|Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
|News||Corporate bullshit||Recommended Links||How not to say the wrong thing||Negative Politeness||Six ways to say 'No' and mean it|
|Groupthink||Conformism||Disciplined Minds||Bureaucracies||Bureaucratic Collectivism||Belief coercion within religious groups|
|Socratic Questions||Never complain about your boss to coworkers||Minimize office gossip||Seven Typical Corporate Email Errors||Five Points Verbal Response Test||Rules of Verbal Self Defense|
|Communication with Corporate Psychopaths||Fighting direct verbal abuse||Soft propaganda||Talleyrand quotes||Diplomacy||Humor|
"Above all, not too much zeal!"
Talleyrand’s warning to young diplomats,
“Speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts.”
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand
Diplomacy can be defined as making the best possible in the circumstances effort for getting your own needs met in a way that preserves the dignity of other people. In essence, this an art of preserving the dignity of others (aka "saving face"), while defending/advancing your own interests. In a way politeness (especially negative politeness) is the most basic form of diplomacy. It can be considered to be the cornerstone of diplomatic communication. In many cases limiting communication to essentials helps to ensure this difficult to attain goal and help to avoid mistakes as larger volume of communication increases chances to commit a blunder. That means that the ability to limit communication also belongs to the art of diplomatic communication. And the best diplomat often not the one who speaks more, but the one who speaks less. The ability to avoid certain themes (see for example Minimize office gossip) and minimize your "verbal footprint" also is an integral part of the art of diplomatic communication.
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” Plato
Talleyrand famous recommendation to diplomats "Above all, not too much zeal!" has multiple levels and in its simplest form (level0) can be rephrased in the domain in communication as "Above all, not don't talk too much!"
Talleyrand famous recommendation to diplomats "Above all, not too much zeal!" also means "Above all, not don't talk too much!"
In a narrow sense diplomacy means communicating your needs, wants, feelings, beliefs and opinions to others in a manner that does not hurt anyone’s feelings, or hurt them less then alternative methods of presenting your views and opinions. In a wider sense it is the ability to find a line of behaviour that helps to avoid both open fight with the opponent and betrayal of your own interests. While much depends on the art of particular diplomat it is clear that only certain situation allow to find such a line of behaviour. So there are cases when diplomacy does not produce any results. Still tact, which is the essence of diplomacy, does matter. After all "Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." ― Isaac Newton
Like in other areas of communication, negative examples probably have more power to teach you, then positive examples. Style of behaviour of certain recent Secretaries and Undersecretaries of State can provide ample examples about how not to behave. See, for example, The Undiplomatic Diplomat and "ethically challenged" Madeleine Albright. As she , then UN Ambassador, informed the UN Security Council during a 1994 discussion about Iraq:
“We recognize this area as vital to US national interests and we will behave, with others, multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must.”
That's probably one of the most undiplomatic remarks one can finds -- she is definitely relying on brute force and only brute force to get her goals. Generally communication with sociopaths, especially female sociopaths, is the most challenging from the point of view the ability to stick to diplomatic communication and keeping a safe distance from the person. they provoke aggressive response.
Characteristics of diplomatic communication include, but are not limited to:
The ability to demonstrate a relaxed manner both verbally and nonverbally is connected with the concept of tact, being tactful. The latter is a personal trait, a virtue, that some people have naturally, but all can develop with enough effort. Counselors and churchman are trained in this art pretty successfully. There are several book on the art of counseling and the art of negotiations which peripherally address the issues of tact. As Wikipedia states.
Tact is a careful consideration of the feelings and values of another so as to create harmonious relationships with a reduced potential for conflict or offense. Tact is considered to be a virtue. An example of tact would be relating to someone a potentially embarrassing detail of their appearance or demeanor without causing them distress. Tact is a form of interpersonal diplomacy. Tact is the ability to induce change or communicate hurtful information without offending through the use of consideration, compassion, kindness, and reason.
A tactful person can tell you something you don't want to hear and you will be thankful for the information when they are finished. But generally the more you know the less you need to say.
Here are some relevant quotes that shed some light on pretty rare quality:
A good old man, sir. He will be talking. As they say, when the age is in, the wit is out.
How ironical that it is by means of speech that man can degrade himself below the level of dumb creation -- for a chatterbox is truly of a lower category than a dumb creature.
The habit of common and continuous speech is a symptom of mental deficiency. It proceeds from not knowing what is going on in other people's minds.
The more you know the less you need to say.
They never taste who always drink; they always talk who never think.
To talk without thinking is to shoot without aiming. --English Proverb
We never say so much as when we do not quite know what we want to say. We need few words when we have something to say, but all the words in all the dictionaries will not suffice when we have nothing to say and want desperately to say it. -- Eric Hoffer
"We have two ears, but only one mouth, so that we may listen more and talk less." — Zeno
Diplomacy is especially valuable during conflicts. It actually emerged from dealing between states which typically have diverge interests, clashes of which led to wars. The key part of any diplomatic communication is the ability during confrontation to express your feelings, needs, legitimate rights or opinions in a inoffensive fashion. Russian president Vladimir Putin ones quipped:
"Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to Hell in such a way that he looks forward to the journey!"
Much depends on your ability to find a viable strategy of negotiations. There is a pretty old, partially obsolete but still relevant book "Getting to Yes" (often used in college courses ;-). The price of old editions is $.01 so it is quite affordable.
The book outline so called "principled" approach to finding compromises in complex conflict-ridden negotiations. The majority of this book is essentially nothing more than a pep talk about believing in yourself, taking the other side seriously, and not being manipulative. The writing is unbelievably wordy and examples are not that realistic but still it deserves taking a look. At least they outline some general principles that you can adapt for yourself.
|The book outline so called "principled" approach to finding compromises in complex conflict-ridden negotiations. The idea on negotiating based on the interests rather than the positions is a fruitful advice.|
The idea on negotiating based on the interests rather than the positions is a fruitful advice. This advice is nothing new and probably was known by ancient Chinese philosophers. The key problem with this advice is that in order to be effective, you have to convince other party to accept the premise of principled negotiation. Good luck with that ;-)
Another very important aspect of diplomacy is the ability not to say a wrong things and, especially, not to reveal unnecessary or confidential information. This is a very difficult ability that very few people possess naturally. It does not help that you can express you feeling in in an inoffensive manner if you betray you position but revealing too much information to the opponent. See How not to say the wrong thing for a potentially useful checklist.
This is especially important if you have problems. In such situation people often became less careful in what they are saying. Please remember, that "When you are in trouble, people who call to sympathize are really looking for the particulars. ~Edgar Watson Howe, Country Town Sayings, 1911". And here is another relevant quote: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. ~Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, July 1735"
There is little more damaging then accidentally revealing the information you did not intend to reveal. This understanding is implicitly reflected in the proverb that fool is more dangerous then the enemy.
The key in preventing such incidents is self-control. Recommendations that were developed for court depositions also can be useful. Here is a relevant quote from How to Excel During Depositions - Techniques for Expert Witnesses That Work By Steven Babitsky, Esq. and James J. Mangraviti, Jr., Esq. (1999):
6.3 Advice on Answering Questions at Depositions
Avoid Absolute Words
You are well advised to avoid, where possible, absolute words such as "always" and "never." Absolute words are frequently an invitation to, and fertile grounds for, cross-examination by counsel. Counsel will attempt to damage your credibility by first getting you to make an absolute statement. She will then use counterexamples in an effort to show the falsity of your statement.
Q: You testified previously that you have read everything written on warning labels, isn’t that correct?
A: Yes, but that was some time ago.
Lesson: The expert’s response here was a good recovery.
Q: Doctor, it’s your testimony that acute stress cannot cause heart attacks under any circumstances, is that correct?
A: It is.
Q: So, Doctor, if I were to reach into my trial bag here (reaches into bag) and pull out a loaded .44 Magnum and point it at your head, and you then had an immediate heart attack, it would be your testimony that the heart attack was not related to stress?
Lesson: The use of absolute words ("any" circumstances) opened the expert up to this sort of cross-examination.
Don’t Elaborate or Volunteer
Volunteering information can be one of the biggest mistakes an expert makes at deposition.
Volunteering information can be one of the biggest mistakes an expert makes at deposition. Generally, an expert should answer only the questions she is asked and not volunteer information. The volunteering of information will almost always result in new lines of cross-examination. It may also disclose information to which counsel otherwise never would have become privy.
Q: What objective findings of malingering did you make?
A: Lack of atrophy, good muscle tone, oil and grease on his fingernails. There were plenty of subjective findings as well.
Q: Let’s get into your so-called subjective findings.
Q: Would you agree with me causation is a medical opinion?
Q: Okay. (Note: No question put to witness, but he answers nonetheless.)
A: If there are idiopathic issues, then it’s a medical opinion. If there are not any glaring idiopathic and if a person works in a job that exposes them to risk factors, then I can certainly analyze the job and determine what factors were present and if the person was exposed to those risk factors and barring any other, you know, medical opinion or medical opinion that says, well, there is an idiopathic issue here also, then we assume that the work caused it.
Q: Can you define for me idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome?
A: Idiopathic causes would be, for example-can be related to diabetes, pregnancy, heart, circulation, even specific anthropomorphics like the size of a person’s tunnel, carpal tunnel.
Q: The word idiopathic itself, what does that mean?
A: Well, we’ll have to look up the definition.
Q: You’ll defer to the dictionary for that.
Lesson: The witnesses’ volunteering of information in both examples opened up new lines of questioning. They should have stopped their answers after their first sentences.
Be Careful When Using Hedge Words
You need to be careful when using hedge words when expressing your opinion. Such words include "I guess," "I believe," "it seems," "it’s possible," and "I would say." The only reason that you are testifying is to give an opinion.
Hedge words and phrases can quickly undermine your opinion and are an invitation for additional cross-examination.
Worse, counsel may be able to make a motion to have your entire testimony stricken because expert guessing is not allowed under the rules of evidence.
Q: That’s your "guess," sir?
A: Well, what I meant to say, that it was my opinion that….
Lesson: The expert needed to avoid the hedge words. If he had an opinion he believed in, he should have stated it without employing the hedge words.
If you make the concession graciously and move on, you will exude confidence, integrity, and flexibility. If, on the other hand, you doggedly refuse to give an inch, you may come off as rigid and partisan.
In answering questions honestly, you may have to make an occasional concession. If you make the concession graciously and move on, you will exude confidence, integrity, and flexibility. If, on the other hand, you doggedly refuse to give an inch, you may come off as rigid and partisan.
The most common error the beginning expert makes in a deposition is the failure to concede an obvious and irrefutable point out of misguided loyalty to his or her side of the case…. Quibbling over the possible exceptions or equivocating in some way helps no one.
Q: Now, would you agree just because the Glasgow Coma Scale was 15, there were no focal neurological deficits, that one still cannot rule out whether or not Mr. Framo had suffered a concussion or mild brain injury?
A: That’s correct. He could have.
Lesson: When an expert makes a concession promptly without the necessity of a long series of leading questions, the concession’s effect on the jury or fact finder is reduced.
Q: If somebody does a flexion and extension movement making half a million pieces a year, Doctor, would that be significant enough to cause someone to get carpal tunnel syndrome from their job?
A: Again, I would have to look at the specific flexion-extension activity, but certainly that degree of flexion-extension activity at the wrist, one would have to consider that as a, you know, a cause or a contributing factor.
Counsel: Thank you. That’s all I have.
Lesson: When the expert fights the concession every inch of the way and concedes only when left no reasonable alternative explanation, the concession is emphasized. Counsel frequently use such a concession to conclude the deposition with a flourish.
"I Don’t Know"
If you are asked a question that you do not know the answer to, your answer should be, "I don’t know." There is absolutely nothing wrong with this response if you genuinely do not know the answer to the question. There are probably thousands of questions that can be asked of experts in any discipline to which they have no answer. The more the expert hesitates or tries to avoid saying, "I don’t know," the more emphasis is given to this "lack of knowledge" by the jury or fact finder. No amount of hesitation will bring the answer to you if you do not know it.
Q: What is the coefficient for friction for steel on cement?
A: I don’t know.
Lesson: The forthright admission of lack of knowledge was in the expert’s best interest. Had the expert tried to talk around this, it would have only emphasized her lack of knowledge.
Q: If those wrist rests were unavailable prior to 1991, would you agree she had a higher probability then of being in a neutral position?
A: I don’t know. That’s an interesting question. I don’t know. I mean I guess that’s my answer, I don’t know. But I think the wrist rests certainly emphasizes, even though you have the Ridyard’s ergonomic assessment of 1994, if Miss Sanford and/or her supervisor were trained, that would not have been a product of choice.
Lesson: If you allow yourself to get flustered, your lack of knowledge will be emphasized to the jury. The expert in this example would have been better served by replying, "I don’t know" and then sitting quietly and waiting for the next question.
"I Don’t Recall"
When asked about a fact, situation, or occurrence that you honestly do not remember, the best answer is, "I do not remember" or "I don’t recall." This is only an appropriate answer when you honestly have no recollection. Perjury ramifications aside, an endless string of "I don’t recalls" (or even one that may seem hard to believe) may tend to damage your credibility. If your response is that you do not recall, counsel may then attempt to refresh your memory. This is permissible under the rules of evidence.
Q: Doctor, do you have any memory, independent of the medical records, of any of the events that occurred on August 5 of 1990, regarding the treatment of Ms. Lynn?
A: I would say no. Can’t really remember any real specifics on that particular day. I remember snatches of her. Over her two-year course, I recall her and various things over a two-year span, but that particular day I can’t recall any real specifics.
Q: Have you reviewed the medical record of August 5, 1990, from the emergency room, the Baystate Medical Center?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Does that medical record refresh your memory in any way as to where you were approximately the time that she was admitted to the hospital about 4 a.m. on that day?
A: She came in at 4 a.m. that morning. The reading doesn’t refresh my memory.
Q: Does the record indicate approximately when you first appeared on August 5 at Baystate Medical Center?
A: Just looking at it very quickly now, looked at this in detail earlier, I don’t see anything in the record in and of itself that refreshes my memory on when I physically was present, near Ms. Lynn or in her care. I don’t see anything that would indicate an exact time.
Lesson: As noted above, if the document does not refresh your memory or recollection, you are free to so testify. In this case, counsel was forced to drop this line of inquiry and move on.
Beware of Open-ended Questions
Open-ended questions. These questions invite long, rambling answers
You should be cautious when dealing with open-ended questions. These questions invite long, rambling answers. Counsel may be trying to get you to volunteer information not called for by the question. If you do volunteer information, it is likely that this information will be used against you during cross-examination. You should therefore answer open-ended questions as concisely as possible, being careful not to provide information that was not asked for.
Q: What do you consider to be the unsafe uses of an ATV?
A: Oh…. I can give you some highlights. There are many, many unsafe uses, but classic unsafe use is as a mobile transport form to transport you and a loaded firearm. This is not a motorized attack vehicle. It is not a multi-passenger transport vehicle, although it has to be conceded that because of its stability and because of its wide platform, you can safely transport a passenger on it. You just have to be more careful. But that is not a correct use of the vehicle, so depending-it’s like everything else. You could probably even transport a loaded firearm safely if you took enough precautions, so when I say unsafe use, it’s not a recommended use, not that you can’t pull off that maneuver safely with enough care.
Certainly you could easily find loads and pulling tasks like stumps that just by their nature the vehicle was not designed to do, and people will try and use the dynamics of the vehicle to run up against the rope and jerk on something really hard and say-but that’s not a good idea.
It is not for transport on paved roadways. I mean, you can drive it. It will run. The traffic cops in Hawaii write all their parking tickets on three-wheeled ATVs with tires scrubbed smooth, and you can do that safely, but that’s just not a recommended use. I mean, you are-you are….
I think it’s fair to say unless you know what you’re doing, it is not a competitive speed machine. I mean, there are…people race it and, and…most people don’t have any business racing cars. It doesn’t mean they don’t do it, but that is potentially a hazardous use.
They are not vehicles…for-I don’t know how to characterize this…I’m going to say not very well thought out horseplay. That’s an inelegant statement, but you see uses of these vehicles for games like chicken and…sort of it’s horses substitutes for games. I mean, they are not a horse. I mean I don’t mean that pejoratively. Horses, because they have their own will, they have their own unique set of problems, but an ATV is not a horse, and attempting to use it like one can be a misuse of it.
And finally, I guess, an ATV is not a toy. Anything with a multiple horsepower engine is not a toy in the sense that classic things people think of as a toy is something you can drop-drop in the crib or playpen, and, you know, it ain’t one of those. It’s a vehicle that has the capability of putting energy at the command of anybody…tall enough to reach the handle bars and the accelerator and the gear shift or long enough legs to reach the gear shift, and the people who ergonomically fit that envelope do not overlap totally with the people whose judgment is appropriate for operating one of these, and so use of it as a toy, as a toy substitute, is not appropriate.
Now, obviously, every one of those categories has bits of infinite detail, numerous scenarios.
