> Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Julia, everything I know about persuasion as a > science confirms that you are > correct. Non-confrontational persuasion works best. > Outright attacks hardly work at all.
Agreed. Yet the shock value of an attack/open confrontation does occasionally have merit, and actually gets a desired response; I'd estimate its usefulness as a tactic in my interactions with patients at roughly less than 1%. And I use it *very* carefully, in select situations only (just 1 backfire comes to mind, and several misfires). > Nevertheless, my feeling has long been that the > non-confrontational techniques > taught in psychology, social work, communication, > and marketing classes are > highly manipulative. They are overtly manipulative > political tactics > designed to move from argumentation to > conversationalism. I too prefer being > on the recieving end of an "I-message" ... until I > notice my interloculator > has changed from a socratic exchange to manipulative > psycho-therapy. Intent counts a lot, for me, when I am on the receiving end of manipulation; almost always (~99+%) when my friends are covertly trying to change my mind, their intention is my 'improvement, betterment or advantage' -- as they see it, of course! So even if I get annoyed, it's only momentary, because I know that they really do want me to do well and be happy. OTOH, anyone trying to sell me anything (literally) does much better with a direct approach. > There are times where socratic engagement is stupid > but optimally persuasive engagement is immoral. Hmm...I'd say it's only 'immoral' if what you are trying to persuade the other to do/believe is to their disadvantage, or of course if you lie or deliberately mislead them. And if it is to your advantage, but neutral for them, it's on very shakey ground as well. > Is there a difference between marketing and debate? > When, if ever, does an > economically rational person opt for socratic debate > over friendlier, more > persuasive diological engagement? Is there a > conflict between standards for > honesty and truth on the one hand and satisfying > relationships on the other. My bias is always for the 'friendly' approach, but I do modify that in cases where the other person is mistrustful of my intent, or clearly wants "just the facts, ma'am." This abstract on negotiations from Harvard Business School has some interesting points: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14619152&dopt=Abstract "What stands between you and the yes you want? According to negotiation experts David Lax and James Sebenius, executives face obstacles in three common and complementary dimensions. The first dimension is tactics, or interactions at the bargaining table. The second is deal design, or the ability to draw up a deal at the table that creates lasting value. And the third is setup, which includes the structure of the negotiation itself. Each dimension is crucial in the bargaining process, but most executives fixate on only the first two: 1-D negotiators focus on improving their interpersonal skills at the negotiating table--courting their clients, using culturally sensitive language, and so on. 2-D negotiators focus on diagnosing underlying sources of value in a deal and then recrafting the terms to satisfy all parties. In this article, the authors explore the often-neglected third dimension. Instead of just playing the game at the bargaining table, 3-D negotiators reshape the scope and sequence of the game itself to achieve the desired outcome..." In this mathematical model of marriage success, which I happened to read just today, http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/82/97196.htm?printing=true ""When couples whose marriages are stable over time talk about an area of contention or disagreement, their discussions have five times as many positive comments or expressions as negative. In couples who eventually headed to divorce, ratio of positive-to-negative was 0.8 to 1," says psychologist John Gottman, PhD, a noted marriage expert who conceived the mathematical formula and enlisted Murray's mathematical skills to help develop it some 13 years ago. "The scores for these ratios are based on two coding systems that Gottman developed -- a checklist of 13 behaviors scored for the speaker, and nine behaviors that are scored for the listener on each turn at speech, in both contentious discussions as well as any type of conversation...Some of the most significant factors were the nonverbal cues..." And: "Basically, in good relationships people pussy-foot around each other. They think about how their partner is going to react before they act or speak." I think the old (Chinese?) saying about 'he who is deaf to a shout, strains to hear a whisper' applies as well. None of us likes to be shouted at -- unless it's "Get out of that car's way!" or some such. :) Debbi Speak Sofly And - Carry A Spare Megaphone? Maru ;) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
