies, and I'm really sorry, but would it be possible for you to wear a different perfume, please?

Anyways - I wanted to tell you I really appreciate your willingness to present these suggestions so I can sort through my understanding of them, and I hope that my trying to disentangle what I understand and how I react to it isn't coming across as disapproval. It's really very helpful. And someone who is willing to tackle the metalanguage issues (what does it mean to people when someone says this, or phrases things this way) is rare.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again....

babalon_it
2006-03-30 09:45 pm UTC (link)

oh. That's why this hit you so hard. Okay - I'm dense but eventually the clue-by-four across the head gets through... I just now realized that you were referring to my "bad taste in the mouth" description.

My sincere apologies for inadvertantly hurting you. And thank you for pointing it out. It helps to be made aware that it could be hurtful.

For future reference, I almost missed that this is what you were trying to say. (It is what you're trying to say, right? Or have I misread?) Unfortunately, when people try to phrase things "politely", I often miss the point. And then they think I'm tactless and inconsiderate. It's really frustrating sometimes (mostly frustrated with myself.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again.... babalon_it 2006-03-30 09:52 pm UTC (link)
	oh, and the "politely" wasn't meant as sarcasm. It was meant as shorthand for "in a way they consider polite and gentle, because politeness is important to them" (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again.... ozarque 2006-03-30 10:14 pm UTC (link)
	Understood; I didn't hear it as sarcasm. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again.... ozarque 2006-03-30 10:11 pm UTC (link)
	It is what I was trying to say, yes, and you haven't misread anything. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again.... babalon_it 2006-03-30 11:35 pm UTC (link)
	At risk of belaboring the point, and not wanting to make this look like I'm trying to draw more attention to myself (I'm not really and I'm not looking for another response either), but fearing that I might have muddied things above: I am very sorry that my phrasing hurt you. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to babalon_it... continued... and continued again....

ozarque
2006-03-31 02:19 pm UTC (link)

I understand that getting things absolutely clear is important to you -- I'm NT, but it's important to me as well. If it takes a little back-and-forthing, that's all right.

The "polite" thing for me to do at this point would be to say something along the lines of "I accept your apology and thank you for it." But it would be antithetical to the attempt to reach clarity. So, at the risk of belaboring a point my own self, instead of falling back on the "polite" reflex, I'll try to be clear.

You -- you personally -- didn't hurt me. I didn't feel that you had any intention of causing me distress or pain with your words. And your comments have made it crystal clear to me that you had not only had no intention to hurt me, you also had no idea that the words you were using were likely to cause any distress. What hurt me was the abstract fact that I'd written a post that had left a bad taste in a reader's mouth.

I'm grateful to you for being willing to walk me through this investigation of crosscultural meaning step by step.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

meowse
2006-03-30 10:25 pm UTC (link)

It's fascinating how dramatically the knowledge that you have Asperger's Syndrome modifies my reading of your comment here. :-) I've got several friends with significant degrees of Asperger's Syndrome, and I find it necessary to use completely different communications strategies (both talking and listening) with them than with NT people.

"As you know" is a wonderful example of a phrase that is likely to get entirely different reactions from NT and Asperger's people--precisely because it is a "face-saving" phrase, a social-negotiation phrase, and not a factual statement. Its denotation differes from its connotation.

In specific, the denotational meaning of "As you know" is "You know this to be true". The connotational meaning of "As you know" is "You don't know this, but it's true, and I'm trying to spare you embarrassment by phrasing it this way instead of formally stating that you are ignorant of something that is both true and relevant to this debate."

To get an equivalent effect from one of my Asperger's friends, I would probably say something like, "You may not know this, but children at a dairy farm are likely to come into contact with manure, and cow manure contains significant levels of e. coli, so the children are likely to end up with food poisoning." But to a neurotypical person, this would be as insulting (in a very different way) as "As you know,..." is to someone with Asperger's.