Lesson: Note the numerous areas of inquiry opened up by this long, rambling answer to a single open-ended question. Experts are better served by brief, succinct replies to open-ended questions. If counsel has follow-up questions, let her ask them. Don’t do the lawyer’s job for her.
Avoid slang expressions when replying to questions. When they are transcribed and read back to a jury, these expressions diminish the value of your reply and can make you sound almost illiterate. Most slang expressions slip from experts unintentionally. To avoid making such a slip, you will need to maintain your concentration and focus.
Q: Now, sir, you were asked on direct examination about the history that you took from Ronald Evans, right?
Q: And the history is the story that he tells you, correct?
Q: Is that a yes?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: And you told us that Mr. Evans told you that he hurt himself while lifting some boxes at work?
Q: Uh-huh, I mean, yes.
Q: Are you familiar with an organization called M.O.R. Incorporated, sir?
Lesson: The expert’s use of slang cheapens his testimony and diminishes his credibility.
Counsel’s "Bumble and Fumble" Gambit
Experts are frequently tricked into volunteering key information by such real or feigned ignorance.
Do not help counsel when he is apparently bumbling or fumbling with some type of technical question. Experts are frequently tricked into volunteering key information by such real or feigned ignorance. Let counsel bumble or fumble all they want. Remember, you are there to answer questions, not to assist counsel in framing them correctly.
Yes or No Responses
If counsel asks for a yes or no response and you can answer the question with a yes or a no, endeavor to do so. If counsel attempts to insist on a yes or no answer to questions that cannot be answered in that fashion, you can state, "I cannot answer that question with a yes or no reply." It will then be up to counsel to either let you explain your answer or rephrase his question.
What to Do When You Make a Mistake
Expert witnesses are not expected to be perfect. During a long and arduous deposition, you may misspeak or make a mistake or error. If you do make a mistake, you should correct the error on the record as soon as you recognize your error. "I want to correct a statement I made a few minutes ago. I stated that the 1991 EMG was related to the surgery. That is incorrect." Counsel may quickly challenge you on your mistake before you have an opportunity to correct it. In that case, admit your error graciously. What you want to avoid after making a mistake is making the matter even worse by your inability or unwillingness to admit the mistake. This could make you look biased. If you discover your mistake after the deposition concludes, notify counsel and correct the deposition transcript when it comes for your signature.
Q: You only treated her for a 1981 accident, correct?
A: You know, it’s interesting, I’m looking at what we wrote down here and it says "1981-1984 motor vehicle accident, recovered." I may have misinterpreted what this note was. The accident was in ‘81, but we saw her in ‘84; and I apologize if I misled you.
Lesson: The expert has done a good job handling his mistake. He comes off as human, and above all, honest.
Q: Your comment was that the normal EMG in 1991 related to the surgery. Now, that doesn’t make sense, does it?
A: Did she have surgery in the interim?
Q: No, she did not.
A: You’re correct, it doesn’t make sense. Well, it doesn’t necessarily not make sense, either, because after surgery for a carpal tunnel syndrome, the EMG changes can wax and wane. You can have EMG positive one month and a year later negative. It may be a direct result of the surgery. My statement may still hold up, but I made that statement in error.
Lesson: The expert here may come off as inflexible, closed-minded, or biased. Either way, he lessens his credibility by trying to explain away his misstatement.
"I Don’t Know, But…"
As an expert witness, you are under oath to tell the truth. You should not speculate, but should testify with a reasonable degree of certainty. At deposition, many experts do not practice this principle and, in fact, speculate freely. One of the most common forms of speculation by experts at deposition is the "I do not know, but…" reply. It is usually a mistake to use this response. First of all, if you don’t know, then any information you provide after the "but" is mere speculation. Secondly, you may volunteer damaging information after the "but."
Q: Do you know whether or not GM employed any other method to determine longitudinal velocity of test dummies?
A: I don’t know if we compute longitudinal velocity based on accelerometers, but I suppose you could.
Lesson: The simple, direct, and best response is, "I don’t know." The throwaway statements that come after the "but" or "I don’t know" reply help counsel by providing him or her with additional information. This type of reply frequently results in new lines of inquiry and detailed questioning by counsel.
Q: Do you know, in this crash test, what causes the voltage drop and rise?
A: I don’t know but that’s typically an indication that the switch is opening and closing.
Q: When you say opening and closing, sir, would you explain what you mean in this context?
Lesson: By providing a "but," the witness has opened a new line of questioning. This was probably avoidable simply by answering the question, "I don’t know" or "No."
Q: Why does crash test 4665 have such charts and the remaining frontal barrier tests do not?
A: Well, I don’t really know, but if you would like me to review the other tests to determine whether or not those tests have such-I can certainly do that, but I guess this one had switches, and they must have been requested.
Lesson: This witness has answered, "I don’t know" and then made an offer to assist counsel. The simple, most accurate, and best reply is, "I don’t know." Any comments made as an afterthought are unwise, unprofessional, and inconsistent with being successful as an expert at deposition.
Sophisticated counsel may attempt to trap the expert witness by the use of the word hope. If you inadvertently agree with a characterization, you may allow the lawyer to successfully call into question the reliability of your opinion. When you are confronted with an "And you are hoping…" question, it may be best to actively refute that characterization. Remember that when you are passive and agree to an attorney’s characterization or mischaracterization, you are in effect letting the attorney put words in your mouth.
Q: Doctor, one more thing. Your opinion here today that Mr. Stanek has asked you about, in part, is based on the history that you get from the patient, isn’t that correct, and your training, obviously?
A: Yes, sure.
Q: And you’re hoping, of course, as most doctors, that the patients are accurate when they give you a history and tell you what’s wrong with them. Is that a fair statement?
Lesson: Counsel has raised questions in the minds of the jury or fact finder regarding the reliability of the history (i.e., assumptions upon which the expert’s opinion was based). "Hoping" may be made to seem akin to "guessing." A better answer might have been, "I don’t ‘hope’ that I was provided an accurate history, I assume so unless I have reason to suspect otherwise."
Refusal to Speculate
You should not permit yourself to be tricked, cajoled, or forced into speculating when answering questions under oath at deposition. There is nothing wrong with the response, "I’m sorry, but I’m not going to speculate on that."
Q: So what you’re saying here is that this coated cable itself is what deflected?
A: That is correct.
Q: And is it also correct to say that when you ran that test that a portion of that coated cable was left outside of the interlocking portion of the lacings?
A: It would be correct to say that that assembly as purchased was assembled based on our understanding and also whatever instructions that came with it so there was an equal portion sticking out of either end. The exact length of the cable beyond the lacing what we refer to as the hinge device I can’t give you a dimension on that. I don’t really recall.
Q: Was there some portion of it?
A: My recollection that the washer was crimped on the metal cap and to what extent the cable stuck out I couldn’t theorize at this point.
Q: Can you say whether it did or whether it didn’t to any extent?
A: I can’t with any accuracy.
Q: I am not asking for any millimeters.
A: I understand. I can’t speculate that it did or did not at this point.
Lesson: The expert did an excellent job of not allowing himself to be pushed into speculating.
Beware of the use of the word possible. Testifying that something is merely "possible" is most likely legally insufficient. If your opinion is only a mere possibility, the judge will most likely not allow it to be presented to the jury as evidence.
Q: Is it your testimony that Ms. Cain’s carpal tunnel syndrome is causally related to her employment as a stitcher at Johnson Company, Doctor?
A: It’s possible.
Q: If I were to say to you, today, that at 4:00 this afternoon, on January the 12th, 1994, here in Buffaloe, New York, it’s going to be sunny, 90 outside and we’re all going to go swimming, that’s a possibility, isn’t it?
A: That’s a possibility.
Q: That’s not a probability?
A: That’s not a probability.
Q: So, a probability is something more likely than not; is that correct?
A: That’s correct.
Q: So, when you say something is probable, you’re saying that something is more likely than not, am I correct in understanding this?
A: If it’s probable, it’s more likely than not.
Q: And possible means-well, anything is possible?
Counsel: Object, as leading.
Q: Well, how would you define possible, Doctor?
A: Possible, I would say something is possible, if there’s some likelihood it may happen, even though it’s remote. Or one of many likelihoods that, something will happen.
Q: So, we’re talking about, essentially something that one can, the difference is, probable is whether you can stake a bet on it. Possible, you might not stake a bet on it?
A: Yeah. In layman’s language, that’s good.
Lesson: When an expert witness at deposition uses the terms possible or possibly, he or she can reasonably expect the above line of questioning by counsel. If the lawyer can show that your opinion is only based on a mere possibility, he may succeed in excluding your opinion from being admitted into evidence at trial.
As an expert, you are testifying under oath. Your testimony will help resolve the rights and liabilities of parties who are involved in a legal dispute. Accordingly, there is no place for you to guess. Experts are well advised to leave the guessing to financial advisers, political pundits, and meteorologists.
Q: What would the purpose be of increasing spool diameter, sir?
A: Well, I’m not sure why they did it in that case. I guess there could be as many reasons as there are diameters of spools.
Q: Mr. Green, what caused the damage to the throttle valve on the accident ATV?
A: I don’t really know for sure, but my best guess was that it was misassembled by the distributor.
Q: Essentially the seat is part of the restraint system, is that correct, sir?
A: Well, I guess the restraint system consists of the belts and their attachment points within the vehicle. That leaves out the seat.
Q: In this case you did work for a company called Comp Management, Inc., correct?
Q: And you’ve done other work for them?
A: I guess so.
Q: Well, yes or no?
A: I don’t know.
Lesson: Your "guesses" are not admissible in evidence. Guessing can only hurt your credibility. It should be avoided.
"I Don’t Understand the Question"
You need not answer questions that you do not understand. If the question propounded to you is confusing, the preferred answer is, "I don’t understand the question." Exercise caution in giving "I don’t understand" replies to avoid answering questions improperly. For example, if you are one of the leading computer experts in the world and have testified that you didn’t understand a question about a browser, it is likely that your credibility will be impaired. You must answer truthfully and are permitted to answer, "I don’t understand" only when that is the actual case.
Q: Do you know whether or not GM vehicles manufactured prior to 1995 ever incorporated a retractor assembly with a limitation on the amount of slack that could be produced into the shoulder harness webbing?
A: I don’t understand.
Q: Let me try and rephrase the question.
Lesson: When the expert legitimately answers, "I don’t know," counsel is forced to rephrase the question or move on. By only answering questions that you understand, you will help ensure that the testimony you give is accurate and not misleading.
Frequently, attorneys attempt to confuse the expert at deposition by asking compound questions; that is, two questions combined. Sometimes the question is asked in a stream of consciousness manner that is difficult to comprehend, let alone answer accurately. When faced with such questions, appropriate responses include: "Counsel, you have asked several questions. Can you simplify the question so I can answer it accurately?" and, "Counsel, I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?"
Q: Well, I guess what I’m having trouble with is you have concluded that he’s malingering, there’s nothing wrong with him. Yet on a test, for instance, that tests the ability of a person to be conceptual, he gives an answer which in and of itself you didn’t think showed malingering. I’m trying to understand how he has all these difficulties and how you come to the conclusion that the answers that he gave that were incorrect show malingering.
A: Counsel, you have asked several questions. Can you simplify the question so I can answer it accurately?
Lesson: The expert provided a good response to counsel’s question.
Q: In those cases where there was one for the plaintiff or the treating doctor and the second for a defense neuropsychologist, the fact that the test results-you determined the test results were invalid because there’s no-not that consistency, does that invalidate the first testing? Can you determine-if you see two inconsistent tests, does that mean both are invalid or the first may be valid and the second invalid?
A: That’s a complicated question to which I don’t have a definitive answer. I can say that on many of the tests the average scores for the first testing and the second testing were not significantly different; in other words, they did about equally as well. Although, I have to make clear that the scores on the second testing, while not significantly different statistically, did tend to be a little lower than the scores on the first testing. And looks like-it would look like that under pressure of litigation with the second testing coming up, perhaps when trial was coming close or something of that sort, that these people were just not able to put forth quite as good a performance as they did on the first testing. But at the same time the scores were generally-they were not strikingly different. The inconsistency, the intraindividual inconsistency were the striking elements of differences between the two testings.
Lesson: A better answer might have been, "I don’t know." As you might expect, the answer given opened up several new areas of inquiry.
You should not make unfounded or unsupported assumptions in an attempt to answer a question. If you can’t answer or don’t know the answer, say so. Expert witnesses need not and should not make unsupported or unsubstantiated assumptions in an attempt to answer questions at deposition.
Q: Does the computer program have the capability of printing out a master index of all of the crash tests?
A: I don’t know, but I would assume that some computer person set this system up and can go in and generate a list of all of the data in there….
Lesson: Assuming in a case like this is akin to guessing and should be avoided. A better answer might have been, "I don’t know."
Steve Babitsky is the President of SEAK, Inc. and is the co-author of How To Excel During Depositions: Techniques For Experts That Work. For further information, visit www.seak.com or call (508) 548-7023. Also visit SEAK's Expert Witness Directory.
Always try to document and analyze past conflicts and your behaviour in them. Study, document and respect the legitimate wants, needs and feelings of others. First of all remembering then and pitfalls they present is a cornerstone of diplomacy. In a way:
Good Judgment Comes From Experience. Experience Comes From Bad Judgment ;-).
So in a way you past mistakes are essential in preventing future. It helps to think about ways to lessen the level of hostility (and associated level of confrontation) by communicating in a more diplomatic way.
Keep a diary, be honest in it, but keep it is a safe place. Never use your personal email account as a diary and generally such things are safer to write on paper, not electronically. If you want to type buy then type it in, say, in MS Word, print it and destroy the electronic copy. Never store it in your office. Lock the drawer in which you put it at home. It should be a really private thing. Never share it with anybody.
Try to replay past episodes, trying to talk in more diplomatic way alone or with a friend.
Document implicit "rules of the game" you consider fair and each case when you or the other party are not playing by the rules. One important way to lessen the level of confrontation is to adhere to the rules. Accept that your opponents viewpoints may be different from yours, but that "the rules of the game" should be binding for both parties. Nothing provokes more hostility then breaking the rules.
The most important factor in diplomacy is the level of understanding of the situation you deal with. So nothing can replace preparation and careful study of the situation. Collect information about people you are dealing with but never spy. Keep a diary and update it daily before going to bad.
Due to this factor there is no absolute rules in diplomacy and famous quotes (such as from Talleyrand) are mutually contradictory and following them blindly can hurt, if you misread the situation and its natural dynamic. You need to collect and analyze your own personal history to find out what is working for you and what is not. After all Talleyrand was a great diplomat not just because he was able to find apt words to express his opinion, but first of all because he simultaneously was a great, visionary politician, who was able to see the "natural direction" of development of particular historical situation more clearly then others, and act accordingly.
Also there is a danger of overdoing sound recommendations ("excessive zeal" is the major weakness of Dale Carnegie recommendations; he actually built his books empire by propaganda of excesses and hypocrisy which. in reality, instantly evoke strong hostile reaction). And if the other party suspect hypocrisy, your situation considerably deteriorate. None of your words will be taken at face value. In a very deep way, appearing sincere is more important, then to appear diplomatic as loss of trust is fatal in any communication. So building trust is an important part of diplomacy that is far above in importance then all fancy rules and recommendations.
As diplomacy is an art. That means that compliance with prescribed formulas. Checklists, and decision matrixes is of little value if it is not accompanied by critical thinking about the situation and independent judgment. People, who mastered dozen or so printed in books and even more articles (including this one ;-) might be ever worse then they were before, if they are intellectually complacent, strategically illiterate and have an antipathy to "politics". Or worse wear it as a badge of honor.
Still, if you understand that no rules are absolute, some framework might help.
Among such "semi-useful rules" we can mention:
Another interesting read might be Robert Cialdini - The 6 Principles of Influence . He also has a book Influence The Psychology of Persuasion The book is entertaining, but it's fundamentally lightweight
Authoritarians usually try to intimidate the opponent, but at the same time they hate pushovers. To assert yourself, incorporate the following body language:
Of course, in spite of your best efforts to be direct and calm, the authoritarian you’re talking to may behave as if you're having an argument with him/her, criticizing and/or provoking you. For those interactions, practice the following:
There is no royal way to mastering diplomacy. First and foremost it requires hard work. It requires your personal growth as a person. Some people are more naturally gifted then other, but some basic staff with enough effort can be mastered by anybody. In the end, you might be surprised to discover how much more people actually like and respect the new, more diplomatic way you behave. And how many unnecessary confrontations you can easily avoid.
Just reading a pep talk about believing in yourself, taking the other side seriously, and not being manipulative does not get you anywhere. Hard daily work on keeping your diary, finding better ways to deal with common situation and avoiding past mistakes will. It just not take you anywhere to know that it is important to "see the other person as someone who has goals" you need to know what particular goals the other person has and is he/she able to play by the rules. This is difficult to achieve without important without home analysis and documentation of past behaviors. You do need to do your daily push-ups and sit-ups though, and keep a diary in order to succeed.
