Read the article at https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200930-how-to-politely-and-productively-disagree
and present your opinions/experiences.
Popular posts from this blog
The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust. The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog. What is smog? Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds often come fr
- Get link
- Other Apps
James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
for the sake of feeling better about their views and not necessery as a mean of getting to understand the point of view or the perspective of the other person talking which harms everyone in the discussion and just makes the relation to that person even worse.
The presented theyory of people 'Coupling' and 'Decoupling' the issues from what they actually are is quite interesting, and I never thought about it in this way.
The other one, pushing someone’s belief to the extreme, seems a little bit far-fetched to me. Using that technique can be treated like using a straw man argument. Refuting someone else’s skewed version of an argument does not seem like a reliable way to convince them to anything.
I really try to live by similar rules described in this article – be kind to the person you’re arguing with, do not answer agression with agression (it's better to stay calm or end the conversation), try to consider every perspective, put yourself in somebody’s situation. There’s a saying in Poland, that when the circumstances are rough and you’re nervous, or someone is making you angry, just “get out of your body and stand aside”. This reminds me of coupling and decoupling, that Christian Jarrett talks about in this article; try to see every problem from different perspectives, try to avoid thinking about other people’s opinion as something bad or stupid. Try to think about what led them to that conclusion.
Also it’s really important these days to check your facts, as stated in one of the last parts of the article. We live in a world of disinformation, fake news, manipulation. We have an unlimited access to knowledge and freedom of speech through the Internet, which is a curse underneath the blessing. Everybody can post anything they want, and also the news can go viral with a speed of light. You can as well manipulate, or enlighten millions of people. So it’s really important to base your point of view and opinions on checked sources.
Public debates are about something else. They are about establishing dominance. Just like Frans de Waal said, it is not some sophisticated psychology or sociology. It's about something more primitive, coded in our DNA. All species on earth are always looking for strong and confident leaders, so some potential leaders take this as an advice and then act it out. But when it comes to regular conversations and disagreements, let's say we are about to start a conversation with somebody.
First, we must figure out if the person we are speaking with is interested in exchanging experiences and thoughts or if they are attempting to convert us on their site. With the second variant we could either leave it or either listen to them and take draw some conclusions from their thoughts. It could provide us some insights that can be useful. That's something I always did and it helped me to better understand many kinds of people. Arguing with this kind of people is pointless but we could learn something from listening what they have got to say.
In real debates of mature individuals or groups advices were presented in a very proper way in provided article.
Be nice person, don't try to attack anyone, listen and try to understand the other person. I especially liked the phrase "psychological judo" referring to Paradoxical thinking approach. Obviously things supported by evidence, proof or research are more persuasive than aggressive empty claims.
I totally agree with what Katarzyna Stefanowska said - everyone nowadays think they know everything because of an easy access to new information. But unfortunately most information in the internet aren't precise or they contain fake news.
Maybe that is why there are a lot of such articles which tell us how to win the dispute. But how was said in the article, most of us are deeply wedded to our beliefs, especially concerning moral and social issues, such that when we’re presented with facts that contradict our beliefs, we often choose to dismiss those facts, rather than update our beliefs. So, I think, the ability to adequately assess facts and accept them should be developed by everyone.
In the article also was not mentioned critical thinking, that is very important in any dispute. You should ask yourself (or your opponent in debates) the proper question. Often it is the only strategy that will help to convince you are right.
What about debates, it usually occurs in public meetings. So it is not necessary to change your opponent point of view. And the main aim of it is to influence people`s minds.
The thing, I do not like about the article is that it kinds of implies that something has changed in the nature of human behaviour. However, only the environment we live in has been differentiating in the last 100 years or so. Therefore, which I believe is compatible with the content of the article we should and can explore the nature of the disagreement. We should also develop our approach to relationships from a biological, psychological and philosophical perspective.
I would also like to add that I really appreciate the possibility to express my opinion in English. This opportunity is a rare experience for me.
- politics, especially on TV: looking for somebody to blame, constantly accusing somebody of doing something, making politics on fear
- amount of information: the internet is such a huge place, that we can find arguments for all the theories, both true and false
- people use too much emotion and to less evidence: as it was mentioned in an article, people tend to change their minds when they see some evidence. In my opinion, if every person who takes part in a discussion used some sort of evidence, it would make a huge difference. First of all, many people would not even comment (because they simply don't want to look for the evidence - I believe that we all know such people). Secondly, it could stop the spread of false information. Currently, one person can write a comment stated as a fact and if there are enough people who believe it and give a "like", this comment will be on the top - no matter if it is true or false. If a person give a link to a website like WWW.onlyRealNewsSayNoToPropaganda24.COM as evidence... well, we can verify it ourselves.
These are of course my own observations.
