On culture discussion


Thesis first, is as old as the axiom of all axioms of people are different.

This message is important so that it emphasizes the normality of the situation that people can even obvious to see from different angles and positions. Moreover, people tend to add to your vision some distortion due to their personal characteristics. And this very productive, since the detection objective content and meaning of the subject of the discussion is very important at the first stage, to provide plurality subjective projections (views).

the second Thesis.

They need to have a clear idea of what purpose will have the cost of their mental energy to expressing your opinion and subsequent debate. Numerous options purposes, I would be reduced to two great groups: a) to establish themselves in their own opinion, to resolve the inner doubts and the associated anxiety and excitement due to the declination of the views of the other on their side, that is, beliefs of another in the right, b) approach in their view of the content and meaning of the intervention to an objective picture, free from arbitrary personal exceptions or significant distortion, but it is not that other, as a move to understanding.

the third Thesis.

It defines the view of the discussion as to the process. On the one hand the discussion is psychologically perceived opponent as "play-to-win" in Other words, competition and confrontation. And if it happens that way, the discussion process begins gradually to form a scenario game, with all the gaming tools in order to achieve the purpose of the winning. While of course not talking about the violation of the basic rules of the game, but "player" does not burden you with doubts in the application of the so-called hybrid techniques: ajusa, juggling, przypisywanie and other tools derive opponent from the state of emotional balance. Needless to say, that sophisticated and passionate (in a sense, gambling) players are not very picky about the gaming tools and ways to affect other players, because their laws of the game - "the end justifies the means".

on the other hand, the discussion can psychologically be perceived by opponents as the cooperation. In this case, in maintaining emotional balance with the goal of creating a better psychological climate for understanding each other, the interests of all participants.

On the above theses are based some conclusions-consequences:

1) Entering any public space with certain ideas, you need to be prepared for the fact that they are perceived as messages of invitation to the discussion. If the author does not intend to discuss outlined, then it makes somehow indicate the appropriate format (blog, topic closed for discussion, otherwise), or initially to identify what is described is a purely personal view and is not intended for discussion or debate. This act is a marker of the author's boundaries of personal desires and intentions when publishing. And every reader will also have the opportunity to decide whether he has a place within these boundaries or everything is taken by the author.

2) If the author before going public, finds in himself that the ideas in the first place for himself ambiguous and are in the process of seeking greater perfection, it is advisable and it is also clearly indicated.

3) If the discussion starts right away with a rebuttal, it is the first and ominous sign "game winning". This in a sense is good for the author because it gives him a reason to determine for themselves whether such a scenario is what he needs right now.

4) If the discussion starts with the presentation of the whole multitude of views on the proposed ideas, this is a sign that the company is going to discuss people interested not in "games," but cooperation and understanding. And they are all prepared for the fact that their perspective can change, be supplemented and that means to develop and grow. This gives the author the opportunity to determine for themselves the degree of readiness to change, and therefore to a possible rejection of the obsolete, outdated or internally contradictory. And this, in turn, expands the boundaries of the desired, freeing up more space for truly creative, inspirational and inspiring process.

And that such discussions I we all want.

(C) Sergey Chernyshev, 2019

Статья выложена в ознакомительных целях. Все права на текст принадлежат ресурсу и/или автору (B17 B17)

Что интересного на портале?