Gradually you will see improved understanding of the situation, greater moral courage and more creative intelligence in your interactions. Again this is an art, not a science, but hard work eventually gives positive results. Age also helps ;-) Keep trying !
Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov
Feb 16, 2021 | www.theguardian.com
... ... ...
The American anthropologist Edward T Hall introduced a distinction between two types of communication culture: high context and low context. In a low-context culture, communication is explicit and direct. What people say is taken to be an expression of their thoughts and feelings. You don't need to understand the context – who is speaking, in what situation – to understand the message.
A high-context culture is one in which little is said explicitly, and most of the message is implied. The meaning of each message resides not so much in the words themselves, as in the context. Communication is oblique, subtle, ambiguous.Advertisement
Most of us, wherever we are in the world, are living increasingly low-context lives, as more and more of us flock to cities, do business with strangers and converse over smartphones. Different countries still have different communication cultures, but nearly all of them are subject to the same global vectors of commerce, urbanisation and technology – forces that dissolve tradition, flatten hierarchy and increase the scope for confrontation. It's not at all clear that we are prepared for this.
For most of our existence as a species, humans have operated in high-context mode. Our ancestors lived in settlements and tribes with shared traditions and settled chains of command. Now, we frequently encounter others with values and customs different to our own. At the same time, we are more temperamentally egalitarian than ever. Everywhere you look, there are interactions in which all parties have or demand an equal voice. Everyone expects their opinion to be heard and, increasingly, it can be. In this raucous, irreverent, gloriously diverse world, previously implicit rules about what can and cannot be said are looser and more fluid, sometimes even disappearing. With less context to guide our decisions, the number of things on which "we all agree" is shrinking fast .
Think about what defines low-context culture, at least in its extreme form: endless chatter, frequent argument; everyone telling you what they think, all the time. Remind you of anything? As Ian Macduff, an expert in conflict resolution, puts it, "the world of the internet looks predominantly like a low-context world".
If humans were purely rational entities, we would listen politely to an opposing view before offering a considered response. In reality, disagreement floods our brain with chemical signals that make it hard to focus on the issue at hand. The signals tell us that this is an attack on me . "I disagree with you" becomes "I don't like you". Instead of opening our minds to the other's point of view, we focus on defending ourselves.Protesters arguing during a rally in the US state of Georgia last August. Photograph: Lynsey Weatherspoon/Getty Images
Animals respond to threat with two basic tactics, first identified by the Harvard biologist Walter Bradford Cannon in 1915: fight or flight. Humans are no different. A disagreement can tempt us to become aggressive and lash out, or it can induce us to back off and swallow our opinions out of a desire to avoid conflict. These atavistic responses still influence our behaviour in today's low-context environments: we either get into hostile and mostly pointless arguments, or do everything we can to avoid arguing at all. Both responses are dysfunctional.
You don't have to look far to see the fight response to disagreement: just open your social media feeds or read the comments section on your favourite website. The internet is reputed to create "echo chambers", in which people only encounter views they already agree with, but the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. Research tells us that social media users have more diverse news diets than non-users. You are almost bound to encounter opinions that upset you on Twitter; much more so than if your only information source is a daily newspaper. Instead of creating bubbles, the internet is bursting them, generating hostility, fear and anger.
One reason online discourse is so often so furious is because it has been designed to be this way. Studies have shown that content that outrages is more likely to be shared. Users who post angry messages get the status boost of likes and retweets, and the platforms on which those messages are posted gain the attention and engagement that they sell to advertisers. Online platforms therefore have an incentive to push forward the most extreme versions of every argument. Nuance, reflection and mutual understanding are not just casualties of the crossfire, but necessary victims.
But it would be a profound mistake to conclude from all this that we are arguing too much. The hollow outrage we see online is actually evidence of the absence of real, reflective disagreements: fight as a smokescreen for flight.
It's often said that if humanity is to rise to the existential threats it faces, we must put our differences aside. But when we all agree – or pretend to – it becomes harder to make progress. Disagreement is a way of thinking, perhaps the best one we have, critical to the health of any shared enterprise, from marriage to business to democracy. We can use it to turn vague notions into actionable ideas, blind spots into insights, distrust into empathy. Instead of putting our differences aside, we need to put them to work.
To do so, we will have to overcome a widespread discomfort with disagreement. Disagreeing well is hard, and for most of us, stressful. But perhaps if we learn to see it as a skill in its own right, rather than as something that comes naturally, we might become more at ease with it. I believe we have a lot to learn from those who manage adversarial, conflict-ridden situations for a living; people whose job it is to wring information, insight and human connection out of even the most hostile encounter.
A t the 1972 Olympic Games in West Germany, a group of Palestinian terrorists seized 11 Israeli athletes. The terrorists made their demands, the authorities refused them. The Munich police resorted to firepower. Twenty-two people were killed , including all the hostages. In the wake of what became known as the Munich Massacre, law-enforcement agencies around the world realised they had an urgent problem. Officers communicating with hostage-takers in order to avoid or minimise violence had no protocol to follow. Police departments realised that they needed to learn negotiation skills.
Hostage negotiators, who may be specialists or trained officers with other responsibilities, are now deployed in a wide range of situations. The best ones are not just expert in tactics; they understand the importance of what the sociologist Erving Goffman called "face-work". In Goffman's terms, "face" is the public image a person wants to establish in a social interaction. We put effort into establishing the appropriate face for each encounter: the face you want to show a potential boss will be different to the face you want to show someone on a date. This effort is face-work.
With people we trust and know well, we don't worry so much about face, but with those we don't know – especially when those people have some power over us – we put in the face-work. When someone puts in face-work and yet doesn't achieve the face they want, they feel bad. If you strive to be seen as authoritative and someone treats you with minimal respect, you feel embarrassed and even humiliated. In some circumstances you might try to sabotage the encounter to feel better.
People skilled in the art of disagreement don't just think about their own face; they're highly attuned to the other's face. One of the most powerful social skills is the ability to give face; to confirm the public image that the other person wishes to project. In any conversation, when the other person feels their desired face is being accepted and confirmed, they're going to be a lot easier to deal with, and more likely to listen to what you have to say.German officials negotiating with a representative of the hostage takers at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972. Photograph: Bettmann Archive
No one knows this better than hostage negotiators. Hostage crises can be divided into two types. In "instrumental" crises, the interaction tends to be relatively rational in character. The hostage-taker sets out clear demands, and a bargaining process ensues. In "expressive" crises, the hostage-takers want to say something – to people at home, to the world. They are usually people who have acted impulsively: a father who has kidnapped his daughter after losing custody, a man who has tied up his girlfriend and is threatening to kill her. Most often, negotiators are dealing with individuals who have taken themselves hostage: people who have climbed to the top of a tall building and are threatening to jump. The hostage-taker in an expressive scenario is usually on edge, emotionally – angry, desperate, deeply insecure, and liable to act in unpredictable ways.
Negotiators are taught to soothe and reassure the hostage-taker before getting to the negotiation. William Donohue, a professor of communication at the University of Michigan, has spent decades studying conflict-ridden conversations – some successful, some failed – involving terrorists, pirates, and people on the brink of suicide. He talked to me about a key component of face: how powerful a person feels. Hostage-takers in expressive situations want their importance to be recognised in some way – to have their status acknowledged.
Donohue and his collaborator Paul Taylor, of Lancaster University, coined the term "one-down" to describe the party, in any kind of negotiation, who feels most insecure about their relative status. One-down parties are more likely to act aggressively and competitively, at the expense of finding common ground or coming up with solutions. In 1974, Spain and the US opened negotiations over the status of certain US military bases on Spanish soil. The political scientist Daniel Druckman looked at when American and Spanish negotiators adopted "hard tactics" or "soft tactics". He found that the Spanish team used threats and accusations three times as often as the American team. The Spanish, one-down, were aggressively asserting their autonomy.
When a hostage-taker feels dominated, he is more likely to resort to violence. "That's when words fail," Donohue told me. "In effect, the hostage-taker says: 'You haven't acknowledged respect for me, so I have to gain it by controlling you physically.'" People will go to great, even self-destructive lengths to avoid the perception that they are being walked over. One-down parties often play dirty, attacking their adversary from unexpected, hard-to-defend angles. Instead of looking for solutions that might work for everyone, they treat every negotiation as a zero-sum game in which someone must win and the other must lose. Instead of engaging with the content, they attack the person as a way of asserting their status.
By contrast, there are those who enter a negotiation expecting to succeed because they are, or perceive themselves to be, in the stronger position. They may well therefore adopt a more relaxed and expansive approach, focusing on the substance of the disagreement and looking for win-win solutions. They may also take more risks with their face, making moves that might otherwise be seen as weak, offering a more friendly and conciliatory dialogue. Since they don't fear losing face, they can reach out a hand.Advertisement
This is why giving face is so important. It is in a negotiator's interest for their counterpart to feel as secure as possible. Skilled negotiators are always trying to create the adversary they want. They know that when they're one-up, the smart thing to do is to narrow the gap.A police negotiator offers a telephone to a hostage taker on a bus in Manila in the Philippines in 2007. Photograph: Joel Nito/AFP/Getty Images
In any conversation where there is an unequal power balance, the more powerful party is more likely to be focused on the top line – on the content or matter at hand – while the one-down party focuses on the relationship. Here are a few examples:
A parent says: "Why did you come home so late?" The teenage daughter thinks: "You're treating me like a little kid."
A doctor says: "We can't find anything wrong with you." The patient thinks: "You don't care about me."
A politician says: "The economy is growing more strongly than ever." A voter thinks: "Stop talking to me like I'm an idiot."
When a debate becomes volatile and dysfunctional, it's often because someone in the conversation feels they are not getting the face they deserve. This helps to explain the pervasiveness of bad temper on social media, which can sometimes feel like a status competition in which the currency is attention. On Twitter, Facebook or Instagram, anyone can get likes, retweets or new followers – in theory. But although there are exceptions, it is actually very hard for people who are not already celebrities to build a following. Gulled by the promise of high status, users then get angry when status is denied. Social media appears to give everyone an equal chance of being heard. In reality, it is geared to reward a tiny minority with massive amounts of attention, while the majority has very little. The system is rigged.Advertisement
So far, we've been talking about one aspect of face-work: status. However, there is another, closely related yet distinct component of a person's face, which is not so much about how high or low they feel, as who they feel they are.
E lisa Sobo, a professor of anthropology at San Diego State University, has interviewed parents who refuse vaccines. Why were these people, many of them smart and highly educated, ignoring mainstream medical advice that was based on sound science? Sobo concluded that for these individuals opposition to vaccines is not just a belief, but an "act of identification" – that is, it's more about opting in to a group than opting out of a treatment, like "getting a gang tattoo, slipping on a wedding ring, or binge-watching a popular streamed TV show". The refusal is "more about who one is and with whom one identifies than who one isn't or whom one opposes". Sobo points out that this is also true of those who opt in to vaccines: our desire to be associated with mainstream views on medicine is also a way of signalling who we are. That's why arguments between the two sides quickly become clashes of identity.
According to William Donohue, what drags participants into destructive conflict is usually a struggle over who they are. "I've seen it in hostage situations, in politics, in marital arguments," he said. "You don't know anything, you have problems, you're insensitive. One person feels like the other is attacking who they are, so they defend themselves, or hit back. It escalates."
That our opinions come tangled up with our sense of ourselves is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something we need to be aware of when trying to get someone to do something they do not want to do, whether that's stop smoking, adapt to a new working practice, or vote for our candidate. Our goal should be to detach the disputed opinion or action away from the person's sense of self – to lower the identity stakes. The skilful disagreer finds a way of helping their adversary conclude that they can say or do something different, and still be themselves.Pro-and anti-Brexit protesters arguing in London in 2019. Photograph: Avpics/Alamy Advertisement
One way to do that is to have the disagreement away from an audience. In Boston in 1994, in the wake of a shooting at an abortion clinic, the philanthropist Laura Chasin reached out to six abortion activists, three of them pro-life, three pro-choice, and asked them to meet in secret to see if they could build some kind of understanding. Hard and even painful as it was, the six women met, clandestinely, over a period of years. At first, they found their positions hardening, and none of them ever changed their minds on the fundamental points. But over time, as they got to know each other, they felt able to think, communicate and negotiate in more unconstrained, less simplistic ways. The less that people feel compelled to maintain their face in front of allies, the more flexible they feel able to be.
The same principle applies to workplace conflicts. In front of an audience of colleagues, people are more likely to focus on how they want to be seen, rather than on the right way to solve the problem. If it is important to me to be seen as competent, I might react angrily to any challenge to my work. If I want to be seen as nice and cooperative, I might refrain from expressing my strongly felt opposition to a proposal in terms strong enough for anyone to notice. That's why, when a difficult work conversation arises, the participants often propose to "take it offline". The phrase used to mean simply an in-person discussion, but it has gained an additional nuance: "Let's take this potentially tough conversation to a place where there is less at stake for our faces."
Taking a disagreement offline can work, but it should only ever be seen as a second-best option. It means the problem at hand is exposed to the scrutiny of fewer minds, losing the benefits of open disagreements. The best way to lower the identity stakes is to create a workplace culture in which people do not feel much need to protect their face; a culture in which different opinions are explicitly encouraged, mistakes are expected, rules of conduct are understood, and everyone trusts that everyone else cares about the collective goal. Then you can really have it out.
S till, in most disagreements, face is at stake in some way, and while getting out of sight of an audience is one way of lowering the identity stakes, another way is to give face – to affirm your adversary's ideal sense of themselves. When you show me that you believe in who I am and want to be seen as, you make it easier for me to reconsider my position. By being personally gracious, you can depersonalise the disagreement.
Sometimes that can be as simple as offering a compliment at the very moment your adversary feels most vulnerable. Jonathan Wender, a former cop who co-founded an organisation called Polis that trains US police officers in de-escalation, has written a book about policing in which he notes that the act of arrest is a moment of potential humiliation for the suspect. Wender argues that when police officers are making an arrest, they should do what they can to make the person being arrested feel better about themselves.Advertisement
He gives the example of arresting a man he calls Calvin, suspected of violent assault: "The officer and I each took hold of one of Calvin's arms and told him he was under arrest. He began to struggle and was clearly ready to fight. Given his large stature and history of violence, we wanted to avoid fighting with Calvin, which would inevitably leave him and officers injured. I told Calvin, 'Look, you're just too big for us to fight with.'"
Wender writes: "Officers can de-escalate a potential fight by affirming his dignity, especially in public." It is in a cop's interest to make the person they have arrested feel good, or at least less bad, about themselves. This is common sense – or at least it ought to be. It is amazing how often people commit what you might call the overdog's mistake: when, having achieved a dominant position, they brutally ram their advantage home, wounding the other party's sense of self. By doing so, they might gain some fleeting satisfaction, but they also create the adversary they do not want.
Wounded people are dangerous. In Memphis, when I visited a Polis training session, I watched as the instructor told the class that when he was a cop, he had seen officers hit suspects after they had been cuffed, sometimes in front of the suspect's friends or family. Not only was that wrong, he said, it was dumb: the act of humiliating someone in an arrest "can kill your colleagues". There was a grave murmur of assent in the room. Suspects who have been humiliated do not forget it, and some extract terrible revenge on a cop – any cop – years down the line. Humiliation hurts the humiliators and those associated with them. In a study of 10 international diplomatic crises, the political scientists William Zartman and Johannes Aurik described how, when stronger countries exert power over weaker countries, the weaker ones accede in the short term but look for ways to retaliate later on.The death of consensus: how conflict came back to politics Read more
Adapted from Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together by Ian Leslie, published by Faber on 18 February and available at guardianbookshop.co.uk
Nov 08, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org
The great realist thinker Hans Morgenthau stated that a fundamental ethical duty of the statesman is the cultivation of empathy: the ability through study to see the world through the eyes of rival state elites. Empathy in this sense is not identical with sympathy.
... It makes for an accurate assessment of another state establishment's goals based on its own thoughts, rather than a picture of those goals generated by one's own fears and hopes; above all, it permits one to identify the difference between the vital and secondary interests of a rival country as that country's rulers see them.
Jul 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kadath , Jul 27 2020 18:46 utc | 8
Re: James #1,
With respect to "bullying works", in international diplomacy it usually does since weaker powers have more to lose in a direct diplomatic crisis with a larger power. This is not to say that they won't push back, but they will be far more strategic in where they do. In essence, weaker powers have fewer "red lines" but they will still enforce those, while greater powers have more "red lines", because they have more power to squander on fundamentally insignificant issues. However, weaker states will still remember being abused and oppressed, so when the worms turns while they won't be the first to jump ship, they will be more than eager to pile on and extract some juicy retribution once it is clear they will not be singled out. I suspect the Germany will be the bellwether, when (if) Germany breaks from the US on a key aspect on the transatlantic relationship that will be the signal for others to start jumping ship. If Nordstream 2 go through, then there will be a break within 5 years; if Nordstream is killed, then the break might be delayed for 5 years or more but there will still be a break when the US pushes Germany to support the next major US regime change war in the Middle East.