I really like to discuss with other people on interesting topics. I am curious about different points of view, it helps me to evolve and find a common language easier with different types of people.
And that's the thing, having such sophisticated means provided by technology to express thoughts (and ingest information) makes everyone believe that they are smart enough to battle someone in argument. Nowadays everyone believes in his own truth. In combination with increasing impoliteness arguments can be really dumb and sometimes even cruel. Especially with the trend of "you must respect one's thoughts(religion, race, orientation, political views etc.)" we can see how paradoxically respect turns into disrespect and even abuse. If you can talk it doesn't necessarily mean you should. Maybe sometimes it's better to just listen, think and not embarrass yourself.
So to sum up, as my momma told me: -"Words are silver, silence is gold."
Another very dangerous trend is fact-denying. This trend assumes that every fact can be denied by simply not agreeing with it. I've learned that when I get involved in discussion with someone who simply refuse to acknowledge most basic facts, I leave that discussion because there is no point to continue it.
My final thought: During discussion use facts, not emotion, and try to stay open minded, discussion is pointless if none of the sides is able to change it's view.
The first method of "coupling" and "decoupling" focuses on the different points of view of each person that is taking part in a discussion, and I think that it is the most crucial element of why modern people are so sensitive. We want to connect with people around the world and make it a better place for everyone, so a lot of people started to think of how the others may think about some statements. I think that the "coupling" method may be typical to those kind of people, who want to think about some greater good, and that's why they are connecting some facts that for some other people may be completly different topics.
I feel that the last method is the easiest and the most difficult way in the same time. It's really easy to loose your composure in a brief moment, just because your discussion partner said something that you didn't like. In my opinion, the best way to debate over some issues is just face-to-face conversation, because people tend to act nicer. On the other hand, on the internet it's almost impossible to stay composed. After all, people don't really care about your opinion, it's just the fight, who can speak more and more aggresive, or who is more popular and will get more likes and comments of people agreeing with them. I think that we should carefully choose a platform, or place where we want to discuss more difficult topics.
I am not going to lie, I did not like the article at first, but I helped me to understand why I did not *use to* to like such articles. I was getting angry at people telling me that I may be getting angry. For the first time I can see that overreacting is omnipresent and, while maybe others can't see it yet, one could try and soften their approach a bit.
Certainly I'll try to apply said suggestions and approaches to not only discussions, but to everyday conversations.
-It's not battle, we seek understanding.
-We can change our minds, with enough evidences at any time.
-Changing your mind is winning over ignorance.
-We can disagree and still can be friends.
This rules given at the start and followed through whole debate by everyone are great space for every person's opinion and feelings.
Unfortunately, usually when the topic is to personal, there comes emotions. For many people in these situations logic and facts are not that important as own feelings and beliefs. That i can call the true ignorance and squandering the potential of debate.
I can't agree more with John Nerst that we should be a lot more careful with interpreting people's intended meanings beyond what they literally say. This is how our minds work, its called extrapolation, but for sure we can fight with this, and listen eachother more carefully.
I was raised with one basic foundamental convinction. "If you do not know, then just be quite" unfortunatelly the ones who tent to talk the most are the one who know the least. We should teach the youngest generations how to talk and when not to. "Have more than you show, speak less thatn you know" because the quiter you are, the more you hear. Also we should stop passively hearing and start actively listening. If any side of the conversations listens only just to answer with his position but not to understand then the conversations leads to nothing.
Unfortunately, most of the society gets caught up in this trend and falls prey to propaganda. Of course, I agree with all the postulates and ideas presented in the article by Dr. Christian Jarrett, but I do not know whether more firm steps should be used - for example on television - if someone is unable to discuss, then should be ignored or asked to leave the program.
I believe that these techniques might help me feel more confident during discussions on hard topics. Especially “paradoxical thinking” and “role of facts”.
In the conversation, I always try to focus on someones else intentions. I remind myself of “presumption of goodness” (based on the presumption of innocence). Even if our beliefs and reasons are different I assume it comes from a good place.
For me personally, the preferred way of coming to a conclusion and communication is just talking. Instead of arguing I will always choose to sit down and discuss the problem. I believe that's the best way to be able to hear the other person and also to be heard. And I also have a habit of imagining situations from other people's points of view(well, trying to imagine it).
So I'm definitely the wrong person to talk or express opinions about arguing as I really don't see any point in having those and will always try my best to go away from them.
Moreover, if our speaker begins to win the debate with us, we very often throw up single primitive slogans aimed at diverting attention about the meaning of the whole conversation. Returning to the article, I agree with every thesis, but at the same time I would sum it up with the words that if we want to talk to someone, then let's talk and not fight.
