Posted on 02/17/2016 12:25:24 PM PST by blueunicorn6
I propose that we follow The Covey Rule here at Free Republic.
Stephen Covey had a great idea for settling arguments.
Two people are really on opposite sides of an issue. We'll call them Person A and Person B. Covey wrote that one side could not begin advocating their position until they had explained the other person's position TO THAT PERSON'S SATISFACTION.
So, Person A could not start making his points until he had explained Person B's position TO THE SATISFACTION OF PERSON B. Likewise, Person B could not start making her points until she had explained Person A's position TO THE SATISFACTION OF PERSON A.
This ensures that both sides are at least starting from the same basic points.
So, when we get the fights going on, oh, say, Trump and Cruz or religion or the Civil War, one person could invoke The Covey Rule and ask that the other person explain their view.
Yep, it's a real pain in the donkey to do this, but the name-calling going on here at Free Republic is getting to be a real pain in the donkey anyway.
I believe that Covey used this in a class on the issue of abortion and saw amazing results.
Give it a try.
Otherwise, keep calling people names and see what that gets you.
BTTT for your post.
Definitely awesome, but can you explain your position on feline veterinary care first so we can be clear on each others positions before engaging in a critical and, perhaps, constructive dialogue?
The question is are you trying to persuade someone to get closer to your position or to "win" a debate? Two very different things with two very different strategies.
If you want to persuade you need to demonstrate that you've heard and considered the other persons best argument. Very few people are truly open to listening until they feel they've been heard.
If you're just trying to score points from the judges, on the other hand, you don't really care what the other person thinks. Avoiding their strongest argument and beating up a straw man instead may be your best approach.
Needless to say, debate on FR goes both ways.
I think Covey’s ideas were purposely misused. W. Edwards Deming’s ideas were purposely misused.
It doesn’t mean that this particular idea is bad or wrong. The idea will stand or fall based on its efficacy.
Believe me, there are people who are scared to death about this idea and will do anything to crush it.
Fact is, there are subversive trolls on the forum. For people who refuse to accept facts or think logically, there is only ridicule and derision left to deal with them. Name calling has its place for obvious trolls and morons. And it can be fun too!
I’m a Dog guy.
I make no attempts to explain ANYTHING feline.
Just observing and taking notes.
Yep.
But try it with a troll.
It’s frustrating and you many never change their mind as they are being paid to be a troll and they don’t want to lose that easy paycheck.
If they are paid trolls, you’ll find out fairly quickly because they won’t do this Covey Rule. You expose them for all to see.
“I read of people quitting Free Republic because of the name calling. I hate to see anyone leave Free Republic, even for a day.
“The Covey Rule is a means to keep the level of discussion as discussion and not name calling.”
I appreciate your effort. The name calling is insulting and gets old quick. Especially the ‘one size fits all’ insults. Those are the ones where a poster uses the word “they” to paint all supporters of a particular candidate with the same insult. All the clever, snarky, and insulting names used to reference the supporters of a candidate, rather than just saying ‘x-candidate’ supporters, or referring to supporters as belonging to a cult etc, really are what you said: a crutch. There really doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of posters that regularly use these insults, but the ones who do, do so very regularly. The Covey Rule would be great, but until the insults stop, the Covey Rule seems far away.
Again, I appreciate your effort!
Yes, a person can attempt to be childish and say, “That’s not my position!” Over and over.
Then, let them explain their position more clearly.
________________________________________
Let’s go back to using A & B as in your opening arguement.
In this response of yours, B is the one saying, “no,.... not my position.”
Again from your response, “Then, let them explain their position more clearly.” Who is them, A or B in that sentence?
Do you see what just happened here. By dropping the antecedents to the pronouns in your answer, most likely inadvertently, you’ve introduced a small element of confusion, the Abbott and Costello, “Who’s on first” gambit.
And I almost fell into to it with you, neither of us intending to.
Good luck with your proposal, but I fear there are too many here without that goodwill necessary for it to succeed.
Robert’s Rules of Order do not apply on FR today, Chief Justice Roberts deceptions on the other hand flourish.
warmest regards
I fully understand the concept of ‘mirroring’ both in good will negotiation as well as in the clinical sense, commonly used by sociopaths.
But your distinction is both valid and useful.
Person B.
I’m on board with you! I have said the same thing!
| Thanks for posting. It's intriguing and worth a try. One of the things I find frustrating on FR is posting a story to get a discussion going, and a few trolls simply post stupid remarks to change the subject and frustrate people from reading the comments. Not sure how hard it would be to accomplish technically, but it would be nice to enable Trump-supporter-only threads or Cruz-supporter-only-threads. Dale Carnegie's lessons apply too. If you are in an argument, it's good to say something that acknowledges the other person's position. Also, it's best not to use the word "but", and substitute it for "and" in discussions. |
Nice idea. There are several subregions of FR in which people have civil discussions about subjects on which they disagree. It is possible, really.
Emotions are aroused and stoked about politics by the MSM and pop culture, which corrupt even those who claim to be immune. Issues that don't draw much emotional coverage also have controversies, but they are much more civil.
Well, that’s true. Only a few issues create the delusion that *my* personal intensity is going to change the picture.
Crush the pill and mix it into the cat's regular meal :- )
Have you ever tried to do that. We had a consultant try to foist that on us. My team never argued anyway. We let him have his hour or so. He left. We laughed.
How many iterations before someone is called a Nazi?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.