Jul 05, 2020 | zwischenzugs.com
Particularly useful is the simple advice to keep asking what Voss calls 'calibrated questions' that begin with 'What' or 'How' in order to put the onus on the other side to help solve the problem. The starkest example is given at the beginning of the book. When told: 'Give us a million dollars or we'll kill your son', rather than saying 'No', he says, 'How am I supposed to do that?'. This makes the demand the hostage-takers problem, and sets up the conversation for a genuine negotiation, while buying time and gathering more information about the situation from the antagonist's responses.
Other advice includes:
- Use a 'late-night DJ voice' to keep the conversation calm
- Start with 'I'm sorry'. It always works, is free, and makes them more likely to help you
- Name / label their feelings 'You probably think I'm an asshole', they will open up and calm further
- Mirror their words, then wait. They'll keep talking
- When getting their agreement, make them articulate the implementation. This makes it more likely the outcome agreed will happen
Catarina C.5.0 out of 5 stars Reviewed in Germany on 3 December 2018I am sorry, but should I review this book?
If you read this amazing book, you got the reference. You know how important it is to ask questions and let the other part feel they they are in control during the negotiation. Throughout the book, you will get a comprehensive guide with a plethora of actionables that you can and will want to use immediately in any negotiation.
Some of my favorite tips for improving your negotiation skills are:
* Keep asking (the right) questions in order to lead the negotiation to the outcome you desire.
* Focus on open-ended questions instead of those that only allow a bipolar - yes or no - answer.
* Slow the negotiation process down.
* Make your counterpart feel safe enough to reveal themselves and their deepest needs / motivations.
* Mirror someone else's behavior if you want them to rethink their position.
* Convey that you are listening. Show empathy by describing to someone how they really feel.
* Make a list of the worst things the other party can say about you and revert those accusations in your favor.
* Do not fear hearing the word "no" and do not stay away from conflict. Conflict is what triggers the actual negotiation.
* While negotiating, look for the magical words "that's right". At that moment, you know you have the full attention of your counterpart.
* Be mindful of the adjective "fair" and cautious when dealing with abstract deadlines.
* Ask "how" and "what". Use "why" sparingly.
* Choose to ignore provocations and emotion-based attacks.
* Prepare well for any negotiation and try to identify your counterpart's negotiation style.
* Exploit any similarity between you and your counterpart.
* Review everything you hear from your counterpart and try to gather any relevant piece of information that might change the course of the negotiation.
So many valuable tips in such a concise book! Besides being easy to read, this book is indeed a must-have, because the author, Chris Voss, spent several decades in the FBI. He definitely practised what he preaches and specialized in negotiating hostage situations.
To wrap things up, I cannot recommend you this book enough. Please read it! You will get techniques that actually work and are endorsed by authentic examples from the daily life of an FBI agent.
Finally, in the appendix, you will get a negotiation preparation 101 to help you with your "one sheet", a file you should have with you to every negotiation that might occur.
Apr 02, 2020 | hub.jhu.edu
Cam carl sanders • 9 hours ago ,M_H_Florida_43 Cam • 3 hours ago ,
Feb. 27: "It's going to disappear. One day -- it's like a miracle -- it will disappear." -- Trump at a White House meeting with African American leaders.
March 7: "No, I'm not concerned at all. No, we've done a great job with it." -- Trump, when asked by reporters if he was concerned about the arrival of the coronavirus in the Washington, D.C., area.
March 9: "So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!" -- Trump in a tweet.
March 10: "And we're prepared, and we're doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away." -- Trump after meeting with Republican senators.
Florida and Texas governors just implement lock down within the last 24 hours and still no federal mandate. Certainly not to blame for the terrible situation but denial and lack of any cohesive plan will result in more deaths the necessaryoriginalintent Cam • 2 hours ago ,
Congratulations...you posted comments made by an elected official that isn't a medial professional. Yes...it's ignorant...but, anybody getting their medical information from a U.S president (or any president) is an idiot. Trump is A republican, but is NOT the republican party.
""It's going to disappear. One day -- it's like a miracle -- it will disappear."
Was there a reason to edit out the rest of the statement?
"It's going to disappear. One day it's like a miracle, it will
disappear. And from our shores, you know, it could get worse before it
gets better," Trump said. "It could maybe go away. We'll see what
happens. Nobody really knows. The fact is the greatest experts I've
spoken to them all, nobody really knows."
"and still no federal mandate"
That's because states are responsible. Were you thinking we have enough federal resources to impose such a federal mandate?
KBD , Reviewed in the United States on August 9, 2011
Feb 29, 2020 | www.amazon.com
With its first edition in 1994, The Diplomat's Dictionary quickly became a classic reference book, offering professionals and enthusiasts practical information, witty insights, and words of wisdom on the art and practice of diplomacy. The expanded second edition contains 476 new entries, including definitions for selected up-to-date terminology and hundreds of additional quotations from across cultures and centuries.>
Diplomat , Reviewed in the United States on August 16, 2016Dictionary of Selected Quotes in Diplomacy but NOT Diplomatic Dictionary
This is NOT a "Diplomatic Dictionary", but a bunch of quotes! Nevertheless, it might be interesting for students, but the book should be called "Dictionary of Selected Quotes in Diplomacy".
Fun to have, but practical? maybe not?
This is a nice book to sit down and read through at random, but it really is just what is says, a dictionary of quotes and advice. So I am glad that, seldom as it happens, when I have spare time I can sit down and glance through it. Is is something that I will ever sit down and read cover to cover? Probably not.
Feb 29, 2020 | www.amazon.com
Todd P. Hubbard , Reviewed in the United States on May 5, 2016I use this book in my Ethics course, to ...
I use this book in my Ethics course, to help students understand office politics. If my students don't understand office politics and how to maneuver, they might be drawn into unethical behavior. The book is also important for new faculty members who want to get along, while honoring other faculty members.
Luis Mansilla , Reviewed in the United States on September 30, 2006Engaging and concise introduction to Diplomacy
This book is a excellent introduction for people into diplomacy and statecraft. In its brief pages, you learn all the definitions, such as the functions of a embassy or a consulate, the way to conduct state relations, the skills for diplomacy, a topic about Intelligence and much more.
Now I understand why sometimes an ambassador is call for consultation!
Jun 30, 2019 | www.theguardian.com
Little wonder that discussions about politics can leave us feeling that we are banging our heads against a brick wall – even when talking to people we might otherwise respect. Fortunately, recent psychological research also offers evidence-based ways towards achieving more fruitful discussions. Ask 'how' rather than 'why'
Thanks to the illusion of explanatory depth, many political arguments will be based on false premises, spoken with great confidence but with a minimal understanding of the issues at hand. For this reason, a simple but powerful way of deflating someone's argument is to ask for more detail. "You need to get the 'other side' focusing on how something would play itself out, in a step by step fashion", says Prof Dan Johnson at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. By revealing the shallowness of their existing knowledge, this prompts a more moderate and humble attitude.
In 2013, Prof Philip Fernbach at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues asked participants in cap-and-trade schemes – designed to limit companies' carbon emissions – to describe in depth how they worked. Subjects initially took strongly polarised views but after the limits of their knowledge were exposed, their attitudes became more moderate and less biased.
It's important to note that simply asking why people supported or opposed the policy – without requiring them to explain how it works – had no effect, since those reasons could be shallower ("It helps the environment") with little detail. You need to ask how something works to get the effect.
If you are debating the merits of a no-deal Brexit, you might ask someone to describe exactly how the UK's international trade would change under WTO terms. If you are challenging a climate emergency denier, you might ask them to describe exactly how their alternative theories can explain the recent rise in temperatures. It's a strategy that the broadcaster James O'Brien employs on his LBC talk show – to powerful effect.Fill their knowledge gap with a convincing story
If you are trying to debunk a particular falsehood – like a conspiracy theory or fake news – you should make sure that your explanation offers a convincing, coherent narrative that fills all the gaps left in the other person's understanding.
Consider the following experiment by Prof Brendan Nyhan of the University of Michigan and Prof Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter. Subjects read stories about a fictional senator allegedly under investigation for bribery who had subsequently resigned from his post. Written evidence – a letter from prosecutors confirming his innocence – did little to change the participants' suspicions of his guilt. But when offered an alternative explanation for his resignation – to take on another role – participants changed their minds. The same can be seen in murder trials: people are more likely to accept someone's innocence if another suspect has also been accused, since that fills the biggest gap in the story: whodunnit.Facebook Twitter Pinterest Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Sajid Javid and Rory Stewart taking part in a BBC TV debate earlier this month. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA
The persuasive power of well-constructed narratives means that it's often useful to discuss the sources of misinformation, so that the person can understand why they were being misled in the first place. Anti-vaxxers, for instance, may believe a medical conspiracy to cover up the supposed dangers of vaccines. You are more likely to change minds if you replace that narrative with an equally cohesive and convincing story – such as Andrew Wakefield 's scientific fraud, and the fact that he was set to profit from his paper linking autism to MMR vaccines. Just stating the scientific evidence will not be as persuasive.Reframe the issue
Each of our beliefs is deeply rooted in a much broader and more complex political ideology. Climate crisis denial, for instance, is now inextricably linked to beliefs in free trade, capitalism and the dangers of environmental regulation.
Attacking one issue may therefore threaten to unravel someone's whole worldview – a feeling that triggers emotionally charged motivated reasoning. It is for this reason that highly educated Republicans in the US deny the overwhelming evidence.
You are not going to alter someone's whole political ideology in one discussion, so a better strategy is to disentangle the issue at hand from their broader beliefs, or to explain how the facts can still be accommodated into their worldview. A free-market capitalist who denies global warming might be far more receptive to the evidence if you explain that the development of renewable energies could lead to technological breakthroughs and generate economic growth.Appeal to an alternative identity
If the attempt to reframe the issue fails, you might have more success by appealing to another part of the person's identity entirely.
Someone's political affiliation will never completely define them, after all. Besides being a conservative or a socialist, a Brexiter or a remainer, we associate ourselves with other traits and values – things like our profession, or our role as a parent. We might see ourselves as a particularly honest person, or someone who is especially creative. "All people have multiple identities," says Prof Jay Van Bavel at New York University, who studies the neuroscience of the "partisan brain" . "These identities can become active at any given time, depending on the circumstances."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
You are more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly. You will also come across better to onlookers
It's natural that when talking about politics, the salient identity will be our support for a particular party or movement. But when people are asked to first reflect on their other, nonpolitical values, they tend to become more objective in discussion on highly partisan issues , as they stop viewing facts through their ideological lens.
You could try to use this to your advantage during a heated conversation, with subtle flattery that appeals to another identity and its set of values; if you are talking to a science teacher, you might try to emphasise their capacity to appraise evidence even-handedly. The aim is to help them recognise that they can change their mind on certain issues while staying true to other important elements of their personality.Persuade them to take an outside perspective
Another simple strategy to encourage a more detached and rational mindset is to ask your conversation partner to imagine the argument from the viewpoint of someone from another country. How, for example, would someone in Australia or Iceland view Boris Johnson as our new prime minister?
Prof Ethan Kross at the University of Michigan, and Prof Igor Grossmann at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, have shown that this strategy increases "psychological distance" from the issue at hand and cools emotionally charged reasoning so that you can see things more objectively. During the US presidential elections, for instance, their participants were asked to consider how someone in Iceland would view the candidates. They were subsequently more willing to accept the limits of their knowledge and to listen to alternative viewpoints; after the experiment, they were even more likely to join a bipartisan discussion group.Facebook Twitter Pinterest The front pages of two New York newspapers on Friday 2 June 2017, as Donald Trump pledged to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. Photograph: Richard B Levine/Alamy
This is only one way to increase someone's psychological distance, and there are many others. If you are considering policies with potentially long-term consequences, you could ask them to imagine viewing the situation through the eyes of someone in the future. However you do it, encouraging this shift in perspective should make your friend or relative more receptive to the facts you are presenting, rather than simply reacting with knee-jerk dismissals.Be kind
Here's a lesson that certain polemicists in the media might do well to remember – people are generally much more rational in their arguments, and more willing to own up to the limits of their knowledge and understanding, if they are treated with respect and compassion. Aggression, by contrast, leads them to feel that their identity is threatened, which in turn can make them closed-minded.
Assuming that the purpose of your argument is to change minds, rather than to signal your own superiority, you are much more likely to achieve your aims by arguing gently and kindly rather than belligerently , and affirming your respect for the person, even if you are telling them some hard truths. As a bonus, you will also come across better to onlookers. "There's a lot of work showing that third-party observers always attribute high levels of competence when the person is conducting themselves with more civility," says Dr Joe Vitriol, a psychologist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. As Lady Mary Wortley Montagu put it in the 18th century: "Civility costs nothing and buys everything."
• David Robson is the author of The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Do Stupid Things and How to Make Wiser Decisions (Hodder & Stoughton, £20). To order a copy go to guardianbookshop.com . Free UK p&p on all online orders over £15
May 09, 2019 | www.youtube.com
During a Senate Intelligence hearing, things got heated between Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Republican senators on the committee.Liz Tunks 1 day ago
" Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
Kamala Harris Is a BULLY. She never lets the person she is questioning to Answer the Questions . I can't stand her.
Carrot Top 1 day ago Y
es or no sir??/?? ...she doesn't even wait for a response. Clearly she has major emotional issues.
brian kingman 2 hours ago
Kameltoe Harris is rude, and lacks the skills necessary to be a Senator
philip gensler 4 hours ago
She slept her way into government sleeping with Willie Brown ex San Francisco mayor Diane Byers 7 months ago Lol what a low class, bottom feeding , smirking ghetto rump!!!!
Ronnie Williams 4 hours ago
She has no civility or decorum. She tries to trip people up.
scott albert 1 year ago
She's lucky the Chairman didn't publicly reprimand her when she raised her eyebrows and then talked over the top of him when he told her to suspend. She's just a bully
Michael Kuhl 7 months ago
The Home-wrecker (Harris) should be in jail, not the Senate (look up Willie Brown, then do a little research on how Ms. Harris was GIVEN her Senate seat). You will be amazed.
Angela Hagerman 8 months ago
Looks like Kamala is taking lessons from Maxine Waters
Tommy Rocket 1 year ago
MSNBC.. what you are saying is completely untrue. Sessions was trying to answer her questions honestly and when Kamala Harris realized she was not going to get the answer her engineered question was designed to achieve, she immediately pressed on with her next question without giving Session the chance to finish.
Typical smoke and mirrors witch hunt over something that just does not exist. I would love to Kamala Harris question Lorreta Lynch... it would last for 48 hours
Kathi Culbreth 7 months ago
Harris is the most ENTITLEMENT MINDED, disrespectful, without integrity hack at this hearing! Please vote her out
Joe Pyne 1 year ago
She seems to have a problem with CIVILITY.
ar1793 7 months ago
I live in California. Harris is an embarrassment to us all!!!!
Marcfj 3 months ago (edited)
The woman is neither as intelligent nor as talented as she would have us believe.
nemo227 7 months ago
This happened in 2017 but Kamala is a very slow learner. Today, 9/13/2018, and she is STILL the same Kamala "bully" Harris. Is she working for the citizens or simply trying to make political points?
Matthew Panko 1 year ago
I have listened to her a few times now and her pattern never changes. I personally think she is a very Rude person.
Apr 10, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Attorney General William Barr told senators during a subcommittee hearing that he has concerns about how the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was conducted. But Barr said he had "no specific evidence" to cite during the hearing showing there was anything improper about the investigation.
Barr also rejected Sen. Jack Reed's, D-R.I., characterization that he was putting together a "panel" to look into the FBI's handling of the case.Robert Lee James Welch 3 weeks ago Barr looks very tactful. Cold. He has a whole strategy lined up. This is how you play human chess. Habitual line stepper 4 weeks ago It was a witch-hunt and it was an illegal treasonous attempted coup of of the United States government
Dawn Markey 4 weeks ago (edited)
I respect this man. "I'll use my own adjectives" Brilliant! He refuses to play their silly games. And they won't bully him, that's for sure.
Eagle Twenty1 4 weeks ago
The previous administration, through illegal and unconstitutional spying, used a weaponized intelligence agency to try and perform a Coup on a president elected by the will of the people. Seth Rich was the DNC leaker and he paid with his life ( ref John Podesta Wikileaks email about " making an example of the leaker") and to cover all that up, along with the embarrassing content of the emails, came the " Russia collusion " red herring. This is ridiculous, as a proud patriot its disheartening. The only way for America to heal is for those guilty of treason to be brought to justice.
mike deitz 3 weeks ago The Special Council does not have authority to exonerate to begin with.
Harry Dickus 3 weeks ago Dems are grasping for straws now. The coin will be flipped very soon for anyone who has actually watched the whole hearing and listened carefully.
