conversation rules

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

for a ‘conducive’ discussion environment.

parallel or diagonal explanations,
contradictions within statemens,
double standards,
snubbing the other person,
being mellow yet clever in manipulative ways

are these conducive to a literate and fair conversation between two people?

are these rules of engaging in a conversatin?

if they are, will that convesation be successful for both conversants?

2

Re: conversation rules

you got to be kidding! with all those "rules", nothing constructive will come out. When you are having a discussion, you may adopt these

Alternate explanations
Contradiction WITH reasoning
Understanding of what other person says, and where he/she is coming from.
Flexibility and open mind

3

Re: conversation rules

Xenophanez,

that is true. you're correct with your suggestions.

overly self serving rules are imposed, when some one is trying to accuse the more reasonable individual, of not following the 'conducive' ways of conversing.

open minded ness has to be both ways.

too many issues discussed at the same time frustrate someone very dear, so avoiding this and not leading a discussion to that level is highly necessary.

not being quiet is also essential, when speaking is what will bring an unfinished conversation, to a restful conclusion.

4

Re: conversation rules

George Lakoff, with Mark Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live By, makes a great point about conversation in the sense of rational arguments/debates and how we tend to stick to the same rules that govern irrational ones.

In other words, just as in face–to–face arguments, in debates we tend to:

Intimidate
1. Threaten
1. Appeal to Authority
1. Insult
1. Belittle
1. Challenge Authority
1. Evade the Issue
1. Bargain
1. Flatter

I’ll give you some examples:

Irrational Fights:
…because I’m bigger & stronger than you. (Intimidate)

…because I’ll kick the crap out of you if you don’t! (Threaten)

…because I’m the boss around here. (Appeal to Authority)

…because you’re stupid! (Insult)

…because you always do it wrong. (Belittle)

…because I’ve got as much right as you to do it. (Challenge Authority)

…because I LOVE YOU! (Evade the Issue)

…if you do this for me then I’ll do … for you. (Bargain)

…because you’re so much better at it than I am! (Flatter)

‘Rational’ Debates (which, remember, all institutions claim rational debate as a ‘higher’ form of argument and frown upon such tactics):
…Clearly… [or] Obviously… [or] It is plausible to assume that… (Intimidate)

…your agument commits the Fallacy of… [or] It would be unscientific to… (Threaten)

…Hume has observed that… [or] As Plato showed… (Appeal to Authority)

…In a display of ‘scholarly objectivity’… [or] Your argument lacks the necessary rigour to… (Insult)

…Few people today seriously hold that view! (Belittle)

…Lest we succumb to the error of ‘positivist’ approaches… (Challenge Authority)

…You do present some challenging facts, BUT… [or] You don’t present any alternative theory…

…Your position is as right as far as it goes… (Bargain)

…Your argument raises some interesting issues… (Flatter)

See what I mean?

5

Re: conversation rules

makes sense.
all of the identified behaviors are wrong.
but, the sad thing is we all partake in all of it at one point or another in our lives, when we are frustrated or hurt.
reflectors of insecuredness, i will call them.

that is what happens when people donot have the courage to come up to the person and speak up to clear up the air.
the strong thing to do is, owning up to having indulged in this and patching up with the person or people who became the target of this.
an honest apology and a willing heart and mind with honest intent to revive a relatonship, is not a sin.
human relations are about balancing and nothing else.

dushwari