jpahmad Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 True. I'll go with that. I'll let you know if I find any more efficient means of getting people to come to their senses. I'm working on it.
LovePrevails Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 I also had the view that "going galt" and excluding unreasonable people is more about protecting yourself emotionally if it encourages them to think twice then that is just an added bonus - I excluded someone from my social group for being too aggressive and relentless in debates and not entering into constructive discussions about meeting each of our needs and preferences, but he knew some of the books I had read on improving communication he could read them if he wanted - he also watched news and soaps all the time he could have been consuming the wealth of information online on improving communication skills and conflict resolution instead he can still do it if he wants, I made a path for him True. I'll go with that. I'll let you know if I find any more efficient means of getting people to come to their senses. I'm working on it. I think I covered three effective ones: (1) empathise with their emotions and move the conversation from who is right onto feeling and needs. (2) encourage them to talk until they've fully expressed their views. (3) Listen reflectively without agreeing until they show curiosity in your view. (4) Leave the situation.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I think I covered three effective ones: (1) empathise with their emotions and move the conversation from who is right onto feeling and needs. (2) encourage them to talk until they've fully expressed their views. (3) Listen reflectively without agreeing until they show curiosity in your view. (4) Leave the situation. Those are great ideas. It's amazing how many people don't do step one. No wait, I know why many people don't do step one. It's because they really are only interested in "winning" a debate, and not changing someone
LovePrevails Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 Those are great ideas. It's amazing how many people don't do step one.... It's because they really are only interested in "winning" a debate, and not changing someone I think you are right, I think people are ego invested in being right too often and not improving the relationship often enough If you can often empathise with people then you can build up mutual trust and if they value you then they become much more tolerant to having their opinions challenged Can't say this will often work with parents who don't see one as an equal, but certainly with acquaintances, friends, associates, etc. it has been my experience. I just would differ on the words "changing someone" I don't want to go around changing people, and you can't I'd rather say "influencing someone in a positive way"
PatrickC Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 No wait, I know why many people don't do step one. It's because they really are only interested in "winning" a debate, and not changing someone Bare in mind, we've not talking about people we meet and know on the periphery of our lives. Unreasonable people would be people either within our family or as friends and lovers that we proclaim to break bread with. Yet will show contempt for us, whether directly or indirectly. The reason people often don't get past point one, is not due to a lack of empathy or curiosity, but primarily because none is being offered in return.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Bare in mind, we've not talking about people we meet and know on the periphery of our lives. Unreasonable people would be people either within our family or as friends and lovers that we proclaim to break bread with. Yet will show contempt for us, whether directly or indirectly. The reason people often don't get past point one, is not due to a lack of empathy or curiosity, but primarily because none is being offered in return. That's true. But I think though, in issues of communication, someone has got to be the one to "go first." Someone has to be the first to empathize with the other right? Otherwise, you're just at a standstill.
PatrickC Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 That's true. But I think though, in issues of communication, someone has got to be the one to "go first." Someone has to be the first to empathize with the other right? Otherwise, you're just at a standstill. Well the point is, that most people (at least in this conversation) have taken that first step. Or at the very least they know from experience (empathy) that they will experience very little traction with them. If someone points out to you logically that someone is mistreating you. It's not particularly up to the victim to point it out to the perpetrator. I mean, you might be given an opportunity, but is certainly isn't a 'must do'.
jpahmad Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Well the point is, that most people (at least in this conversation) have taken that first step. Or at the very least they know from experience (empathy) that they will experience very little traction with them. If someone points out to you logically that someone is mistreating you. It's not particularly up to the victim to point it out to the perpetrator. I mean, you might be given an opportunity, but is certainly isn't a 'must do'. Nothing is a "must do" without being linked to the effect that you want. If you want to live, you must eat. If you want someone who is not speaking the language of reason to change their thinking, then you must not use reason to do it; it won't work. It never has worked, ever. I am suggesting that you would have success in the above task by using the language of emotion. This starts with empathy. It is only a "must do" if you want to have a positive influence on this unreasonable person.
PatrickC Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I am suggesting that you would have success in the above task by using the language of emotion. This starts with empathy. It is only a "must do" if you want to have a positive influence on this unreasonable person. Yes, but having 'empathy' makes you better equipped to recognise a dysfunctional person. It is in effect a two pronged sword in this regard.
jpahmad Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Yes, but having 'empathy' makes you better equipped to recognise a dysfunctional person. It is in effect a two pronged sword in this regard. Hey xelent, could you re-phrase that, or give me an example. I don't quiet get what you're saying.