On a tangential note, I want to really quickly answer the questions you pose in your next-to-last paragraph. (1) cow manure and milk may not come into contact at a dairy farm, but cow manure is certainly present. (2) milk is pasteurized, while children's fingers are not--thus children may get diseases from contact with manure that cannot be contracted from the processed milk. (3) children are very good at getting into contact with dirt that adults would fastidiously avoid--so you can't rely on them to avoid (consciously or unconsciously) any manure that may be present. (4) children tend to be poor about washing their hands, and about washing their hands thoroughly, before eating. Thus, on a purely practical level, taking children to a dairy farm does in fact incur a significant risk of e. coli poisoning, regardless of the sanitary arrangements of the dairy farm vis-a-vis milk production.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

babalon_it
2006-03-30 10:41 pm UTC (link)

Wow.

In specific, the denotational meaning of "As you know" is "You know this to be true".
That's exactly how I read that. I read it as "you know this - so why are you doing something so stupid?" And it's even worse if it's something I disagree with you on. Then it feels like a preemptive strike.

To get an equivalent effect from one of my Asperger's friends, I would probably say something like, "You may not know this, but children at a dairy farm are likely to come into contact with manure, and cow manure contains significant levels of e. coli, so the children are likely to end up with food poisoning." But to a neurotypical person, this would be as insulting (in a very different way) as "As you know,..." is to someone with Asperger's.

At which point we would have a discussion over the meaning of the word "likely" (I would consider it remotely possible but not likely, likely implying to me, over 50% chance of at least one kid coming down with food poisoning) but I wouldn't be at all offended. I would consider it you trying to be helpful in pointing out something I may not have realized.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Response to meowse....

ozarque
2006-03-31 02:28 pm UTC (link)

Really interesting and helpful information; thank you for posting it.

With regard to "You may not know this, but....," I have a question. I always advise people who are trying to reduce the level of hostility in their language environment to do their best to avoid these constructions (called "Hedges" by linguists). The prototypical example linguists use is "I know this is a stupid question, but....." followed by the question. For most NTs, these constructions are annoying at best, and carry at least the following metamessage: "I know what you're going to say after you say this, but you're going to sound lame saying it, because I will have already said it in advance." Is it your opinion that people with Asperger's react differently to Hedges?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to meowse....

babalon_it
2006-03-31 06:26 pm UTC (link)

"You may not know this, but" isn't a hedge, to me. It's an honest, straightforward piece of information. It's not presuming anything about what the listener knows, and makes clear that the person speaking is only presenting it as trying to increase knowledge.

If I did know it - then the person is just confirming that I did. If I didn't know it - now I know something new, which is a good thing. Either way, it's a good situation. Clear, above-board, no unspoken assumptions.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

aenodia
2006-03-30 04:44 pm UTC (link)

When I think about it, I realize I am unlikely to use the word suppose and much more likely to use "What if..."

Is there something about the if construction that leads to more conflict rather than less.

I might think the idea of getting food poisoning from a dairy far fetched but we had a case here where children picked up e coli bacteria at the Field House where the Cattle show was held before the Easter Egg hunt.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Response to aenodia....

ozarque
2006-03-31 02:33 pm UTC (link)

My own position about most "if" constructions is that they all too often presuppose their negative opposite. That is: "If you really loved me..." presupposes "You don't really love me." "If you pass your exams..." presupposes "You may not pass your exams." And so on. [There are linguists who disagree with me on this -- it's not a noncontroversial position.]

I'm not at all certain how I feel about the possible presuppositions of "What if...." utterances; I'd have to think about that carefully. It's an interesting question.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

symposiarch
2006-03-30 05:15 pm UTC (link)

I think the important part of #3 for me isn't the removal of the first-person, but rather the removal of the second-person. What I find to be confrontational about your example is "you will be making a mistake," not "I think." In that way, #3 reinforces #2: Restating the other party's position and explaining why it's bad is combattive. Restating one's own position and explaining why it's good is constructive. Also, stating concerns in terms of concerns can, I feel, open the door for compromises: "I'm concerned that, if the students go to a dairy farm, they'll return in quite an unhygeinic state" or "In my own experience, when I took the students to the dairy farm a few years ago...." I feel that totally removing the "I," per the suggestion, removes a lot of this.