CanadianLoki76 4 weeks ago The Dems is looking for anything to use as a reason for impeachment. They will say we need to impeach him so he can then face Obstruction charges. Even if those charges are virtually zero chance of causing a conviction. Because they are circumstantial. BUT they will still use it as "we just have to remove him via impeachment so he can be tried".... You just know that is the tune they will sing if there even a SLIGHT inclination of a possible charge. The fact AG, DAG and Mueller all said there is no charge to bring forward. It cannot stand up in court. It clearly must be more of a "there is no law broken, but it was morally wrong".. That however = Exonerated because the law works via court and being found GUILTY. So if no charges are brought forward you cannot say he is "guilty" of anything. Joe 3 weeks ago I got an adjective...it was a PALACE COUP!!!
maxwell geary 4 weeks ago It is something to realize a prosecutor cannt exonerated that is not his function . Seams that what we have here is a bunch of ignorant indoctrinated partisans . Let's try for some semblance intelligence
Luke Pare 3 weeks ago Barr is so dignified... definitely the only adult in the room
Best Value 4 weeks ago This is juicy. Wonder what the Clintons are thinking?
Ray bassman 3 weeks ago
Obama will go to prison also for his secret "Project Pelican" at a FL. port- treason!!! see clip here. @uu4s
Amy Bork 3 weeks ago
The Obama administration spied on a presidential candidate. Yes, this is much more insidious than Watergate.
Douglas Adams 3 weeks ago
DemoRATS can't figure out that they are deep in a hole in over their heads yet they just keep digging..Blows my mind..
Jerrell Strawn 4 days ago
Attorney General Barr has said he has multiple ongoing investigations about Democrats' attempted (ongoing) coup of President Trump. Democrats are now threatening AG Barr with contempt of Congress charges, impeachment, and removal from office. That's obstruction of justice. CD Jones 1 week ago "I haven't used those terms" is a perfect legal response. Doesn't mean he doesn't agree with the terms, and doesn't mean he won't use those terms in the future. Way to squash the fool Barr!
Susan Giambra 4 weeks ago
So Mr. Barr says Mr. Reed, isn't it naughty that the President used the words "Witchunt, Illegal". Good Lord play with CNN wackadoodles. This man is way above obstructionist games.
zorea 4 weeks ago
They mean Demonrats when they say America. Most americans let the facts form their opinion and know Rosenstein, strolzs and Coomey with others set Trump up for the collusion and the obstruction for a partisan narrative to help the crooks and Congress and deep state (swamp) stay in power.
Jake k 3 weeks ago
I could listen to Barr all day. He has mastered the art of the neutral answer. It's the political equivalent of a poker face. But a bet you in approximately 3 months he is going to crush quite a few people.
Feb 24, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Christi G , 2 days agokeepithd2010 , 1 day ago
Um... this guy, Bregman is a creepy, lying sleezebag. Who cares if Tucker is a millionaire? Who cares where Fox gets funding (don't know, don't care) as long as they let Tucker be Tucker and give HIS opinions and talk about what HE believes matters and gives HIS honest opinions.
Tucker over and over is one of the FEW who tell the truth, one of the FEW who cares about the middle class, and the real problems with immigration.
This guys is speaking gobblygoop because he dislikes conservatives and most likely, by the sound of it, is pro rampant immigration and illegal immigration, which is why he dislikes Tucker.Erik Dale , 1 day ago
The problem as it always is that liberals new give Republicans a chance to speak. This guy cut off Tucker every possible second so you could not hear his rebuttal really sad.Endstation , 1 day ago
The Dutch guy is blunt, but still a moron. Idiots will feel vindicated, but glad they didn't air this rubbish.Giulio Campobassi , 1 day ago (edited)
It's obvious that Tucker Carlson misrepresents the point made by the dutch historian, most probably on purpose. Nobody said that the owners or managers of Fox News "tells you what to say". The main point is that if you would say something different, you would not keep your job, and/or you would not have obtained your job in the first place. That is, Fox News only hires people with your type of political agenda, because your view fits their corporate interests. This is basic capitalist logic and basic economics. They would never hire e.g. Noam Chomsky to host one of their programs. That's the entire point. You get paid by billionaires to say what they want you to say.Amarandum Valdamaris , 1 day ago
Not defending Carlson, or Fox network, but Bregman's strategy was to troll Carlson for a reaction and succeeded. Bregman loses credibility for doing that and also loses credibility for the higher taxes debate for the mega rich, which really does need to be addressed. And as much as Fox is pro-Republican, this channel is pro-Democrat... so buyer bewareMichael Sinclair , 3 days ago
His economic arguments are garbage, but he's correct that everyone's been bought and paid for. We've institutionalized bribery to such a degree that any criticism of it is immediately shut down. Everyone's a shill. Let's all just force them out of power and start over.Rachel Rust , 2 days ago
Weak debating skills there, Carlson. lmaoJNM11787 , 9 hours ago
Tucker agreed with him, that's why he invited him on the show. Instead the historian wanted to virtue signal by saying "oh you didn't get on board fast enough". What kind of argument is that?sdfs , 10 hours ago
Tucker was giving this guy a chance and then he goes all personal attack on tucker...he may have a point but it was still a bad moveegodeosum , 1 day ago
Bergman planned this as an attack and continued to talk over Carlson with his childish lisp so he couldn't argue his side. Carlson could have handled it much better, but this guy clearly did this whole interview as a 'gotcha' attempt.Atlee Lang , 1 day ago
I don't get what's so great about this. If you don't think Carlson Tucker an honest broker decline the interview. His talk at Davos was great but I'm not going to celebrate someone with whom I agree on certain matters successfully trolling someone with whom I don't. This video will get around for a while in its bubble, get a few chuckles, and accomplish nothing.Patrick McLeod , 2 days ago (edited)
So this Dutch guy who is brought on to talk about Davos instead makes a bunch of false and insulting comments about the host. He's a liar with no argument. Also he was smug and stupid and boring. I would have sworn at him and kept him off the air as well.Stephen Wayda , 22 hours ago
*I'm actually surprised & disappointed that Tucker allowed himself to become so frustrated that he lashed out with insults. That's actually MUCH more commonly seen among leftists.Aside from that, what happened here was a progressive constantly filibustering his opponent.* He wouldn't stop talking and allow Tucker to answer a question for the 2nd half of the conversation.
He just kept saying stuff like "you're a millionaire owned by billionaires" and "you just don't have an answer", etc etc. Literally every time Tucker would begin to answer this guy's accusations, the guy would IMMEDIATELY interrupt and repeat the ^above platitudes again, effectively filibustering the conversation.** If that's what progressives(commenting here) think qualifies as "destroying someone in a debate", or "telling truth to power", then it's no wonder you are so supportive of modern radical leftist strategy!
Because the modern leftist strategy is to DOMINATE conversations, prevent honest & open debate by shouting down speakers so they can't get their points across.
Or simply prevent ANY speaker with a different opinion from giving speeches in the first place. That's pretty standard on most university campuses now(and increasingly so in the news media as well). Many professors deceptively indoctrinate and radicalize their young, impressionable students. Then they ensure the students don't don't come into contact with any ideas that may contradict that indoctrination, by refusing to allow different political & ideological opinions to be heard. In other words, they are running these schools in the opposite way that they should be. Some times non-leftist speakers can't be prevented from visiting and giving speeches.
The leftist strategy in that case, is often for the radical professors to manipulate their more easily manipulated students into showing up at the speech for the sole purpose of continually shouting down the speaker. In the mean time, other radical leftists will often be rioting outside. Bottom line, Marxism, socialism doesn't stand up to scrutiny, which is the entire reason why leftists try so hard to prevent diverse opinions from being heard!Three One , 2 days ago
Tucker Carlson is far better than the vast majority of puppets on air.Dominiq Valentin , 2 days ago
Carlson tried to find common ground with Bregman. Well that didn't work.bob brown , 2 days ago
Tucker honestly just got too emotional this mans points were both easy to refute and childish and Tucker clearly wasn't thinking straight.Simon Payne , 4 hours ago
well to be honest, that wasn't fair play from the dutch guy either. He is basically calling Tucker a thieve and a crooked man that takes money from billionaires and also tells him that he doesn't do his job well and is an opportunist live on air to his face. Well what sort of reaction can you expect?? yeah i mean, he could and should have handled it with more class, but still this dutch guy ins't a "hero" or some sort of visionary. He got invited to talk to a show and took the opportunity to deliver some low punches and insult the guy who brought him on.Bill Garrity , 1 day ago
The reason why it didn't air was because it was boring. The Dutch guy had to chance to talk about his brave trip to Davos where he spoke the truth to power but then never told us what he did. He had a platform to make a case and instead just started whining at Tucker 'Tucker Man Bad' - yawn. Who wants to see that, it's boring. Tell us what your master plan was, entertain us or inform us but if you do neither there's no reason to listen to your self important nonsense.vivthefree , 1 day ago
In the middle of the interview, it became clear that Bregman was simply trying to set up Carlson for an attack and it didn't work. Carlson agreed with everything Bregman said, and that put Bregman off balance. So Bregman scrambled and began hurling insults and essentially name-calling as well as acting as though Carlson was disagreeing with him when he in fact was not.
I think Bregman made a mistake here. He should have held his tongue and not insulted his host. He has too much to offer to waste it on taking a shot at Fox News. Fox News are easy to pick apart, and if their viewers can't see how bad they are by now, one interview like this will not change their minds. Better to put an idea before them; better to try bring about broad consensus on the issue.
Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:
This is the U.S. formula for negotiation:
- Because U.S. officials depend on power and money, they consider negotiations as a business deal.
- The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals.
- They demand the other side to give them immediate benefits and if the other party refrains from giving in, the U.S. officials will create an uproar so that their partner would give up.
- The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises.
- And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises.
- This is the U.S.'s method of negotiation. Now, should one negotiate with such a duplicitous government?
Jul 24, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
An oft-repeated bit of advice in America is never to talk about religion or politics. Sadly, the reason is that Americans are dreadful at talking across political lines. When I lived in Australia in the early 2000s and adopted a pub, by contrast, I found the locals to be eager to debate the topics of the day yet remain civil about it. That may be because Australians in generally have mastered the art of being confrontational by lacing it with humor and/or self deprecation.
By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms of ostracism have become a new normal.
And now that we have anger over Trump directed at not the best or most useful objects, like Russia! Russia! as opposed to his packing of the Federal bench, or his environmental policies, or even his push to privatize Federal parks, a lot of educated people expect, even demand, that their friends be vocal supporters of the #Resistance.
For instance, at the San Francisco meetup, I spent a fair bit of time with a woman who had held elected offices in her community. She was clearly distressed by the fact (without using such crass terms) that her friends had turned into pod people. They all believe that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker are authoritative. When she tried arguing with them about what they've read in these outlets, they shoot back, "Oh, so you believe in fake news?" She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence, or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased.
One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets. She also said they would not consider foreign sources, even the BBC or Der Spiegel or Le Monde.
Readers also discussed their frustrations in Links over the weekend. For instance:
Montanamaven , July 22, 2018 at 8:28 am
"Shame" looks to me like the word of the week. I've heard from liberal/Democrat friends that they are "ashamed" of this President. They are embarrassed by his behavior at NATO and Helsinki. I asked, "Who are you embarassed in front of? What does that mean?" Then I got a link to a Thomas Friedman article .
I'm not sure how to answer my friends with grace. I don't want to be condescending by saying "Really, you read Tom Friedman without a red pen in your hand?" What should I say? "I had no idea you were a globalist although you are kind of anti labor, right?" Any suggestions for talking to Dems about this last week?
My usual answer is "I don't know why we need NATO now that the Cold War is over. Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Putin wanted to join NATO. Russia, especially the populous West is more European than Asian. So why don't we have Russia join NATO. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Amfortas the Hippie , July 22, 2018 at 10:06 amon talking to democrats. LOL. you and me both. Haldol as a prophylactic, perhaps. The Berners are a lot easier but the "mainstream" dem people have been difficult to talk to for some time too many triggers and blind spots. They've become as reactionary as the tea party.. The aversion to figuring out what we're FOR must be overcome.
... ... ...
Hamford , July 22, 2018 at 6:10 pmMontanahaven, great post, and I don't know the answer on how to talk to Dems or the general gammit of duopoly supporters, but I have been working on refining a technique I heard Tim Black talking about: "drop a few lines, and walk away". I am working on inserting a few judgment free comments without argument, however it requires patience in listening to the ramble of the other side. A few examples in my recent life:
- Hillary Dem: "But Mueller found Russia was hacking. Blah Blah, Blah, 17 intelligence agencies"
Me: Did you know in 2003 Mueller helped lead us into Iraq and testified before Congress pushing WMD intel. [I did not follow with anything about along the lines of "Is this guy trustworthy."]
- Trump Repub: "People are killing each other in the streets, blah blah freeloaders, murder rate going up, blah blah, this country is not the same, what happened to our country"
Me: "People are desperate, Americans are addicted to opiates and will get it however they can, but someone peddling marajuana will get 10 years in prison, but the Sackler family who wantonly pushed opiates on all of America are worth billions" [I could have argued that American crime rate has gone down since the 80's, but I just wanted to divert their attention to a part of the current problem, not to start an argument]
A few weeks later these folks repeated these talking points as their own, which is a win in my book. I have been trying to drop stuff as subtly as possible and hope they find their own way. People get more entrenched on their viewpoint while arguing, and more words often means less average impact per word. My sample size is admittedly low right now, so I will continue observation.
Another approach, although it takes a great deal of patience, is to go Socratic and ask the true believers in your circle to provide the support for their views. You may still be stuck with the problem that they regard people like Louise Mensch or Timothy Synder or (gah) James Clapper as unimpeachable.
Of course, not everyone is dogmatic. On my way back to New York, I sat next to a Google engineer (PhD, possibly even faculty member at Cornell since he'd gotten some major grant funding for his research, now on an H1-B visa and on track to have to leave the US in the next year+ due to Trump changes in the program) who held pretty orthodox views. He wanted to chat and we were able to discuss the Dems and even Russia. He even thanked me for the conversation as he was getting off the plane. But I knew I was lucky to find someone who wasn't deeply invested in his views, or perhaps merely not invested in winning arguments.
Any further tips or observations would be helpful to everyone. Things will only get more heated as the midterms approach.MassBay , July 24, 2018 at 6:25 amQuanka , July 24, 2018 at 8:25 am
Nice comments. It is all about ego. Most of us become invested in our own position and will not surrender, because it is OURS!!ScottS , July 24, 2018 at 12:14 pm
This is true. This is why I like Hamford's idea of information nuggets. You have to let people think you are on their side while they come around to your ideas more or less on their own. If you give someone a good nugget that they take in as their own, then you have more leverage to convince them of something grander.
And listen. Just listen. You don't have to agree with people to give them time and space to be heard. They are more likely to reciprocate if you do.David Miller , July 24, 2018 at 6:31 am
Letting people "talk it out" works for strangers and acquaintances. They'll eventually run out of road or realize they've monopolized the conversation and give you a chance to react, even if only out of politeness.
I find closer friends and family will chew your ear off mercilessly, and once they start, you're trapped. If you start poking holes in their beliefs after they've gone on for a while, they'll feel betrayed. I find it best to say "that's nice" and walk away to maintain your sanity. Don't mess with tribalism, you'll always lose.notabanker , July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am
Ha ha these posts resonate with me – my mother is a committed Rachel Maddow watcher and my best friend is a Trump supporter.
And both of them are otherwise very nice people and rather similar in terms of personality, interests, and outlook aside from red team/blue team foolishness.
What I like to do with both of them is use the term BushBamaTrump. And at the slightest bit of pushback just jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three. It never gets through and you really can't change people, but still. Gives me a bit of pleasure to at least throw a little wrench into their silly partisan blinkered world viewhemeantwell , July 24, 2018 at 8:31 am
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does.
I find it difficult to break this construct without coming off as arrogant or cynical. I readily admit this feature in myself could be a bug.Amfortas the Hippie , July 24, 2018 at 6:47 am
jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three
Yes. Even though disagreements appear to be about issues, there's an underlying personal partisanship that often drives conversational breakdown. This is particularly true for people on the right. Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through.Newton Finn , July 24, 2018 at 10:45 am
Hamford's approach is one that I have used with the people I live around(supermajority Repubs, altho much of that is habit and/or single issue apathy is the only growing demograph)
Introducing doubt, "short, sharp shock", and then they worry over it for a day or a week, and later they seem to have incorporated it into their weltanshauung.
That is, indeed, a win.
I've much more experience, given my habitus(central texas wilderness) with culture jamming and otherwise undermining the orthodoxy of republicans. To talk about important things with them, one must avoid numerous trigger words that cause salivation or violent conniptions.
Finding these rhetorical paths has been enlightening, to say the least. like talking about unionism by using the Chamber of Commerce as an example, or playing on their own memories of the Grange or the Farmer's Co-Op or even going directly at the cognitive dissonance, as in "hey, wait a minute if we have freedom of religion, aren't I by necessity free to be a Buddhist?"
Similarly, I've found that using the language of Jesus gets results, unless my interlocutor is too far gone into the whole warrior Christ thing. I'm still working on how to do this with Team Blue.