LovePrevails Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 Bare in mind, we've not talking about people we meet and know on the periphery of our lives. Unreasonable people would be people either within our family or as friends and lovers that we proclaim to break bread with. Yet will show contempt for us, whether directly or indirectly. The reason people often don't get past point one, is not due to a lack of empathy or curiosity, but primarily because none is being offered in return. I think this is a critical point here in fact, and very well communicated! it is in fact hardest to practice empathetic communication to those closest to us because we may have a wall of resentment towards them which was developed in response to frequent bad treatment as jpahmed says there are no musts in this and people should not choose it if it damages them further also, no one can be their parents therapist for example still, there is some value to some people of being able to do this - particularly if they aren't in a position to break free yet and can benefit from increasing the mutual understanding in the relationship even just for the short term - reflective listening is a good way to increase your chances of being heard in situations where the person usually wouldn't listen
cynicist Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Hey xelent, could you re-phrase that, or give me an example. I don't quiet get what you're saying. He means that being able to empathize with others allows you to see more easily when they are not empathizing with you. The same phenomenon occurs when trying to figure out whether someone has technical expertise in something like computers: It's far easier when you yourself are technically competent.
LovePrevails Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 He means that being able to empathize with others allows you to see more easily when they are not empathizing with you. The same phenomenon occurs when trying to figure out whether someone has technical expertise in something like computers: It's far easier when you yourself are technically competent. yes I agree, but only if your empathy is conscious not if it's simply an ego defence or an adaptation you developed to survive childhood you probably need to know how to empathise consciously to empathise with yourself when you are not receiving empathy if you know waht I mean otherwise ou might just think it's par for the course
jpahmad Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Yes, but having 'empathy' makes you better equipped to recognise a dysfunctional person. It is in effect a two pronged sword in this regard. O.k., I think I get what your saying. Let me re-phrase that for myself: Having empathy is good because you can relate to how someone is feeling, but it also has the effect of acting as a "alarm system" which tells you if someone is dysfunctional. Is this correct?
PatrickC Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 O.k., I think I get what your saying. Let me re-phrase that for myself: Having empathy is good because you can relate to how someone is feeling, but it also has the effect of acting as a "alarm system" which tells you if someone is dysfunctional. Is this correct? Yes, empathy not only informs you of where someone is at in reality. But yes, it can be a great guide to those that can distinguish between the more dysfunctional or functional person.. Our empathy is how we judge the world and the people around us in the moment.
jpahmad Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Bare in mind, we've not talking about people we meet and know on the periphery of our lives. Unreasonable people would be people either within our family or as friends and lovers that we proclaim to break bread with. Yet will show contempt for us, whether directly or indirectly. The reason people often don't get past point one, is not due to a lack of empathy or curiosity, but primarily because none is being offered in return. Hey Xelent, I've got a story for you. Just happened yesterday in fact. I changed someone who previously was clueless, irrational, and has been arguing with me for the past year about how to treat kids. It is a large victory for people like us, and for the kids in her classroom! Would you like to hear what happened on Friday?
jpahmad Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I would Hey Antony, I would hope there were more people on this forum that would want to hear the story but I guess it's just you and me bro. I can type it up and post it here, or, I can make a video and post it. With the video, I could use body language and physical demonstrations to explain better. I did use your method in fact, and I added a few tricks of my own. Let me know what you would prefer. J.P.
dsayers Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I would hope there were more people on this forum that would want to hear the story but I guess it's just you and me bro. A bit sinister, don't you think? I would suspect that anybody that had such a story to share would share it because it's worth sharing. Not taunt the community and then condemn them for not dignifying the taunt.
jpahmad Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 A bit sinister, don't you think? I would suspect that anybody that had such a story to share would share it because it's worth sharing. Not taunt the community and then condemn them for not dignifying the taunt. Dsayers!! Awesome. I need your expert critique to help me out on this one. How bout you call it and I'll do it. I'll type it out, youtube it, or skype with you. Or, maybe a combo. You choose.
