>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).
Robert, I like the notion of cooperative vs. confrontational language.
And, your emphasis on directness and efficiency.
...snip...
> > - 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.
I agree that clarity and honesty is paramount. Saying "That's pretty
good.." when it isn't is a lie. The lie poisons everything you say
afterwards.
I would distinguish between
- "No, that's wrong!" ..and..
- "No, that's wrong, here's what right, and here's why."
The first is just negation. The second feels more productive to me.
My thesis is that pure negation (the first) is not very productive.
...snip...
>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.
I'll only add that I try to sense whether the other party is open to input
on the matter. Sometimes I might ask, "I have a different view, can I tell
you my point of view on this?"
-=- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | mailto:Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>