| ERIC I'm confused. So the idea of all of this--(what's "all this?" SJC) would be to gain clarification and undo misconceptions due to miscommunications between people. Is that what you two are saying here? What "two?" SJC
>Of course, you ducked my question... :`) (To whom is this directed? WHAT QUESTION? When a communication contains a variety of thoughts, many of which appear to be rhetorical, it is difficult to see a question. If a question isn't answered, it may need to be rephrased to make it clear. Steve Chi
> Eric Sohn wrote:
> Are you saying it's beneficial to invite people to have a heated debate in order to get to the root of the problem? One would think they're rather learn better communication skills. (Heated debates may come from a miscommunication caused by vaguery; but often from a disgeement in principle. I think that "inviting people" with the intention of causing a heated debate is good for the audience, but not likely to develop mutual agreeement. I prefer the intention of inviting people to clear the air, to resolve disagreement, or at least clarify the points of disagreement. It's in the intention; the same as asking a clear question focused on the issue, or asking a question that evades the issue; a distraction intended to evade or disrupt. Teenagers do that often. Some adults do the same.
The purpose MUST be to develop better communication. That often means better communication skills, but may also require a change of intention,ie: The desire to create light instead of heat; to find and play on points of agreement instead of points of conflict. IMHO )Steve Chi
>Having to improvise brings out new ideas. Having to respond to attacks and counterarguments forces responses, which will force you to improvise - and think. Same thing holds if your attack is responded to, but you still don't like the idea - you have to think on your feet to come up with another argument.
>Coach Eric
>Of course, you ducked my question... :`)
> Private Reply to steve chichester (new win) |