But of course... In my opinion it's always good to admit if I wasn't right. Admiting that I'm not right is always the right choice if I am actually not. Sticking to only one belief that might not be right and defending it no matter what is a trait of people that are not capable of making any sort of discussion. In these situations its better not to touch any senstitive topics and no matter what, not trying to disagree as you might end up in neverending conversation that would only stress you up.
Another thing that makes it harder to carry on conversations in a polite way is "trolling". These days the internet is full of people who just want to make fun of somebody or trigger somebody's frustration by posting silly comments.
What I found interesting in the article is a ‘coupling’ and ‘decoupling’ way of carrying on the conversation. Considering the question/topic without looking for a connection with normal or mysterious issues could be more safe and productive.
The summary of the article is nice too. Being more respectful and supportive of each other’s positions doesn't cost us anything and can lead to creating such a nice climate that the conversation will be a pure pleasure.
When it comes to me, I'd say that I'm not type of person that would argue about everything, I'm more into solving conflicts rather than creating them. My way for dealing with discussions and arguments is in my starting approach: I just don't convince people who don't want to be convinced. I value my time and when I'm seeing that someone is really freaky about some topic I just pass and change the subject.
I think that too many people want to force their views and beliefs on others. This approach is very unhealthy because it always leads into arguments or even fights. More people need to know that their thoughts aren't the best in the world and that others beliefs can diifer from theirs.
I really like the method pointed in the article to „think paradoxical”. I often use this method in my arguements. It is very natural to me to explain somebody’s mistake in this way. But if I am the one who is wrong, I don’t have the problem to agree with other person. We should all develop the ability to be more empathetic.
Abiding the basic rules of debate and/or not being drived by emotions during the debate are crucial. The key is to be patient, keep your head cool and respect another speaker.
Another important issue mentioned in the article is the role of facts. Facts make a differnce (at least in the long run according to the author). These days more and more people are so convinced about their point of view that sometimes they are even not aware that they do not have any strong facts, arguments to defend their views.
The described method of 'Coupling' and 'decoupling' is a very good solution to look at the problem from a different perspective.
Looking at a situation from a different perspective often allows you to understand problems and could change the opinion.
The Paradoxical thinking method described in the second paragraph is in my opinion not a very good solution. Applying extreme arguments to the interlocutor may bring the opposite results than we expect.
I think that our interlocutor may feel offended or discouraged to talk to us.
The last two paragraphs have the greatest influence on the conversation. Being nice and presenting the facts will certainly positively influence the person we are talking to. Everyone prefers to talk to someone who shows respect for us and uses facts instead of a non confirmed hypothesis.
Finally, I think that nowadays, for example, we often see debates on TV in which people simply shout, usually nobody convinces anybody of their thesis. These talks would look much different if the interlocutors treated each other with respect,
had an open mind to the arguments of the opposite side and did not attack each other in every sentence.
I believe that everyone can be convinced, you just need to know how to because everyone is different.
Another equally important point is to carry out discussions and try to base it around facts - which might be more complicated that we might expect in the era of missinformation and fake news.
In my opinion the best way to achieve skills in productive and mature discussing is by challenging the fear of being in the wrong. I think that it can be transformed into drive to find gaps in your own beliefs and to fix them - so that your thinking is healthier.
I believe that there is one more, very important part of any conversation. You have to briefly know about the topic you would discuss. If you make a mistake, you could easily lose your chance to convince anyone to your rights.
From the article you've shared here I really like that part about coupling and decoupling issue, making sure that you and your interlocutor are on the same level of abstraction.
One more thing that comes to my mind around decoupling is that you really need to have in-depth knowledge, in order to operate in "coupled" arguments and topics. In my opinion, there are issues which can't be discussed in meaningful manner without coupling it with broader context.
Yet, human nature makes us crave to contribute and have opinion in almost any possible topic. I highly appreciate people with enough consciousness to admit in front of themselves they are not qualified enough to share any insights and resign from active discussion on the topic.
I have a deep respect for 'unknowing' and admire people who share this view.
It is important to keep an open mind, listening skills and empathy are the key. In any debate, exchange of views, we should respect the diversity of opinions. It is important to determine whether our interlocutor approaches the topic as 'decoupling' or 'coupling'. It definitely influences the topic analysis, inference and fact finding. If we don’t understand each other on this point, misunderstanding will be inevitable.
That is why the precision of speech is so important. As mentioned in the comments above, people today are highly oversensitive. Since we know this, it’s all the more important to approach the participants of the debate with respect. And it's not about, how written in the article, ‘to be nicer’. Understanding, patience, and fact analysis may prove necessary to maintain a polite and productive disagreement
I like the methods described in the article, but I think they can't be applied to everyone. People who participating in debates must stress their right and position in order to be treated as charismatic person. People wouldn't trust a person who isn't having own well-argued opinion.