I think one of the best suggestions for learning to disagree civilly is learning how to interact with your audience and finding what works for them. Some people will respond positively to #3, other people will be offput by it. (Unfortunately, unlike your strategies here, this isn't a very useful strategy in isolation; it requires having some savvy about how to have civil conversations in the first place.)

(Reply to this)

	pgdudda 2006-03-30 05:16 pm UTC (link)
	As you stated, this model does not work when the offending party either doesn't care about the other person's feelings, or intends some form of harm. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with persons whose intent is to cause harm (e.g. bullies, abusers, etc.)? (Reply to this)(Thread)

Response to pqdudda...

ozarque
2006-03-31 02:49 pm UTC (link)

"Do you have any suggestions for dealing with persons whose intent is to cause harm (e.g. bullies, abusers, etc.)?"

I don't believe that an intention to cause harm is what motivates 99 out of 100 people who use hostile language. Genuinely sadistic people -- people whose actual intention is to cause pain in another person -- are very rare. I believe that the usual motivation behind hostile language is almost always a strong need for human attention. Chronic verbal abusers have learned, in our culture, that one extremely reliable way to get the attention of another human being and hang on to it for a while is to say something hurtful. They do it because it works.

An intention to cause harm, as distinct from an intention to cause pain, may be something quite different. For example, a malicious person (X) might repeat a rumor about someone (Y) with the specific goal of keeping (Y) from getting a job that (X) wants for himself or herself.

In both cases, although pain may be a result of the language used, it's a side effect, not the intended goal.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to pqdudda...

pgdudda
2006-04-02 07:11 pm UTC (link)

*light bulb* Oh. Duh. :-)

Hmmm...

Perhaps I misstated my question, although your response did answer a closely related question. It's also possible that what I wish to know lies outside the specific domain of linguistics, although language would be one available tool in developing strategies.

*thinks a minute*

Are there tactics which a target of harmful speech acts can use to deflect the harm created by such speech acts? E.g., a type of linguistic/verbal jiujitsu that ends the attack with minimal harm to both parties?

Note that this question is not about addressing the underlying issue, which is likely the domain of either psychology or the dynamics of human power exchanges. It is about ending the attack and possibly preventing future attacks against that particular target/victim.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Response to pqdudda... continued... ozarque 2006-04-03 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	Two things you might look at.... "How Verbal Self-Defense Works," at http://www.howstuffworks.com/vsd.htm . The materials at my verbal self-defense homepage, which is http://www.adrr.com . If any of that seems to you to be what you're looking for, your public library will probably have my verbal self-defense books, with more details. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response to pqdudda... continued...

pgdudda
2006-04-04 04:15 am UTC (link)

Thank you for the links. I think, in some respects, that Computer Mode was what I was looking for. The other part of the equation, from what I can gather, seems to be emotional self-control. That is, the ability to regulate one's emotions well enough to enact the proper defensive speech acts. I may have to read your "for kids" book(s?) to properly understand my own question and whether "self-control" is the element I'm looking for.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

ashnistrike
2006-03-30 07:13 pm UTC (link)

Suggestion 1: Interesting. In your experience, does this also work to end monologues in a non-disagreement situation? If so, I will have to try it.

Suggestion3: I agree with Babylon_IT (and I am, as far as I know, neurotypical--albeit sometimes unlearned in my social skills for other reasons). I would hear "As you know" as "As you should know." In a case where it really was a highly relevant fact that had temporarily slipped my mind, I would still prefer that the fact simply be stated rather than my forgetfulness highlighted (e.g., "I have a conference that day and can't go to the store," rather than "As you know, I have a conference...").

