- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s short, succinct and intriguing https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ Thoughts?
I think it is spot on. I have been just starting to read a couple of “brain” books that talk a lot about human behavior. What I see him saying to do is to slow things down a bit and get the other person to realize it isn’t (totally) personal and that you ARE trying to see/understand their side. This allows the other person to feel like you are not
The only thing I would add is using “I feel”, “from my perspective” when you finally get to contradicting. You can’t say, “So you are saying you voted for Trump not because of some of his actions and words, but because you are fearful of losing your job and your health care has shot up the last 2 years and he was stressing that more than other candidates. I actually agree that there is way to much job uncertainty and we have to do something about escalating. I have learned you are a good father and want to give your family a good life.” And then say, “But Trump is an imbecile.”
Quote:And then say, “But Trump is an imbecile.”
I need that type of advice. Thanks.
:thumbup: I really like how they emphasize the objective…not to win over the opponent…but to come to truth, however you get there. That way, there doesn’t need to be a winner or loser. The other person’s view may have truth that enlighten me…to which…I do not lose when I concede to truth. I do not place kindness above truth. That is not to say there is a place for kindness and civility in our discussions…but you can over-correct or over-react if you focus on kindness above all
Quote:Go ahead and run in the street, Jimmy…I don’t want to hurt your feelings and say no.
…that would be wrong.
I don’t mind Trump haters making the points they do…I don’t know if Trump is an imbecile or not…but I do think he is a jerk…and unkind. And that bugs me.
It reminded me strongly of this, which I love and wish had continued: Reuben – Did the Patheos blog not continue? I had wondered, it started with a bang, but I didn’t hear more. Maybe this getting along thing is a pipe dream. Maybe I should learn now and get off the boat of attempting it. I think it’s good advice. Point number 1 — restate the opponent’s thinking, is something critical thinking experts recommend. The rest is softening up the bristles so you can then shave them. It reminds me a bit of the “poop sandwich” approach (Good thing, bad thing, good thing), but without the second good thing. The article presents poop pizza instead. Only one carb on one side. In terms of disagreeing, I like expressing the issue from multiple perspectives, none of which are necessarily my own.
If there is gay bashing at church. A person could object by indicating the variety of perspectives — including the families of gay Mormons, many of whom may be offended if we aren’t careful how we express ourselves. Consider presenting other contrarion perspectives, and then wishing for some kind of approach that acknowledges the validity in all of them. And then end with, of course, I don’t know what that solution is — once can only hope.
But my primary thought when I read the OP was “why criticize anyone anyway”? It’s fine here, but at church? What’s the point?
I did do a backhanded criticism of the church on Sunday, but only realized it after the fact I was complementing someone on a very good portion of his talk. It had me rivetted, and at the end, I felt what I consider to be the spirit. It was moving, and interesting — a mixture of a spiritual greenhouse and Geraldo or Jerry Springer, at the same time. Eventually the person started asking me questions and it led to me commenting on how full my life is right now. I mentioned how my day is full of things I absolutely love doing and that bring me joy. How, after 25 years of leadership in the church, I grew tired of starting things that never went anywhere, or people accepting callings without passion. So I started my own non-profit and shared my recruiting strategy. How it creates a magnet for hardworking, reliable people with passion. How great it is to be surrounded by people who come out with fabulous deliverables without even being asked, etcetera, and the opportunity to create policies that give people freedom.
He was actually fascinated with what I said. I didn’t feel he thought it was critical, he was interested. It was like I had presented an alternate model of joy, compared to the sometimes drudgerous, repetitive, duty-driven approach our church gives us year after year. I gave credit to the church experience for launching this new experience as well. So, in a way, I presented stuff in the church that bothered me, but in a way that showed it led me to a really joyful, positive experience.
mom3 wrote:Reuben – Did the Patheos blog not continue? I had wondered, it started with a bang, but I didn’t hear more. Maybe this getting along thing is a pipe dream.
John replied to a query about it stopping on the exmo subreddit. He said Patrick had just gotten too busy to continue, and had nothing but good things to say about the experience and Patrick himself. So getting along can be done, it just stopped being done for unrelated reasons in this case.
It’s good advice within a very particular domain: debate and/or criticism. But as a matter of course, I’m not sure that thinking, “How can I best criticize my opponent?” is really a great way to make or keep friends. Are there times and places where we need to do it? Sure, and in those very limited cases, the article gives great and helpful guidelines. Most of the time, I think it’s best to avoid the trap of what the article calls, “basic tendencies and dynamics of today’s everyone-is-a-critic culture”. I feel that the best thing to come from my Faith Crisis/Transition has been the ability to accept others on their own terms. There was a time when I was a fully faithful and dedicated member of the Church and I remember what that was like and what motivated me. I wasn’t a racist/sexist/lying/judgmental sheep who blindly followed. Yet that is how many ex-mo’s paint their old tribe. I am now a non-believer, but I am not simply one who forgot to read his scriptures and pray and then found misleading information on the internet and left my wife and children to embrace a lifestyle of drinking coffee and supporting same-sex marriage, even though that’s the way that a lot of members of the Church think of us. What I’ve discovered is that I was a good person then and I’m a good person now and if that can be true, then there is a LOT of in-between ground where good people can live and operate even if they disagree on some pretty core concepts, like the existence of God or the truth of the Church.
SD put it much more succinctly:
SilentDawning wrote:
But my primary thought when I read the OP was “why criticize anyone anyway”?
I m working quite regularly with children at school who have some issues that cause them to become confrontational. Many of them simply need someone who will speak softly, be patient, touch them gently, really listen to them, and give them options from which to choose. There is a good message in that for almost everyone.
I am again riding one of my major themes, the same words will mean different things to different people: Heber13 wrote:I do not place kindness above truth.
Quote:Go ahead and run in the street, Jimmy…I don’t want to hurt your feelings and say no.
…that would be wrong.
I would say I do believe in love and kindness, practically above all else – and they do not conflict with truth. If Jimmy is about to run into the street the unkind thing to do is let him, but there can be different ways to approach the task of stopping him. Sometimes being immovable against all efforts at persuasion can be the most loving act of all, but resistance does not need to turn ugly. Think of Gandhi and MLK.
[edit:] Perhaps “polite” is closer to your thoughts of not offending Jimmy?
Okay – I am having a tough night and this line brightened my day. Quote:Go ahead and run in the street, Jimmy…I don’t want to hurt your feelings and say no.
Especially the last part.
Bless you.
You have to recognize though, that sometimes what you think of as running into the street really isn’t that for the other person, though most of the time it probably is. So sometimes some delicacy is required in “stopping” them. ydeve wrote:You have to recognize though, that sometimes what you think of as running into the street really isn’t that for the other person, though most of the time it probably is. So sometimes some delicacy is required in “stopping” them.
Having a really solid relationship with the person is critical in giving criticism at any time. There are a couple women I was friends with over the years that could tell me the most blunt and potentially hurtful things about my character, but it didn’t “hurt” because the relationship was in such a positive balance. I knew that they were commenting from the armchair of concern and helpfulness rather than criticism. Gallup did some research and said that to preserve good relationships, the interactions need to be in a ratio of 5 positives for every 1 negative experience. So, bear that in mind if you feel you do have to provide correction.
The other thing to consider is whether the person is actually looking for feedback. Over the years, I rarely give my opinion unless I have some legitimate role or purpose where it’s expected. Or if the person asks me for the opinion. Unsolicited opinions are not always well received, particularly in a culture where people often say “Who cares what other people think??”. And if the opinion is negative, it can be considered unwelcome and can hurt the relationship, if that relationship is not a strong, positive balance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.