4 ms·

This technique is extremely powerful in parenting. These are exactly the steps you take to reason with a toddler. Before anything else you have to get them out

This technique is extremely powerful in parenting. These are exactly the steps you take to reason with a toddler. Before anything else you have to get them out of their temper ta tantrum and articulating why they are angry. Then you segwey from listening to dialog.

harshreality 9y ago
But... If you have to still do this with adults, it means the adults haven't learned to regulate their emotions well enough to listen to a rational argument even while they're upset. It's gotten so bad that some adults never listen to things they don't emotionally agree with, even when they're not initially upset (hearing contrary facts makes them upset). That is a catastrophe for rational thought and discourse. If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage them emotionally they will listen to anything you say, whether it's logic or pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit. To elaborate a little bit... Of course humans have all sorts of rational deficits. I never meant to imply they could be turned into Vulcans. Putting too much emphasis on emotionally positive engagement over rational engagement leads to even worse emotional fragility and dependence than humans normally have. That leads to a constant preoccupation with the emotional side of interactions. And that indirectly atrophies their ability to evaluate incoming communication rationally, because they're constantly thinking about their own emotional state, or even worse the group emotional consensus of whatever groups they primarily identify as. That emotional evaluation interrupts rational evaluation. I'm not advising people to eschew emotional engagement if they're in the business of persuasion, or in the business of keeping peace, or if keeping peace is a priority in a specific situation. I agree that that is sometimes needed, but I think it needs to be more limited in its application, and not the default approach for handling all disagreements. I don't think it works to create lasting rationally-based changes to concepts in someone's mind; when emotional evaluation (mostly) replaces rational evaluation, anyone who makes the listener feel good can get them to believe anything. All the valid rational arguments you use today can be undone tomorrow by someone else who has no rational arguments but can keep the listener engaged.
- Faaak 9y ago
  Sadly, humans are not rational thinkers. "Never Split the Difference" is a good book about that. I recommend anyone to read it !
  - koonsolo 9y ago
    Haha, I was thinking about the same book when reading the comment! Highly recommended indeed, but you beat me to it.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I get what you're saying, though I've found that handling the emotional part of a discussion first makes the "rational" stuff way easier. One thing to keep in mind is that many people out there have mental disorders (treated and untreated) that make it difficult on a chemical level to control these things. For example, ADHD destroys inhibition (causing the classic "speak before you think" behavior) on a deep level that's hard to work out even after a lot of training. The way I see it is that emotional appeals serve first to level the playing field for this kind of state of mind, so that the rational discussion can happen. The Jobsian Reality Distortion Field is a thing, but for the most part I think it's about complementing the rational discussion.
  - phasetransition 9y ago
    Your note about ADHD completely resonates with a close friend who has adhd is often open in ways that are to his detriment. Any chance you have a resource I could read more on this as it relates to ADHD
- gerbilly 9y ago
  >If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage them emotionally they will listen to anything you say, whether it's logic or pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit. So that's fine. They will listen, then later mull it over and integrate it. Just because anger arose for them in that moment they were interacting with you does not mean they can't be rational. But more importantly, by creating a positive interaction you may have started to reduce their tendency to outgroup you and 'your tribe'. This can lead to more productive dialogue in the future. Also, as to why that person is angry. No one can know what life experiences that person may have had. Happy well adjusted people from happy families usually, don't fly into a blind rage that easily.
codingdave 9y ago
I'd say that is more valuable in the post-toddler stage. Toddlers test boundaries to see what works - and using this against a 3 year old throwing a tantrum is showing them that tantrums work to initiate a dialogue, which is not the parenting goal you are trying to reach at that stage. Once they are past the tantrum stage, absolutely this becomes a great way to interact.

harshreality 9y ago

But... If you have to still do this with adults, it means the adults haven't learned to regulate their emotions well enough to listen to a rational argument even while they're upset. It's gotten so bad that some adults never listen to things they don't emotionally agree with, even when they're not initially upset (hearing contrary facts makes them upset). That is a catastrophe for rational thought and discourse. If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage them emotionally they will listen to anything you say, whether it's logic or pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit. To elaborate a little bit... Of course humans have all sorts of rational deficits. I never meant to imply they could be turned into Vulcans. Putting too much emphasis on emotionally positive engagement over rational engagement leads to even worse emotional fragility and dependence than humans normally have. That leads to a constant preoccupation with the emotional side of interactions. And that indirectly atrophies their ability to evaluate incoming communication rationally, because they're constantly thinking about their own emotional state, or even worse the group emotional consensus of whatever groups they primarily identify as. That emotional evaluation interrupts rational evaluation. I'm not advising people to eschew emotional engagement if they're in the business of persuasion, or in the business of keeping peace, or if keeping peace is a priority in a specific situation. I agree that that is sometimes needed, but I think it needs to be more limited in its application, and not the default approach for handling all disagreements. I don't think it works to create lasting rationally-based changes to concepts in someone's mind; when emotional evaluation (mostly) replaces rational evaluation, anyone who makes the listener feel good can get them to believe anything. All the valid rational arguments you use today can be undone tomorrow by someone else who has no rational arguments but can keep the listener engaged.

Faaak 9y ago
Sadly, humans are not rational thinkers. "Never Split the Difference" is a good book about that. I recommend anyone to read it !
- koonsolo 9y ago
  Haha, I was thinking about the same book when reading the comment! Highly recommended indeed, but you beat me to it.
rtpg 9y ago
I get what you're saying, though I've found that handling the emotional part of a discussion first makes the "rational" stuff way easier. One thing to keep in mind is that many people out there have mental disorders (treated and untreated) that make it difficult on a chemical level to control these things. For example, ADHD destroys inhibition (causing the classic "speak before you think" behavior) on a deep level that's hard to work out even after a lot of training. The way I see it is that emotional appeals serve first to level the playing field for this kind of state of mind, so that the rational discussion can happen. The Jobsian Reality Distortion Field is a thing, but for the most part I think it's about complementing the rational discussion.
- phasetransition 9y ago
  Your note about ADHD completely resonates with a close friend who has adhd is often open in ways that are to his detriment. Any chance you have a resource I could read more on this as it relates to ADHD
gerbilly 9y ago
>If an adult or an adolescent routinely requires being engaged on an emotional level before they'll listen to your rational argument, then once you do engage them emotionally they will listen to anything you say, whether it's logic or pseudologic or rhetorical, semantically-null bullshit. So that's fine. They will listen, then later mull it over and integrate it. Just because anger arose for them in that moment they were interacting with you does not mean they can't be rational. But more importantly, by creating a positive interaction you may have started to reduce their tendency to outgroup you and 'your tribe'. This can lead to more productive dialogue in the future. Also, as to why that person is angry. No one can know what life experiences that person may have had. Happy well adjusted people from happy families usually, don't fly into a blind rage that easily.

codingdave 9y ago

I'd say that is more valuable in the post-toddler stage. Toddlers test boundaries to see what works - and using this against a 3 year old throwing a tantrum is showing them that tantrums work to initiate a dialogue, which is not the parenting goal you are trying to reach at that stage. Once they are past the tantrum stage, absolutely this becomes a great way to interact.