Alternate suggestion: If, in this example, my objection really was the belief that dairy farm visits caused food poisoning, then I might say: "If the children visit the dairy farm, how can we keep them from touching manure and getting food poisoning?" This invites the other person either to defend their idea in a way that could actually make a difference to me, or else to say "I hadn't thought of that, and I'm not sure. Maybe we'd better put off the dairy farm until we can address that." It moves the argument from "my way versus your way" and into problem-solving mode. Of course, I like problem-solving mode and find it comfortable. I'm aware that others don't; I'm not sure what the desired mode for such a peron in a disagreement would be.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

babalon_it
2006-03-30 08:46 pm UTC (link)

I like your alternate suggestion. It seems much more oriented to solving the problem.

OTOH, this doesn't work if the problem really is that I prefer the aquarium and the food poisoning is just my excuse for not going to the farm. I think this is the root of my dislike for the whole scenario. I dislike finding excuses as a "reason" for expressing a preference.

If you prefer the aquarium, then I would consider expressing a concern for food poisoning on a farm as dishonest and manipulative. I would be much happier if you just stated "I really prefer the aquarium" or even just "Have you considered the aquarium?". Then we could talk about the pros and cons of both as educational venues, neutrally.

The presentation of it as a concern over food poisoning, to me, seems to hide the real issue and puts it into a situation of having to defend my choice to go to the farm - either I'm too stupid to realize kids could get food poisoning OR I'm too insensitive to care that kids might get food poisoning. In either case, it sets me up as the bad guy.

I guess I've just spent too many years trying to figure out what people really mean because they won't say (yes or no or I prefer x) openly - instead they give excuses and expect me to figure it out. So I'm probably over-sensitive about that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	leora 2006-03-31 01:06 am UTC (link)
	That works well with some people, but the danger of trying to make it problem solving is that if the person is still in the idea of an argument, this puts them on the defensive. And the more you attack their position, the more they have to defend it, and the worse they look if they eventually want to agree with you. So, it can really backfire. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Response to ashnistrike....

ozarque
2006-03-31 03:00 pm UTC (link)

"Suggestion 1: Interesting. In your experience, does this also work to end monologues in a non-disagreement situation? If so, I will have to try it. "

In my experience, it does. I use it most in seminars, as a way of dealing with individuals in the group who decide to present the seminar for me from the floor.

However, like any other tactic, it doesn't always work, in either disgreement or non-disagreement situations. There are monologuers who simply cannot be stopped by anything less than dumping a bucket of cold water over their heads. (Which I don't recommend.) However, it works enough of the time to make it always worth trying.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

beckyzoole
2006-03-30 08:58 pm UTC (link)

I would agree with the objections to Suggestion 3 -- not that the suggestion itself is bad, but that the example used to illustrate it actually seems to contradict the suggestion itself.

Get rid of "I" and "you" and "your" and "our" works very well in some situations. But As you know puts that "you" right back in there!

I too would hear "As you know" as a put-down, under the right (wrong?) circumstances. At its worse, it can imply "As I know and you should know (but do not because you are not at my exalted level)".

If it is referring to something I really do know, then it's not a put-down. But in the example you're giving, it's referring to something I presumably do NOT know. (Because if I did know that going to a dairy farm would make the children sick, I would not have suggested that they go there, now would I?)

Not insulting:
VP telling sales manager, "As you know, sales were down last quarter. But marketing has come out with a great new ad campaign for our widgets, and here's Bob to tell us all about it!"
or even
VP telling sales manager, "As you know, sales were down last quarter. I'm afraid we're going to have to let you go, Sally."

Insulting:
VP telling sales manager who has just proposed that the sales force wear name tags as a means of appearing more friendly and thereby increasing sales, "As you know, our customers want to buy widgets, they don't want a personal relationship with the sales associate."

