On 25 Nov 99, at 8:54, Brian Gordon wrote:
> From your posts on this topic, I sense that you value advocacy. For
> example:
It's so difficult to generalize, so it's hard to answer. There is a time
for advocacy, a time for inquiry based discourse, a time for dialogue
creation, and perhaps rarely, but occasionally a time to wommp someone
upside the head, verbally.
It depends a) on the goals and b) the people. There are some people who
won't pay attention to the gentle forms of communication and respond far
better to more aggressive methods.
> Rick:
> >I would distinguish between
> > - "No, that's wrong!" ..and..
> > - "No, that's wrong, here's what right, and here's why."
> >
>
> How about asking the person espousing a view WHY they hold that view?
Sure, if it suits. But that's a different process, and certainly a good
one. If my desire is to state an opinion or position, then it is more
manipulative than honest IF I'm trying to "trick" someone into looking at
my position via questioning, rather than taking ownership of it.
> Again, how about asking the person WHY they believe somking to be
> harmless? Is this not what psychologists do? Has any parent ever
> overcome a young person's beliefs by weight of data? Or is this more
> likely to engender resistance?
It depends. Nothing wrong with asking why, but aren't there situations and
people where taking a firm position makes sense?
Re: psychologists, the answer is yes and no. Non-directive Rogerian types
claim to do so. Many others are prescriptive. A good practitioner uses
both tools based on their professional judgement of what would be helpful.
And Freudians (darn their evil souls ...grin..., collect data, filter it,
and then tell the person WHY!
Bookmark the search for anything page - websites, email addresses, books,newsgroups, lists.
http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal/search.htm
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>