4 ms·
There can be a balance here. Often I’ll have a viewpoint and when I hear a different one, I won’t immediately say I disagree. Instead I’ll ask questions to disc
by tacitusarc 3y ago
There can be a balance here. Often I’ll have a viewpoint and when I hear a different one, I won’t immediately say I disagree. Instead I’ll ask questions to discover where the gap in our understanding lies. Then, it may be helpful to share that I have additional knowledge (I’d I do), or to learn something I was missing, or to recognize we value different things and move on. Immediate disagreement is often far less productive.
- sopooneo 3y agoMethods for coming to understanding between parties acting in good faith really fascinates me. One thing I've noticed is the fundamental crux often lies with some assumption each party finds so fundamental that they wouldn't bother to state it, and don't even necessary realize they hold the view *. As a gross example, my wife told me the other day of a buyer of some CraigsList item that called to say she couldn't find our address. They went back and forth each getting more and more flummoxed by the other's statement of what streets were where. Finally it was discovered that the caller was in Cambridge, Ontario, having misnavigated CraigsList, while we were in Cambridge, MA. It is mistakes so fundamental as these that are hard to discover. One help I've often found is to bring in a fresh third party. * Saying to "state your assumptions" seems futile to me. There are too many. The sun will rise, time will continue to tick by at the same rate, your friend didn't change his name yesterday, Coke still sells soft drinks.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoAs a counterpoint, people acting in bad faith can continue asking questions. It's usually known as "sealioning" https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/ https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/