As a side note.... I'd also agree that a dairy farm is generally an extremely clean place, because the dairy owners want their milk to be clean. I remember going on a field trip to a dairy while in elementary school. We children were given hair nets, shoe covers, and mouth masks to wear. Everything was sparkling clean chrome and white enamel, and smelled faintly of bleach. I guess it depends on which dairy you go to, and what parts of it you see! :^)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

dcseain
2006-03-30 10:09 pm UTC (link)

I grew up visiting family on small, family, dair farms. They were clean, but a long way from factory-farm clean. We shoveled and hosed the barns every day, and laid fresh straw daily, but it was much more like maintating horses, if you have that frame of reference.

I find the mouthmasks funny. Having grown up with the smell of cowpies, i find it a relaxing, envigorating, if stinky, smell.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-03-30 10:31 pm UTC (link)

:^)
The mouthmasks weren't for our benefit -- they were to keep our germy coughs and sniffles away from the nice clean cows!

I remember actually seeing only one cow there. (Of course, this was almost 40 years ago. There were probably hundreds that I just don't remember.) The cow was clean and did not smell bad at all. Before we were allowed to pet her, we all had to wash our hands. The man giving the tour let two children, one boy and one girl, milk the cow. They had to scrub their hands thoroughly with disinfectant and a brush first. All they touched were the tubes to the milking machine; the man giving the tour was the only one allowed to actually put the cow's teats in the tubes.

Then we saw the pasteurizing machinery, and the assembly lines with boxes of milk flying along, and ended up in a very cold room with enormous, house-sized vats of ice cream.

Not a family farm, by any means!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	babalon_it 2006-03-30 10:57 pm UTC (link)
	Yep. That was my experience with dairy farm "field trips" as well. Darn near as sterile as a surgery. Now, my grandfather's farm was different... but no one in their right mind would take a bunch of school kids there. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	beckyzoole 2006-03-30 10:32 pm UTC (link)
	Oops, that "anonymous" post was me. Silly LJ. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	basketcaselady 2006-03-31 02:29 am UTC (link)
	I'd like to suggest an additional instruction on #1. Do not try to divert the direction of the conversation by attacking the opposition's spelling. I know you probably see this as a silly "given." But in almost every drama argument I've seen online, it almost always reverts to "Why should I listen to what you have to say? You don't even know how to spell ______." (Reply to this)

Suzette?

jehannamama
2006-03-31 05:08 am UTC (link)

This series on disagreeing without being disagreeable is full of wonderful and helpful information and suggestions. I can't thank you enough. It's very easy to understand. Indeed, I think it would be very helpful for persons who may have difficulty to use as a reference.

I help run a support group for parents of children with Autism and dealing with disagreements in school meetings is an ongoing trial, I think.

With full credit, of course, would you mind if I link back here and copy and paste parts of these posts onto our messageboard? It's BBB Autism Support group. http://www.bbbautism.com and http://groups.msn.com/BBBAutismSupportNetwork/welcome.msnw

I think that this would be very helpful information in dealing with difficult people in stressful situations. So many parents are just either totally overwhelmed and beaten down or else end up feeling agressive and fighting over everything.

Would you mind? I would deeply appreciate it. Thanks - Sue

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Suzette? Response to jehannamama...

ozarque
2006-03-31 01:39 pm UTC (link)

I appreciate the encouraging words; thank you. You can certainly link to any of the posts you think would be useful, and doing cut-and-paste from the posts is also fine. (For cutting and pasting from the comments, you'd need to ask their authors.)

Just two things FYI, while I'm here .... (1) I am very impressed by the quality, and the information density, of many of the comments; they're amazing. And (2) I plan to do a separate post later to try to answer some of the questions about whether the strategies we've been discussing can be used in online disagreements.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Suzette? Response to jehannamama... jehannamama 2006-03-31 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	I did post the link and a few of your quotes. I am hoping that they come to read. I think the entire discussion would be very useful for people who have difficulty in social situations, as well. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs