On 23 Nov 99, at 17:36, Richard Karash wrote:
> - replies which just negate (e.g., "No, that's wrong" or "I don't
> believe it" or "Your problem is...".) This to me is "negation."
I actually wrote a book that included some of this, last year, called
Conflict Prevention In The workplace - using cooperative communication,
which is a bit of a different slant but ultimately the same set of issues.
In trying to get a handle on the issue of both cooperative and
confrontation (suppresive) communication, I've come to the conclusion that
what one does is and should be largely determined by the context and the
relationship or lack thereof, and what one wants to create (and one's
moral and ethical standards).
When in a classroom situation, where my goal is to mobilize resources for
learning, I use the non-negating forms. In person, with a person who's
relationship I value, and who has demonstrated their ability and
willingness to engage in dialogue, I use the non- negative or cooperative
language forms.
HOWEVER, in situations where the person I am talking to has demonstrated
their habitual style is to use confrontational language, I do indeed use
straight to the point negations. That occurs far more often "online" than
in person. Or, when I lack the time or commitment to craft a cooperative
language response.
There is one other situation where I use more active language (non-
cooperative language), and that is when I am either asked to offer a
direct opinion, OR, when I am trying to use a recognizable "voice",
usually in writing.
I also think there is a responsibility on the other side. If I am to have
a dialogue, I have an expectation that the person I am engaging with will
be open to negative comments, and have enough ego-strength and, yes, even
guts, to agree, dispute, etc, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER the comment is gentled
and washed clean.
I don't have time to waste in this short life. At some points, I choose to
have discussions with people where we can be genuine, and even sometimes
impolite, because some of the best learning I have engaged in has been
with people who are themselves honest, straight-forward and yes, sometimes
negative.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. so what?
> - replies which offer an improvement or an alternative (e.g., "That's
> pretty good, but doesn't explain XX; if we add a refinement ____, then we
> can explain XX." or "No, I don't agree, but I think ______ explains what
> you are dealing with." This is different; it's not agreement, but it
> advances the discourse.
>
> I think negation has the effect of suppression and that this is not
> helpful to progress.
Depends. When somebody puts forth a thesis that IS wrong, factually, I
think it does a disservice to all involved to say: "That's pretty good,
but". I also think the "but" pattern is problematic linguistically, and
people recognize what you are trying to do.
Then again, as I said earlier, often what is right or wrong is irrelevant
to most people. And while total acceptance and falsely adding credence is
in vogue nowadays, I prefer not to engage in what can be a dishonest and
harmful game by not being clear.
There are times to say: No, that's wrong. There are times not to. but to
refuse to hold or express a definite opinion in the face of possible
damage is, IMHO, immoral and unethical.
To end: If young person came to me and told me they were smoking, yes, I
would try to dissuade them, and if they believed it was harmless, I would
say: NO, you are wrong, and here's why.
I would have no respect for anyone who would refuse to take such stands.
Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>