Like with the R's, the D's have an emotional attachment, and a psychological need, to avoid believing that their party is in any way less than pristine and above board.
Similarly, I remember a discussion of the Puma's (Hillary's 08 supporters) wherein they were so caught up with Herstory(!) that an attack on (or even criticism of) Hillary was an attack on their Identity.
Stages of Grief applies the acceptance we wish for is a big step for most people, because the manifest problems are so huge and complex and intertwined that acknowledging them feels like giving in and even giving up.
It's a big problem, and I thank you for addressing it.
The forces arrayed against civil discourse are huge and well funded(which is, in itself, a sort of indictment and indicator)Michael Fiorillo , July 24, 2018 at 11:44 am
Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form.
One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them.
I have come to believe that the Russiagate attacks on Trump are driven not by reason but by pure hatred, a sin which always blinds. While there are many reasons to oppose much of Trump's policies and actions, we must not allow ourselves to wallow in personal hatred of the man himself. If Jesus doesn't work here for some of Team Blue, MLK, who taught the same message, is an excellent alternative. Take away the visceral hatred of Trump, and he will be opposed, much more reasonably, ethically, and effectively.readerOfTeaLeaves , July 24, 2018 at 12:06 pm
I agree: whenever possible, Trump the individual should be ignored, since too many people seem unable to separate the man from the systems, processes and interests in play.
When it's all about Trump, he wins. You'd think people would have realized that by now, but take a look at Alternet, where it's literally "All Trump All The Time," and you see how trapped in their fears and illusions liberals are.
As Lambert and others insist, make it about issues and policy; that's how people can (eventually, hopefully) be reached over time. As the saying goes, they lose their minds in crowds/herds, and will only regain their sanity one at a time.
The added benefit is that ignoring Trump's provocations goes a ways toward depriving him of oxygen. Ignoring him is one of the few ways to drive him crazy(er), takes away much of his effectiveness, and provides the personal satisfaction of being able to do something against him, even if just passively.ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 6:50 am
I'm really hopeful that Michael Hudson's upcoming book on the roots of Christianity will open up a whole new conversation for people of all views, particularly the role of debt and 'what we owe to one another'. Or when we should, and what we shouldn't, owe one another.
IMVHO, Trump is the apotheosis of a debt-based form of greed, which conventional politics mostly exalts and exacerbates, but doesn't seem to really understand -- and papers over its social costs [see also: FoxNews, CNBC]. In this form of (leveraged) debt, the debtor owes absolutely nothing to society, irrespective of the social dislocations that his/her debt creates.
I find that people who get caught up in Dem/Repub conflicts are unreachable on political terms, but if the conversation shifts to economics, to outrage at financial shenanigans, to who 'owes' what to whom, the emotional tone shifts and the conversations are much more engaged.
The R's that I know tend to affiliate with 'lenders', but have an abhorrence of debt. They seem weirdly incapable of grappling with the social and political implications of debt. To them, debt is a sign of weakness. I find myself struggling to grapple with their worldview on the general topic of 'debt'.
The D's that I know tend to at least be able to think about debt as a means to an end: an education, a home, a business idea. But they seem to experience debt as a form of guilt, or powerlessness, a lot of the time. The people in my life who fall into this category are very careful with money, but they are also capable of carrying on a conversation about social meaning of debt.
I don't think it is any accident that the two most articulate, informed voices in current politics are on the 'left', and their expertise and focus is on debt: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I suspect that is because debt is one of the most fundamental social-political-cultural issues of our time.Bugs Bunny , July 24, 2018 at 7:02 am
I do come across as a bit of a nutter, and bloodthirsty to boot. However, in my defense, I am increasingly encountering extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation.
The Third Way 'faux left' movement is running out of steam as the inequality that it was designed to enable takes hold, and disenchants those that the movement required to at least be neutral in order for it to do its 'work.' The Right wing has always cultivated a sense of being oppressed in order to cultivate the sense of 'belonging' to a 'special' and 'chosen' people. I have been called "dirty socialist" and even less salubrious terms so many times, I've developed somewhat of a thick skin to the insult. The problem with that is that those who are doing the insulting are dead serious in their obloquy. This can escalate into actions. Therein lies the rub. the step from verbal abuse to physical abuse must be guarded against and, if encountered, short circuited. Hence, the comment about the probable bad results of trying to crash someone's SHTF refuge.
I have worked with several ex-cons during my work life. Jail is the pressure cooker of power relations for Western society. All the ex-cons said that threats, even when coming from obviously superior physical specimens must be responded to quickly and decisively. As one man put it, "Even if you have to take a beat down. Make the point that you will fight. Once is usually enough. After that, people in jail will leave you alone." Another man related the tale of a small man in prison who was being groomed for 'bitchdom' by a much bigger man. "The big guy poked the little guy in the chest and started to say something. The little guy grabbed the finger and broke it. Then this tiny tornado tore into the big guy. Man! Nobody f -- -d with the little guy again. He was crazy everybody said. Some of the older cons said that he was smart."
It may not be relevant yet, but America certainly does seem to be sliding into a full blown Police State. As such, the etiquette of prison is slowly being imposed on the civil society. Pure power relations are becoming the norm. This manifests in our more genteel disputations.
So, my present reply to people who take me to task for not voting for Her Royal Highness is to say; "Thank you for giving us Trump. Without your gallant efforts, we would have had a decent government, under Bernie." Then, as one of the above comments suggests, I walk away, and make sure our Urban Bug In Bag is ready.ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 6:52 am
That is a frightening observation and I believe it is unfortunately accurate. Relations in the workplace certainly have resembled this since 2008. Civil society was next.Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 10:01 am
Skynet ate a longer comment. Short version: "Thank you for running Hillary so Trump could win."ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am
A brilliant compaction. And nice (fascinating being even better desc.) to see the longer version as well. Skynet apparently liked it too.
My poor wife has somewhat 'come around' (been dragged along) because many of the predictions (that I get from NC)seem to materialize in one way or another, but on the flip side we have lost what we thought were real friends (fortunately few), largely because of my inability to shut up (at least I don't do it until asked some hard to get out of question) combined with insufficient command of a given subject – alas, all given subjects it seems.ex-PFC Chuck , July 24, 2018 at 6:57 am
We do find out who our 'real' friends are when we go a little 'off the reservation' with subjects having a significant emotional content. I have found that I also discover personal biases by observing what subjects being 'rejected' by others give me pain. I have been surprised at some of my personal biases. Don't be too hard on yourself about those things that you need to study more. Everyone has those kinds of subjects. I certainly do. Yesterday's thread on the lowly apostrophe was such a wake up call to me.ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 7:10 am
It seems to me that the longer the person has supported the Democratic Party the more they are resistant to changing their views. The affiliation comes to resemble that of a football fan to her favorite team. People who've changed their political affiliation over the course of their lives, and especially those who have done so relatively recently, are more open-minded and willing to consider evidence contrary to their current views.Di Modica's Dumb Steer , July 24, 2018 at 10:12 am
Not to quibble, but your observation takes on the appearance of a 'chicken or egg' problem. As the Political Fundamentalists showed, politics is a long term game. That's one reason that Lamberts comment about the Democrat party and their 'missing' ground game is so pertinent.polecat , July 24, 2018 at 11:58 am
Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that things would really change.
The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years.
I think there are many out there, struggling like I did. They'll show. Eventually. I'd say that the famous line about the center not holding applies here, but I'm likely missing a ton of context.Steve H. , July 24, 2018 at 6:58 am
My 'turn' was when Nancy P. swiped "impeachment" off the gilded table in 2006, Right • After • The • House • Elections. So, when shortly there after, while listening to Obama give his inaugural address, all I could say was "we'll see ??" . Then came his cabinet appointments, and from then on the d-party lost me with their passive-aggressive "We'll have to $ee what's in it AFTER WE VOTED FOR IT" FU tactics.ChiGal in Carolina , July 24, 2018 at 8:38 am
Mediation in kindergarten words: Listen, Talk, Ask, Agree, Write.
Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's always the weather. That's universal.
Which blogger was it, trying to change the world when he realized he was only reaching the 5% who thought like he did, & stopped? Think how hard it is to undo economics class learnin' and understand MMT.
Politically, these are not going to be new customers. I can't find number of new voters for AOC, but turnout was less than 1 in 5. She gained trust by knocking on doors. You can't reach the frontal lobes if the amygdala is signalling threat.
If you find points of agreement, you can move the conversation to universal. Then to concrete and material.kimyo , July 24, 2018 at 6:59 am
This dovetails with hamsher above, whose defiines success as hearing his talking points adopted by those he has dropped them on. The key is to be nonjudgmental .timbers , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am
there are two statements which have worked in my recent exchanges with liberals:
1) Obama has bombed more nations than Bush
2) no one person did more to put donald trump in office than hillary clinton (extreme, indisputable malfeasance against sanders in the primary)
although many seem completely ready to discard 'russian collusion' i still hear 'why is he trying to be friends with putin?' on a regular basis.
any criticism of obamacare is immediately discarded, even though many know someone who has health insurance but doesn't have health care.
i keep trying to argue that democrats are best served if abortion is constantly under threat. that most democratic politicians strongly prefer this situation, as it would otherwise be close to impossible to motivate people to get out to the polls. (or, likewise, republicans and gun rights) so far, this doesn't seem to work.
calling out tesla as a nonsense scam is working pretty well, though. (monorail!)
also, pointing out that new research shows that wifi/cellphone exposure increases miscarriage risk is starting to gain traction. i cringe everytime i see a toddler playing with an i-pad. (obviously not a liberal issue, but it helps to dispel the fog of complacency)Chris , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am
Here is my general approach, good or bad towards Hillary "liberal" or establishment think or whatever you may call it. I think it helps put the burden of proof to the fake news'ers
On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
I ask them to "show me the money" if they can point to any evidence to support the claim Russia hacked. Depending on how much time I have, I can shoot it down (like the click bait social media example that is full of holes) but there is so much non-sense out their I am always up on the latest.Marshall Auerback , July 24, 2018 at 9:19 am
Long time NC reader in the DC/Maryland area.
Re: discussing what's happening with people I just gave up. Partially because I couldn't keep calm in the face of being labeled a "white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger." Partially because the medium for debate my friends and I were using was Facebook, which is really not a great tool for serious discussions. Partially because it took so much time and energy and garnered no rewards.
Most of my circle of friends ardently believe the following:
(1) the Democrats are significantly different from the Republicans and suggesting otherwise is lying. This gets you the most violent reactions from most people.
(2) all or most of what Trump is doing is a significant departure from the Obama administration.
(3) withholding votes or voting for other candidates than "electable Democrats" is equivalent to voting for fascists.
(4) US citizens who live in depressed economic areas are to blame for their own problems because they vote against their own interests and won't move to better places.
(5) increased immigration, increased globalism, and free trade agreements like TPP are policies we should support.
(6) Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. are not monopolies and anti-trust law should not be used to break them up.
(7) solutions to inequality in public education should not include busing children from poor areas to wealthy areas. Or vice versa.
(8) our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must continue.
(9) we need identity politics in this country.
(10) the world would be better off if Hillary was president. P.S. she was robbed by Russians, misogynists, and electoral manipulation from the fascistic Trump campaign.
When I try to mention that all of those points are debatable at best, and admittedly I do that with varying degrees of success, they do not accept it. Any of it. They find discussions of what happened during the Obama administration which either lead to, or was similar to, what Trump is doing now tiring and painful. Mentioning how poorly the HRC campaign was run, how HRC laundered money through local state dem orgs, the wasted millions in consultants, the lack of campaigning in key states, globalism, etc. get you a soulful vomiting of Russia/Misogyny/Fascism. They will ask why you focus on the Democrats, and not the Republicans. It's the Republicans fault we're here and their voters deserve rock suffer.
Humor or analogy doesn't work on this topic either. If you mention something like both parties blame outsiders for their troubles, except Republicans blame people from Mexico and Democrats blame people from Michigan, you get angry stares. If you mention both parties want to go back in time to a better, safer place, except for Republicans it's an imaginary 1950 something and for Democrats is an imaginary 2006, you'll end up drinking alone.
I realized that the only thing I was doing was aggravating my friends and hurting my cause. They're all too high strung to have discussions. They don't want to consider that the status quo ante that they think was great was only "great" for a select portion of the country. They might have admitted that progressives and leftists weren't happy with the Obama administration in 2016. They have no space for that kind of thinking now. So I logged out of FB and Twitter, deleted the apps and spend the time doing other things. I will talk to people about this stuff if they're interested and if it's in person. I stop when I see their body language shift to 'uncomfortable.'
The other thing I've been doing is working to support local candidates who believe in th kind of policies I want to see in my community. I think that's a much better way to use my time and political energy.
Good luck to anyone who wants to try and fight this battle with words. No one is reading or listening anymore. They just want red meat and a torch to join their preferred mob. And with what's happening if you post something a boss or other person finds objectionable, I strongly recommend the virtues of self censorship and keeping your mouth shut until this time passes.Shane Mage , July 24, 2018 at 9:27 am
"being labeled a 'white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger'" Welcome to the club!Chris , July 24, 2018 at 11:02 am
Please. When mentioning Facebook bots, *always* put the scare quotes about the word "friend."flora , July 24, 2018 at 11:29 am
These were all people who I know and associate with off line. What surprised and saddened me was that they couldn't leave an argument behind.
I can leave an FB discussion on FB. I have other topics to discuss when I'm with my friends. They can't do that anymore.
It was that fact more than anything that lead me to believe there was no benefit in trying to post articles or participate in social media discussions. No one is listening. Everyone in my socal circle is feeling too raw to have measured discussions about how we got here and where we could go next.flora , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am
I've experienced the same from long time friends or who I thought were friends. For months after the election all they could talk about was 'Hillary was robbed.' I let them vent because it seemed like a grieving time for them. After six months or so, when they still could not talk about anything else even if I tried shifting the conversation to family or gardening or something, then I knew they were caught up in more than grieving. I'm starting to wonder if this is the fury of people who suspect they've been conned and are determined to prove they were not conned. 'The most qualified candidate ever' was a terrible campaigner.
My outlook now is that people determined to prove they were not conned then will need to find their way back to calmness.Reply ↓Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:40 am
adding: she couldn't turn out the vote. simple as that. imo. but not something people who are determined to prove they were not conned want to hear.christy , July 24, 2018 at 7:01 am
In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 , there was a passage about people, many of them on the left, who view those who disagree with them as truly evil people.
What comes next explains a lot about what we've seen since the election. Quoting Stone:
"This is a very immature worldview that produces no coping skills."
Hence, the meltdowns that go on and on and onmarym , July 24, 2018 at 8:56 am
Yes! Plz someone tell me a way to discuss immigration at the border and separating families. The word on the street that 10k of those 12k children being separated were ACTUALLY being 'trafficked' and WITHOUT their REAL parents in the first place.
There are a lot of Dem Nuts on facebook that harrassed the heck out of me and since I posted #walkaway, as an astute BERNIE supporter, this has SHOCKED many and I been unfriended 5 times.
8 million MISSING children and our FBI has only reunited/found 526?
Someone plz tell me wth?Carla , July 24, 2018 at 10:02 am
Please don't post such serious charges about trafficked children without sources. As far as I know not even the Trump administration in its own defense is claiming to have identified trafficked children at those levels.
I'm going to try to put together a comment later today about what we know of the current situation, the need to understand what was happening pre-Ttrump, and what may be happening to the children now after separation. It will probably be on the links thread, as it's not directly related to the coping issue of this thread.christy , July 24, 2018 at 7:10 am
Thank you, marym. Hope I can find your comment later.fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 7:40 am
Joker Hitler Burgler Spy https://t.co/LA9pTj0jQ0 This is how he does it.Reply ↓Amfortas the Hippie , July 24, 2018 at 8:29 am
So, I made the below comments in today's LINKS. But I will emphasize a different aspect here – in the Links comment my point was the reporter was wrong (about Obama representing the 1% – I think he did). Here my point is that she enforces dogma and insinuates disloyalty in any heretic.
July 24, 2018 at 7:25 am
Why So Many Reporters Are Missing the Political Story of the Decade Washington Monthly. Versailles 1788.
Frankly, someone needs to tell this guy (i.e., Bernie Sanders) to sit down and shut up for a while. Reinforcing the notion that a party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent contributes to the divide and reinforces Republican lies.
party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent
BESIDES believing that Obama DIDN'T represent the 1%, I'm sure this reporter believes:
1. The earth is flat
2. Elvis is alive
3. The living head of John F. Kennedy is kept at the CIA
4. There are 2 Melania Trumps
5. that Hillary got more white women voters than Trump .
other examples are welcomefresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am
on that inability to confront the less stellar record of Obama: it's the same process that happened(and is happening, I'd argue) on the Right .and that happens, over and over, when science chips out another block in the wall of religious certainty.
Fear of the disenchantment of having been wrong, or fooled they'll resist tooth and claw from admitting being descendants of apes .even when they feel/know in their secret hearts that it's true.