But it's the most powerful trick on the list. If everything is done properly, a person and you will find the place in a person's opinion, where you can just push a bit and everything will crash like a domino. Much better than just pointing to it by yourself, cause in such a situation people usually try to defend.
However, being nice... To some point. You should be polite rather than nice. It's the wrong way to make a person agree with you because you are 'nice'. If your position is right, your line is clear - even people who hate you should agree.
I think it is not only my problem but a lot people face the same.
This arcticle shows us how to debate or argue with correct way. I have underlined for myself some points like to respect others and I agree with the “When we show respect and understanding to others, and do so in a way that is convincing and authentic, and not just lip service,” and “people are more willing to be open.” I think this is absolutely true.
When finding ourselves in overheating exchange of words, it is important to step back and check if the person/people we're discussing with hasn't zoomed in or out from the original issue to a level that's different from where we're at, as stated in the article. I think it's a very common behavior when people feel like losing the argument, but don't want to give up and admit they might have been wrong.
To me, all of the techniques mentioned in the article seem to make sense, except for paradoxical thinking - I can't come up with any situation I've been, in which it could have been 'applied' without bringing opposite results.
But my question is: How can we decide about what is wrong and what is right?
The answer is that we actually can't. As long as our society is separated, new conflicts will appear, leading to further problems.
I do believe that the key to exclude anger and misunderstandings is to be respectful to each other. We should listen what the other side has to say, and even though we can't agree with them, we should at least try to convince them in a polite way. We can't decide for others, in my opinion everyone has the right to choose their beliefs.
s17800
I think that a good way to persuade someone to change their mind is this psychological attitude to the topic because it is the easiest way to show this person the irrationality of its set of beliefs.What's more asking questions that exact people to argue their thesis is a good idea for me.
Moreover, being nice and kind in our work is also very important because when we feel support from our colleagues we want to work and we are more efficient.
Jakub Kisiała
The idea that I liked the most was to present the talker with the most radical version of his views, I think it is the best way to show this person what his ideology leads to. I have witnessed it many times and I liked it very much. I have to use it in my discussions.
In my opinion, unfortunately, the agreement in the discussion depends most on how much opposite these views are, because sometimes it is simply not possible to find even a small thread of agreement.
But I am glad that by the time people things more about cultural and polite discussion. It is huge problem that people don’t respond to arguments that were thrown or talk about something based on fake news. Its so frustrating.
But it is also nice to look on that situation in perspective, that maybe I can’t get along with my dad, because he is coupling and I am decoupling. It is so much easier to understand our problem. And the discussion may turn onto better way.
But ‘Coupling’ and ‘decoupling’ difference, paradoxical thinking technique, value of facts and just being nice to each other while discussion seem to be information, that everyone knows. Maybe we are able to put it into practise only after hearing / reading it from somewhere else. Do we have to learn how to property and effectively even if our intuition brings it to our mind. I don’t know.
People are just so complicated creatures.
Getting back to the article, the reasoning of the researchers seems believable, however, humans are not always so logical. They can tell the truth or bluff, double bluff or tripel bluff. There is some probability on which you can relate, but you cannot ever be sure.
As for me, this article opens eyes to new ways to provide debates especially ‘Paradoxical thinking’. The last time when I had debates about an election in Ukraine with my friend, we were like two monkeys who were screaming at each other for hours. After three days we started preparing for our "Kitchen debates" for the whole day, just to present more facts, it's one kind which was in article but now I think about ‘Paradoxical thinking’, and I guess this is the way which I should use in that case.
Throughout last decades, the way of representing opinion has undoubtedly changed. Thanks to social media it is easier to present your point of view. However, it may cause a lot of conflicts. People tend to forget how to properly and respectfully disagree with somebody’s opposing opinion. The freedom of expression makes people think they are untouchable. The ability of polite disagreement is slowly disappearing. It is very important to remind people how to represent and defend their opinions properly without offending the opponent.
The ideas presented in this article have caught my attention and they seem very useful. The one which I find most interesting is „paradoxical thinking”. In my opinion it is the best way to discover someone’s point of view and ideology, which later may help in discussion.
Additionally, calm conversation may be useful for both of sides. I totally agree with author that conversation related to polite exchange with arguments may make us more open-minded people. Every occasion to learn something new is good. But it’s possible just on condition that opponents want to listen to each other.
That’s why I can’t agree with the rest of this article. In my mind if somebody doesn’t want to listen, we can’t make him or her to do that. Moreover, nobody is able to convince me to argue with a person who claim that vaccines are harmful. In this case I can only recommend to back to school.
By the way, this article reminded me Cialdini’s book ‘Influence: Science and Practice’. It gives many ideas on how to persuade, deals with strategies such as social proof and evidence-based arguments, mentioned in the article. But again, it should be brought into play only with good purpose, not to manipulate and distort reality.