jpahmad Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 I'm going to post the video it in the gold donators forum under listener projects. I think that would be less intimidating for me then out here in the general public. Then, if all goes according to plan, I'll post it out here as well. Give me until tomorrow evening to post it. It will be my first webcam video and I need to shave first.
cynicist Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Sounds good man, I'm definitely interested in what exactly changed her mind.
jpahmad Posted April 15, 2014 Posted April 15, 2014 Sounds good man, I'm definitely interested in what exactly changed her mind. Thanks cynicist. I won't let you down.
kavih Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I hope it is okay to continue this conversation since it's been months since it last stopped. First, jpahmad, would you post the link to the gold forum where you posted the video (or PM the link to me)? Just asking for an actual post here so that other gold subscribers can quickly get to it. Anyways, I read everyone's posts here and I have many relationships going on right now that I have not "Galted" even though each one has different levels of the other party being of unreasonable. My conclusion, so far, is a combination of the ideas provided by just about all of you on this thread. I'm pretty new to the process of conversing with an unreasonable person, but the way I feel it is best handled FOR ME, is deciding how long to converse, before the unreasonableness of the person outweighs the value of the relationship; with the goal of enlightening them through similar processes discussed here, so that they finally empathize with you. So, if it were an equation, it would be: With the following variables,Cc: continue conversingRv: relationship valueU: unreasonablenessCc = Rv / U Such that you want to maintain a value of Cc greater than one, and the only way to do that is either increase the value of the relationship or decrease their unreasonableness. Is this too simplistic?
LovePrevails Posted July 15, 2014 Author Posted July 15, 2014 it's kind of hard to put numerical values to those things but I understand your meaning, how is it working in your experience?
kavih Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 how is it working in your experience? I don't literally think of the equation above as the way I calculate whether to keep a conversation going or not. I just found the simplicity of it as helpful, to me. I have been an activist for about 2 years now. With strangers, the relationship value is so low, that it doesn't take much unreasonableness to call it quits; however, for the minority of strangers that are more reasonable, I tend to increase the relationship value, even though they are strangers, just because they were somewhat reasonable people to begin with. There is another factor that I didn't bring up in my above post, which is that the relationship can reach a state where continuing to converse on topics doesn't work, but that the value of the relationship is high enough to at least keep the relationship. For example, if a teenager is still living at home, yet conversing with his/her parents about topics for which they are unreasonable, the teenager can still decide to live with them for their resources until he/she is ready to deFOO, and just not bring up the topics. I mention this state, because I am currently doing this with a friend of mine. He is very vindictive and so I can't Galt him until I'm ready to move away, in fear of the irresponsible ways he deals with his emotions. For non-strangers, I tend to allow a lot of time for steps #1 and #2 of your process, just because I don't have that many relationships and, therefore, each one tends to have a higher value to me.
jpahmad Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 With the following variables,Cc: continue conversingRv: relationship valueU: unreasonablenessCc = Rv / U Sorry Kavih, I deleted the video. I figured it ran it's course and I didn't want certain people seeing it on my youtube channel. I like the formula though. As far as my conclusion on my personal attempts to "change someone", I failed. The person in question agreed with me verbally and acknowledged that I had a point, but then turned around and kept behaving the old way. I did effect her though, to the extent where she felt troubled and asked the school social worker for advice about some of the things I told her. Let's just say that the social worker just told her what she wanted to hear, which encouraged the old, irrational behavior. Thus, all my efforts went down the toilet. This women, the subject of my "experiment", was in her late 50's early 60s. I've come to the conclusion that after a certain age, it's unreasonable to expect someone to change.
kavih Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Sorry Kavih, I deleted the video. I figured it ran it's course and I didn't want certain people seeing it on my youtube channel. No problem. The only people older than me right now, that I feel I can influence (one of which I already have) is my Mom and Dad. Though, I have yet to approach them on their past parenting techniques yet... that will be a doozy, but will happen somewhat soon.
LovePrevails Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 Rate my sound! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ferxd-AN6Bs#t=67
PatrickC Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Hey Xelent, I've got a story for you. Just happened yesterday in fact. I changed someone who previously was clueless, irrational, and has been arguing with me for the past year about how to treat kids. It is a large victory for people like us, and for the kids in her classroom! Would you like to hear what happened on Friday? Hey I'm sorry JP that I clearly missed this post. I like everyone post our conversation would like to hear more. I have had the odd success myself too.
Recommended Posts