With the Dems(non-Berner subspecies), it's acute right now.
They must defend the paradigm at all costs, because to do otherwise is to open the door to a frightening and incomprehensible world that would demand their attention and resolve. For so long, the ire was safely directed at the Right it's their fault we can't have nice things, they are a regressive existential threat, omgomgomg. This is rendered tolerable by the belief that the Dems are their team, on their side and the polar opposite of the hateful Right.
This latter set of assumptions was thrown into existential even ontological doubt by numerous reports, surveys and even by plain old look-out-the-window observation.
The belief and the Reality couldn't be reconciled(America is not already great for a whole bunch of folks) and the Nature of the newly perceived Reality was so ugly, and so huge, that they recoil into paradigm defense.
a giant edifice of bullshit is inherently unstable, it turns out.
The challenge, as I see it, is to acknowledge that the Way We Do Things is falling apart, and that it should fall apart, if we really believe all the high minded rhetoric we perform to each other and then to try to figure out what system/paradigm we'd like to replace it to use the chaos and destruction of the trump era to our advantage.
So more and more, in lib/dem/prog* social spaces, I'm asking "what are we for?"
(* the confusion of tongues here is both instructive and disheartening and encouraging(!). asking folks to define such things is resulting in less fury and spittle and froth, and more with either silence or thought and honest questioning. at least in my little circles )Reply ↓Colonel Smithers , July 24, 2018 at 7:53 am
Amfortas the Hippie
July 24, 2018 at 8:29 am
I can't beat what notabanker said:
July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does ..
"Independent" self sufficient Americans .join groups called political parties that as a rite of passage evidently require the adherents to believe idiotic, inconsistent things.
But another thing is that the number of people who even belong to political parties isn't that great. But they set the agenda.
It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .????Reply ↓
NOW, of course there were real differences between Obama and Bush .Obama droned a LOT more.PlutoniumKun , July 24, 2018 at 11:59 am
Thank you, Yves and the community. This situation applies in the UK, too. It's amazing to meet people who took time off to protest against Trump, but won't against homelessness or austerity.Watt4Bob , July 24, 2018 at 8:15 am
Yes, the Irish media used to be moderately independent, but they are getting in line too. Over the weekend I nearly threw my copy of the Irish Times away in disgust at reading some of the articles from writers I'd consider pretty clear minded normally. They are just gradually absorbing the message by osmosis I think.
When someone here rants about Trump, I usually say something like 'well,what exactly has he done thats worse than anything Obama did to, say for example, Libya, or Honduras?' I'd love to say I get a thoughtful response, but thats rarely the case. Interestingly, I find that its the people who profess themselves as non-political or don't read the newspapers much who are more open to discussion.fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:45 am
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to ' self-correct '.
It's been very painful to realize that ' things ' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
Over many decades, both the ' other teams ' have pointed fingers at each other and invited us to believe that our problems originated on the other side of the fence, when in reality, as many of us now understand, our two political parties have all the while, worked in collusion to forward the interests of the rich and powerful, the result of which has been wide spread, and extreme economic hardship for most of us.
This failure of our politics has engendered a wide spread visceral hatred of our leadership class, that so far, has remained loosely in the control of the two political parties, but, and I think this a good thing, there is a dawning understanding among a significant number of us, that the hatred of Hillary, and her party, is well deserved, and rooted in exactly the same reality as the hatred of George 'W', and his party.
All that hatred of the political parties and their leadership has so far, resulted in Trump, which in an odd sense is evidence supporting optimism that the two parties strangle-hold on our lives is not invincible, and that there exists a wide-spread thirst for change.
I think that thirst for change is the point where we have an opportunity to make conversation fruitful, and find common ground.festoonic , July 24, 2018 at 8:34 am
July 24, 2018 at 8:15 am
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to 'self-correct'.
It's been very painful to realize that 'things' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
I don't know how many times I have heard that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away"
REALITY, that voting for a democrat* or a republican is throwing your vote away, never seems to sway anyone.
* maybe there are individual democrats that are worth voting for, but that is usually due to some screw up by the party apparatchiksmacnamichomhairle , July 24, 2018 at 8:39 am
I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources. There's a guy running for local city council whose campaign I intend to work for, and anyone campaigning on Medicare-for-All (free at the point of care, of course!), a minimum wage humans can live on, and anything else beneficial to people who work for a living will get my jealously-guarded vote. But the rest looks more and more like the re-arranging the proverbial deck chairs.Eric , July 24, 2018 at 8:41 am
I also think that this is not the time to try to argue. Many people (liberals) seem to have been shocked to their core by Clinton's loss and the arrival of the barbarians. The world has come unhinged, it appears to them.
That is a deeply unsettling feeling that can induce a deep distress and panic. I think it's also new to most liberals because things in America had proceeded pretty much sensibly, even during the Bush years. Also, I suspect many are at a stage in life when they have settled their own sense of their lives on a platform of comfort with the status quo as personified by the liberal consensus; or they are deeply committed ideologically for other reasons of self-identity.
The liberal establishment everyday is whipping the flames of people's panic and resulting outrage, and has created a huge firestorm. The "resistance" gives people a way to make sense of the world again. They will hold onto the "resistance" with all their power because admitting that the "resistance" is in any way flawed throws them back into a chaotic world. So any argument about this stuff derives from a deep place and is not conducive to reasoning. You threaten them, if you try to take away their "resistance" bear.
I also think it is better to put energy into other things, like building positive political movements or structures of life that extend "under" the current debate. (If you go down below general political buzz words, you can sometimes find agreement across political barriers.)
I still make general comments non-locally, but I do not engage with people individually about this. It's useless right now.GeorgeOrwell , July 24, 2018 at 8:41 am
IMO, these factors contribute to the problem:
- – Humans in general are highly social animals
- – Humans usually have a strong need to identify with a tribe
- – In stressful times humans seem to want to simplify their lives, which can be done by joining a tribe, which allows you to NOT think for yourself
- – There are a lot of physical and mental benefits (and perceived benefits) to being a member of a tribe
- – Humans have a remarkable ability to do things that are, in the long run, not to their own benefit
- – Humans will too often defend their own self image to the death, because they don't have the self respect that comes with a developed personality, and thus support their self-value through the groups they have chosen to identify with, the tribes they feel they belong to
- – Tribalism unfortunately seems to be mostly about screwing other tribes
Some additional tribes: Wall St bankers, corporate CEOs, police, teachers, Congress, your town, your state, sports fans, etc.TroyMcClure , July 24, 2018 at 10:45 am
Very relevant commentary to which I can completely relate. I had to leave a certain FB group because it became increasingly apparent that these mostly PhD, higher education types were not really interested in being the resistance or fighting fascism. No, what they really want is a safe space/echo chamber in which they can whine about everything that has gone to shit while completely ignoring how they themselves and the 'Democrat' party facilitated said shit's construction. The level of cognitive dissonance was simply mind boggling.
No rational thought about how going along to get along contributed to the current situation, that the lesser of two evils still gets you to the same destination. My working theory is they suffer from social detachment disorder due to their comfortable government (many tenured professors) jobs. As I attempted to explain to one of them, the economic damage created by the policy responses following the GR directly contributed to the door opening for Trump or something like him. These PhD types seem to be completely willing to overlook the social injustice of the Obama tenure, growth of the surveillance state, economic monopolies etc.
Many of these people have not had to worry about a paycheck for some time, thus the complete disconnect from the realities of the current economy. They talk a good game about fighting for social & economic equality, but when push comes to shove many of them are willing to throw their working neighbor under the bus so they can keep their comfortable (not rich mind you) tenured positions and lifestyles. If nothing else, the level of cognitive dissonance in this group certainly made me think about tenure from a much different perspective. Certainly not an encouraging picture of higher ed for sure.jrs , July 24, 2018 at 11:37 am
Thomas Frank has repeatedly pointed out that credentialed professionals were the most reliably Republican voting block in America for decades. Now they're firmly democrat. Did their politics/interests change? Doubtful
The decades-long purge of any hint of leftists from the American university system (which started right here in California in the 50's then spread out) has led to our extremely conservative tenure class of professors.
I've had the same experience with these credential class types. Their politics are uniformly anti-labor and elitist. There's no convincing them.jrs , July 24, 2018 at 11:23 am
I think that it is seldom clear in discussions what differentiates credentialed class from not. Just a bachelors degree? Bachelors degree attainment is over 30% now among young people. They are luckier than many who don't have the degree, but with every white collar job wanting a bachelors degree (often for fairly lowly work that didn't used to) and with a bachelors degree no guarantee of anything (nope not even that white collar job) I'm not sure its all that. (BTW I don't have a bachelors degree, but I'm in no good shape economically at all, if I had a degree maybe I'd be allowed to live, that is all .. so I consider it but without illusion at 40 something).
I think what really protects people's jobs etc. is licensed professions (lawyers, doctors, CPAs, landscape architects etc.) and in some cases those requiring post-bachelors attainment including years of additional training (physical therapists etc.). Well and unionization in the public sector obviously and tenure in academia.TroyMcClure , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am
it's not in their class interest to care, well the tenured ones, the adjuncts it depends on who they identify with, with the working class or with the tenured ones whose life they can't get anyway.
The average office worker would be more likely to care, although usually not political, and though they usually pretend otherwise, and though they are taught to sympathize with the bosses, there is a chance they might at some level ultimately know the are pawns in a game that they don't control and that can eat them alive (unlike those protected with tenure).David , July 24, 2018 at 8:45 am
Ask the professors at Vermont Law School, 75% of whom just had tenure stripped unceremoniously. It's coming for them all. I give it less than 10 years. These tenured types total lack of solidarity within their group or any other will finally come home to roost.
My dear friend has been slogging through the trenches of the adjunct lifestyle for the better part of a decade and it's only now at this late date starting to dawn on him that he'll never get regular work at the university. Those waves and easy smiles from tenured faculty hid what they were thinking all along, "Better you than me pal!"Darius , July 24, 2018 at 8:47 am
Not my country, but this is less a question of talking to "liberals" (who have their own problems) than of talking to conspiracy theorists. All over the world, certain groups of people are finding that history has suddenly, in the last few years, veered off in directions it has no right to. Since they refuse to believe they are responsible, however distantly, and since they seek, as we all do, simple explanations for complex problems, it must be a conspiracy. And anyone who questions the existence of a conspiracy is by definition part of it.
Because conspiracy theories serve essentially emotional and ideological purposes, rational discussion is by definition useless, and studies show that pointing out that people are factually wrong actually makes them more likely to cling to their beliefs.
I'd recommend a site which discusses and dissects conspiracy theories (www.metabunk.org), and which has discussion threads on how to argue with conspiracy theorists.Jeff N , July 24, 2018 at 10:33 am
I was a Keynesian. I thought that meant the same as being a Democrat. Obama cured me of that mistake. Now, I'm in the Modern Money camp. Explaining that to paygo liberals is an even bigger chore.Carolinian , July 24, 2018 at 8:59 am
Yes, although I've found that when I simply explain basic MMT concepts to either repub or dem friends, I come across as non-political. Because neither dems or repubs support it.
And I gain instant credibility/solidarity with them when I agree with their knee-jerk reaction that state/local governments ARE constrained.Amber Waves , July 24, 2018 at 9:02 am
Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists
That's spot on. Perhaps it has to with out lack of a set class structure which makes people socially insecure. Plus the rise of the meritocracy means that the worse thing you can call someone these days is "stupid" meaning uneducated. Life experience gets little credit at a time when knowledge has been overly formalized.
However we can take some comfort in a history where periods of intense conformity such as the 1950s provoke periods of more liberated thinking as in the 1960s. Things do seem to be changing–hopefully not for the worse. Patience with those vehement NYT and WaPo readers may be necessary until the fever breaks.Utah , July 24, 2018 at 9:02 am
My concern is that we have a poisoned public space, as it is hard to find the facts in the press or the body politic. Hard to find common ground to discuss or solve problems. I think our democracy, what is left of it, is in deep trouble. I agree that we need to talk to our neighbors about issues of the day. It is hard to overcome the do not talk about politics meme of the last 30 years.Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 9:10 am
I try really hard these days to talk about the system. Trump is a product of the system that we created and we need to change to better everyone.
I try to be compassionate above all else. Trump supporters are not evil or selfish. They believed the lies of someone telling them he was going to save jobs. We, as a nation, believed the lies of Obama's "hope and change" and it got us nowhere except a little more hopeless. Its not about political affiliation. Its about the world oligarchs having entire control. I refuse to be divided by what they want me to be divided by.Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 9:38 am
A fascinating and often painful subject. Being mostly a dismal failure in my own attempts, I've been keenly interested in and come up with several 'types' (hardly exhaustive) that seem gifted with varying degrees of success in communicating though I'm not sure about convincing others. Making others sit up and think (I should say 'having that effect' rather than 'making') might be as far as most in this select group will ever get but I strongly suspect such exchanges can ultimately be very powerful (meaning the 'other' will almost always do the changing of pov, or the expansion of understanding, under their own steam and in their own time).
Trite as it may seem, those who have a strong core of honesty, or who always tend to gravitate toward truth, have the most success in the above. They are the ones who seem to make headway under the most ridiculously difficult or impossible conditions. That they often have a strong command of their subject seems (to me) to be a natural outcome of the affinity for truth rather than truth being a result of knowledge breadth. They aren't always likeable but are often admirable.
After that, there are the 'warm intellectuals' and note that this categorization does not preclude honesty. My father was such. He had a way of making all present feel welcome and valuable despite the intricacy of the discussion. One usually had to ferret out his opinions or his 'take' on something as he rarely made an issue of it. But his conversation and 'presence' always made fairness and decency seem cool; the natural order of things, and I know for a fact he had a profound influence on at least some people – some hard core ones as well.
The ability to bend and compromise for a greater good (or in some cases for another purpose) is yet another 'type' who I see as potentially having considerable power in their exchanges with others. I see them as having emotional energy and an ability to see through the 'facts' or to 'suspend' them for a period. This is obviously a tricky – perhaps flawed (although in reality they are all flawed) – category, home to intellectuals inclined toward the Machiavellian as well as do-gooders quickly judged and relegated -not always justly- to the lot of suck-asses, and I image it has mixed results. It includes but is not the sole domain of those with the facility to put themselves in anther's shoes (and occasionally get lost in so doing).
I am only describing those who can influence others of extreme or highly contrary positions and beliefs, not the relatively larger group who can be eloquent in their own right but are not of note in dealing with made-up minds. Since we are all banging about under varying degrees of illusion , the truly or profoundly successful ambassador, along with his/her close cousin the successful negotiator, even the mundane every-man commenting on a blog or at a social gathering that provokes others to reassess, is a rather unusual individual indeed. That there is some preponderance of such individuals on NC does not contradict the rarity in general.
Perhaps just a very long winded way of saying, "Don't be too hard on yourself."Bite hard , July 24, 2018 at 9:11 am
What I meant to say in the last sentence is, "I won't be too hard on myself ", but put in the general form while thinking of it applying to me. I don't presume to give others such advice (though I imagine it holds for others as well ).
Also, since the process of changing or simply being influenced, always takes time, it is almost impossible to see or assess; an unhappy circumstance for those who try at it rather than let it be an outcome..danpaco , July 24, 2018 at 9:23 am
Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers.
Sarcasm is not to be confused with irony, which allows people to react mildly along "ha, ha, ha, oh my, what a world we live in". You can always escape from irony but a good, hard sarcasm put the moral dilemma right out there and people cannot escape their own crap poorly founded opinions.Skip Intro , July 24, 2018 at 9:24 am
Political talk has really become a competition as opposed to a conversation. If the conversation decends into competition I'll try to ask "are there are any rules to this game?". When all else fails, go Socratic. Their answers can be enlightening.ambrit , July 24, 2018 at 11:58 am
I think it can be effective to do a virtual cannonball into the kiddie pool of their belief system. Like Maddow squared but willing to connect the dots.
'Of course the Russians put Trump in, but the whole hacking story is part of a scam and a distraction. There's barely a connection between the leaked emails and the election results. They are a sideshow to get Assange. No, the real story is that the Russians had a high level operative inside the DNC. That's how the emails leaked. That is why the campaign was diverted away from Wisconsin, for example, in favor of Arizona. It is why the campaign pulled strings to get airtime for Trump during the GOP primary. It is why the DNC relied on bad software models and ignored experienced campaigners. Heck, it is why the DNC ran Hillary, even though she was over 43% animatronic by the end of the primary.'
Then you reveal that the mole is Mook.
