3 ms·

> they may wander off to topics they feel more comfortable with Or they intentionally want to steer the group towards discussing those topics either for their

> they may wander off to topics they feel more comfortable with Or they intentionally want to steer the group towards discussing those topics either for their own benefit or because they believe it is the right problem to bring into focus. If they are successful in doing so without coming across as rude, that could be viewed as great communication even if it leaves some questioning communication skills; it really depends on the situation. You see this all the time in political debates and while it's easy for some to see the situation for what it is, it typically rolls off the masses and the candidates are better for moving the debate to topics that are more in-line with their strengths and positioning. If a candidate is able to use such tactics and become elected, it would be incredibly difficult to state that she or he is a poor communicator.

layer8 4y ago
Right, but at least in the nonpolitical context I wouldn’t assume conscious intent without very clear evidence of it. The greatest fallacy is assuming to know what people are actually thinking, without them saying it. People tend to vastly overestimate their insight into other people’s minds.
- lightbendover 4y ago
  > nonpolitical context Humans talking to each other in a business setting (I'm assuming nobody in this thread is talking about casual conversations that happen outside of work) is inherently political. You are either positioning or being a passive onlooker. If a conversation is only filled with the latter then nothing can possibly get accomplished (which, to be fair, is not an uncommon outcome for a meeting). > The greatest fallacy is assuming to know what people are actually thinking, without them saying it Assuming everything people say is what they think seems to be an even greater fallacy, but I am going to choose not to turn it into a superlative.
  - layer8 4y ago
    I guess my experience with work conversations is different from yours. I wouldn’t characterize them as political. As far as “positioning” goes, you’re always positioning yourself in one way or other, in any kind of conversation, similar to how one can’t not communicate.

layer8 4y ago

Right, but at least in the nonpolitical context I wouldn’t assume conscious intent without very clear evidence of it. The greatest fallacy is assuming to know what people are actually thinking, without them saying it. People tend to vastly overestimate their insight into other people’s minds.

lightbendover 4y ago
> nonpolitical context Humans talking to each other in a business setting (I'm assuming nobody in this thread is talking about casual conversations that happen outside of work) is inherently political. You are either positioning or being a passive onlooker. If a conversation is only filled with the latter then nothing can possibly get accomplished (which, to be fair, is not an uncommon outcome for a meeting). > The greatest fallacy is assuming to know what people are actually thinking, without them saying it Assuming everything people say is what they think seems to be an even greater fallacy, but I am going to choose not to turn it into a superlative.
- layer8 4y ago
  I guess my experience with work conversations is different from yours. I wouldn’t characterize them as political. As far as “positioning” goes, you’re always positioning yourself in one way or other, in any kind of conversation, similar to how one can’t not communicate.