The more facts you can weave into an acceptable narrative, the more secret landmines you can slip into their bubble, until the critical mass of cognitive dissonance causes a ruptureReply ↓William Hunter Duncan , July 24, 2018 at 9:24 am
Watch out for the response being a psychotic break. I have had that happen when I got too carried away with 'weaponized humour' in my arguments.Reply ↓
I mean not just angry outbursts directed in my direction but actual punches. These times are becoming physically dangerous.voteforno6 , July 24, 2018 at 9:26 am
I will generally, when I encounter a true believer Left or Right, let them get comfortable, agreeing with their critique of the Other until they say something grotesquely hypocritical or patently false or deranged, and then I will call out the hypocrisy/bs by way of pointing to it in their own party, then segway into something like 'MSNBC is part of the DNC, CNN is mockingbird CIA/DEEP STATE, and FOX is Rupert Murdoch's geriatric limp dick. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist, because I am liberal about some things and conservative about others and hypocrisy sucks. Wtf are Americans left and right going to pull their heads out of their buttz and realize the country has been gutted and the people put in debt servitude to globalist corp, bank, billionaire and eternal profiteering war/surveillance machine? Oh, and capitalism looks like a death cult if you are a pollinator or an ecosystem, so wtf about your bloody party ."
Which rant I can sustain as long as the person can hear it. Sometimes with liberals though I just ask why they think Hillary would have been a better president, and they usually realize at some point they have tied themselves in knots.Reply ↓Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:44 am
One quibble: It should be "Russia!Russia!Russia!", not "Russia!Russia!" – it makes the Jan Brady jokes a little funnier.
Anyway, with some people, I'm not sure if people should really be trying to "talk to" liberals, with the intent of changing their minds. I remember similar discussions going on in Daily Kos around 2006 or so, but there they discussed how to "talk to" conservatives, or people in rural areas, or "low information voters," as they liked to call them. It does seem a little condescending – some people believe what they believe, and you're not going to be able to argue them out of their positions. As macnamichomhairle posted above, the election of Trump really seems to have caused a psychic break in certain segments of society. I'm not sure if agitating them any further would really be that helpful. It's gotten to the point that I wonder (only half-jokingly) if Trump Derangement Syndrome will be included in the next volume of the DSM.
So, if you want to argue with people about something, make it sports. It seems that Americans are much more civil and mature when it comes to arguing about that topic. That is, unless they're from Philadelphia.Reply ↓fresno dan , July 24, 2018 at 11:52 am
From Philadelphia? Whatsa matter with that?
Says Slim, who was born in Pittsburgh and raised outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.Reply ↓vidimi , July 24, 2018 at 9:28 am
http://dailysnark.com/vikings-fans-claim-eagles-fans-took-hats-off-peed/Reply ↓Newton Finn , July 24, 2018 at 11:11 am
thank the lord i don't live in the united states.
when facing russia! putin! arguments, i usually retort with a big "i don't care" and paraphrase Mohammed Ali: "ain't no vladimir putin ever set the middle east on fire and crash the global economy".Reply ↓Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:45 am
Utter genius line.Reply ↓Carolinian , July 24, 2018 at 10:10 am
Me? I use these arguments as an opportunity to practice my Russian language skills.Reply ↓pretzelattack , July 24, 2018 at 10:58 am
Caitlin Johnstone has a column on how to respond to the Russiagaters.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-russiagaters-eb0b5e3602a3Reply ↓The Rev Kev , July 24, 2018 at 10:20 am
thanks for that link. the debate is very familiar to me.Reply ↓Arizona Slim , July 24, 2018 at 11:47 am
At first I was going to suggest using a lead pipe on so-called liberals as a coping strategy but I think that this is too serious to joke about. Think about this. The US midterms take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 and only 16 days later you will have Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables this year?Reply ↓
Look, it is a real bad idea to tie your identity to any political party. Too much putting your faith in princes here – or princesses too for that matter. I don't think that the US voting system helps either where they want you to register for Party A or Party B which, when you think about it, kinda defeats the purpose of a secret ballet.
If people with phds are drinking the kool-aid and are not using their critical thinking skills, then how can you expect average people to be convinced? I am not sure that you can but what you can do is undermine their beliefs. Don't let them shape the battlefield of argument ('Or course everybody knows Russia did it!') or else it is a losing game. In any case, this whole thing reeks of the old identity game where those in power set two sides to fiercely combat each other while skimming profits all the way to the bank. An example of this? Democrats and Republicans hate each other's guts but when it come time to vote $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest people in the country then it was bipartisan all the way, baby.flora , July 24, 2018 at 12:18 pm
My birthday comes shortly after the election. I'm thinking of throwing a party for myself and inviting liberal Democrats, libertarians, Republicans, Greens, independents, and those who refuse to be classified.
It'll be fun!Reply ↓vlade , July 24, 2018 at 10:21 am
Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables this year?
hmmm if the MSM determine too many of the midterm winners are the *wrong* sort of people then watch out for more MSM, Thanksgiving weekend, crazy stories, as in 2016. Properly speaking or not. ;)Reply ↓tokyodamage , July 24, 2018 at 10:27 am
For a discussion to occur, both sides have to be willing and able to listen. While most people claim both, in my experience especially the latter (able to) is a learned skill which majority lacks (of all bents, not just liberals etc.).
Hence after this was tested, I do not discuss anymore, I rant, if I feel like it.Reply ↓tokyodamage , July 24, 2018 at 10:32 am
Talk about small, but 'respectably' sourced news stories instead of whatever's dominating the current news cycle – stories where the DNC spokespeople haven't already poisoned the well by telling people "This is your team's official position, there's no need to make up your own mind."
Give the liberal a chance to make up their own mind on the small story. Chances are that they sympathize with the underdog in that story – showing how 'liberals care'.
Then – if you're in the mood – spring the trap:
"You're absolutely right to be concerned about the underdog in [story A]. The compassion -that's why people like liberals! By the way, why do you think that [famous dem spokesperson] doesn't show the same compassion regarding [morally analogous but more mainstream news controversy B]?"
That's all i got.Reply ↓Brooklin Bridge , July 24, 2018 at 10:39 am
"Russian meddling, eh? That's a scary country. I've been reading about Russia in the 90s. The average life expectancy of the whole country went down by years after the communist government collapsed. Old people dying alone in their apartments from easily treatable illnesses. Yeah, it IS terrible. Yeah it IS disgusting and immoral. Oh by the way, that's around the time they switched to a for-profit medical system like we have. Weird huh?"Eureka Springs , July 24, 2018 at 10:57 am
The inability to talk politics with others of differing views is hardly limited to the US even if it expresses itself in different ways. I have family in France (je suis une pièce rapportée – in-law) and it's almost identical to the US. As even my wife is somewhat of a 'guest' when we go over now, You simply avoid subjects where you know it could get too hot and so do they among themselves. Things are not at all as cut and dry as they were (at least seemed) back in the late 60's early 70's when students AND workers united massively in common cause.
A few years ago, I had a discussion that turned into an argument with a friend visiting from France who is an economist by training but made his pile (of comfortable not gargantuan size) in real estate. It turned around Jeremy Corbyn with my argument that as long as people are really hurting, social/political/economic justice movements will thrive and often succeed in radical change and his argument that 1) he is an economist and therefore knows what he is talking about and 2) Corbyn is simply unacceptable and unworkable in todays economy , c'est tout!
How horribly frustrating for me not to have a good command of the subject, getting hot under the collar is not a compelling argument, (though I didn't let him get away with the, being an economist, braggadocio), but on the good side, our friendship survived the bout and we holstered our pistols for the rest of their visit.Adam Eran , July 24, 2018 at 11:01 am
I find arguments of systemic problems, corruption, absence of actual solutions, divide conquer, class war, rather than D vs R work best.
Ask anyone who has a problem with immigrants why not one politician demands an arrest of a ceo and board members for illegal hiring practices. Put them in jail just for a weekend and things would dramatically change over night. We don't need to cage many thousands of desperate people, just a few greedy ones. Like them or not, quit blaming desperate poor people for crawling through a nasty river and horrific desert to get a crappy job. If the illegal hiring didn't exist they wouldn't come. As for children and adults, once 'we' have them captured, under our control, how they exist is all about us, not them.
And then I shut up. You have to know when to shut up.
At other times I love reminding D's or R's and especially those who are neither, the D's and R's are at best 27 percent of the eligible voters. Independents are far greater in number than they are and 'refuse to vote' for any of them are greatest of all. The D's and R's both have a super majority against them for good reasons which are being ignored at all our peril. That they are not listening, not asking, not representing. They are owned and we are all being played like a two dollar banjo. Fighting for either one of them is exactly what they want and need to keep the con alive.
I keep reminding people this is not professional football, you don't have to watch, much more you are not forced to pick between two teams, please choose neither like most of us are doing because we need an entirely new game. Issues, not personality. Because all owners are always a winner, cashing in, if you do.Quite Likely , July 24, 2018 at 11:11 am
More generally speaking, there are actually clinical trials of ways to be persuasive. Doctors need this for the difficult patients: the heart patients who don't want to take their meds, the addicts who don't want to quit, etc. It's worth looking up: Motivational Interviewing . The link is to a course offered by Citizens' Climate Lobby, designed to help their members deal with climate change denial.
The key, they say, is forming partnerships. Disagreement can take the form of fights, arguments or partnerships, with only the last providing some prospect for relief.
So providing the "perfect squelch" or putting down one's opponent is the very last thing you want to do. Finding areas of agreement and building on those is the royal road to something more positive.
I've also found some of the worst offenders in the environmental community. These are often former bureaucrats who want to keep the (bankrupt) process in place, but encourage a different outcome. They want to be the "good guys," and judge the environmental "bad guys" rather than make a significant change.
Ah, the human ego! Gotta love it!JohnnyGL , July 24, 2018 at 11:12 am
I tend towards the Socratic approach, both for establishment Democrats and the larger universe of people I disagree with in person. It generally means doing more listening than talking, which I know is a downside for some, but letting people talk things out in front of you with occasional nudges in the right direct does a decent job of moving them gradually in the right direction, and leaves them with an impression of you as a friendly good-listener with whom they have some disagreements rather than that asshole yelling about nonsense.marym , July 24, 2018 at 11:34 am
I'm going to throw out my tips that I've used for years to talk politics in various environments (office, family gatherings, etc).
1) Keep context in mind if you're in the office, keep encounters brief and cordial, couple of news headlines as you breeze by for a couple of minutes. Crack a couple of jokes and try to keep it light. But choose your topics with care, especially if you don't know the person really well.
2) Find common ground: with trumpers you can rail against clintons, obamas, and dem hypocrisy. with clintonites you can talk about how excited you are that Ted Cruz has a real challenge, Paul Ryan's retiring, all the damage Trump is doing to the establishment repubs, etc. Tell them the positive thing about Trump winning is that ALL THE OTHER REPUBS LOST .badly!
3) As far as genuinely changing minds .THESE THINGS TAKE TIME! Some minds aren't open to being changed, some will periodically open and close, and some of us are genuinely trying to figure out WTF is going on in the world (which is why we come to NC!) In any case, minds get changed over weeks and months, not a couple of hours.
4) Understand and remember that you DO NOT have all the answers and think about all things you've changed your mind about over the years and it helps to open minds to SHARE stories with people about what changed your mind and why. If you're not sure why you think what you think, go figure out why! :)
5) Once you've got a certain comfort level, don't be afraid to crack a joke that aggravates the other person, but don't overdo it and don't do a lot of public mocking/shaming.
6) When someone else uses 5) on you, practice to make sure you DO NOT get too mad about it. Get thicker skin, if you can't do it .then you aren't ready to talk politics.
7) Yes, that includes people saying ignorant stuff. That doesn't mean you have to grin and bear it, you don't and you shouldn't. Drop a mild rebuke (no more and no less) and change the subject. Don't ostracize or shame. Keep interacting with people, as much as they want to do so. We've all said stupid $h!t at one time or another, we can and should all be able to forgive/forget. I've certainly said my fair share. But also, people do change their minds over time. It's helpful if you can guide them in a positive direction.
8) Talk about the context in which things happen and put yourself in other people's shoes. This is something I've learned a lot in the last few years and people forget to step back and look at things from a high level. I've been amazed at how much more sense things can make when you think more about context.RUKidding , July 24, 2018 at 11:39 am
My coping method is mostly avoidance, but if I did intervene it would be something like this:
I agree Trump is ill-suited to the job and has horrible policies.
If Russia (or Russians) interfered with the election, if Trump and his cronies participated in that, or if Trump and cronies had other dealings with Russian that are illegal, Mueller is the right person to figure it out. His whole career has been defending and strengthening the pre-Trump status quo, the "norms" of the military-industrial-corporatist-security complex. If there's a way to push us back in that direction, there may be no one on earth more committed to that job.
Our job is to examine the impacts of current Trump policy, the roots where applicable in those status quo "norms", issues other than Russia that weaken and corrupt our electoral system, failures of centrist Democrat policies to solve problems; and to promote alternative policies and politicians. None of this will be adddressed by any negative Mueller consequences to Trump, and maybe to a few of those around him.timbers , July 24, 2018 at 11:41 am
Whether it's committed liberals (eg, super strong Big D voters) or committed conservatives, there's really not much point in "talking."
I accidentally said something truthful about Trump's/the Republicans' recent tax law, and my super conservative sister launched into a tirade that came right out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. I hadn't meant to stir the pot, either, and what I said was pretty nothingburger. I let her rant for a few minutes; explained my side very graciously and calmly (mainly that MY taxes have been raised, not lowered as advertised), and then I changed the topic.
I know a very few D voter friends who are starting to pay more attention – it's taken a while but they are – and they're starting to see that Big D is NOT their savior, at least, not as they currently exist. Of course, I have Big D friends who revile Bernie Sanders as the worst of the worst, and they're HORRIFIED that he's a socialist!!!111!!!!! Well, there's nothing to say there.
Mostly if I'm thinking about it, I'll drop in a few salient points – as some other commenters have suggested, above – and then mostly walk away.
The Big Fat Propaganda Wurlizter has done it's job, and HOW. And it's not just about conservatives ranting out the usual Fox/Rush rightwing talking points. Now it's so-called liberals ranting out the latest from, I guess (no tv, never watch), Rachael Maddow and similar.
I can barely ever listen to what passes for "nooz" on NPR, but possibly they get their talking points from there, as well. Some of those talking points now come up regularly in the weekend game shows. I duly noted that "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" had James EFFEN Comey on last weeked. R U Kidding ME???? Of course, I didn't listen.
So, go figure.
Both sides are being heavily brainwashed by our M$M. For me: No TV at all and precious little radio (mostly music stations). And judicious nooz paper reading.
Get my real info at sites like this one.
Thanks to all who comment logically here in reality-land.meadows , July 24, 2018 at 12:02 pm
In general, the way I deal with the liberals, partisan Dems, Hillary crowd or whatever you call it, is in person (I'm not on FB) with this type of statement:
"Not one single piece of evidence has every been presented showing Russia meddled in the election. Not one. We don't even have grounds to investigate such a thing. And what evidence we do have points away from Russia. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now saying Russia meddled in the election, have you learned nothing? Russiagate is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
That usually silences them because they don't have any evidence and some even know that. If they offer "evidence" (like the social media click bait adds) I am usually familiar enough show how silly the examples given are.
I hike regularly w/my buddy who is a 73 year old Nam vet, I am a 65 year old conscientious objector he is blue collar for generations, I am college educated family for generations New Deal Dems forever.
Our concerns in life are the same, the well being of our adult children and grandchildren, our relationships w/our spouses, how to manage our retirements. But Oh do we talk politics! He teases me that I'm a Trumpster because of my deserved critiques of Clinton, Obama and my anger at that gang of liars, as if that means I think Trump and his band of "obligerant" oligarchs are great! (oblivious and belligerent)
The executive branch is a huge about-to-become-extinct dinosaur w/the brain of a tiny reptile, little realizing only the little mammals will survive, while still imagining itself to be king of the place forever.
Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
luke8929 13 March 2018 at 07:03 PMIn a lengthy TV interview March 11, Putin spoke of an episode of his early years in St. Petersburg when he was chasing a rat from an apartment block house where he lived with his parents.
"So I cornered the rat," Putin recollected, "and it suddenly turned back on me. I was scared and fled all the way back up to my apartment, but the rat continued to chase me."
The lesson Putin said he learned from that incident was, "Never corner your opponent" to the point where they turn back and bite.
Jun 07, 2017 | www.amazon.com
- Paperback: 202 pages
- Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (July 25, 2013)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1481246380
- ISBN-13: 978-1481246385
RusskyThe best book for any person who wants to understand how ... , February 29, 2016
The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win (Paperback)The best book for any person who wants to understand how American Courts work! At times we all ask questions like "How can this criminal get off on technicalities if it is obvious that he/she committed crime?", or "How can this be fair?" or "How can a lawyer defend this "bad guy/girl"? This is totally wrong! He/she is a criminal!" The author explains the difference between law and common sense, law and ethics, understanding of crime in legal terms and in laymen words.The book closely examines the logical reasoning of the law professionals , demonstrating the "tricks" used in court rooms. Fascinating reading!!!
WARNING: the book will not prepare you to go to court and defend your case! This is not a "how-to" manual for folks who are planning to go to court. Hire a lawyer if need be.
However, if you want to learn how to present and defend your point (any point, not just legal issues) as an intelligent and convincing person, this book is for you! Chances are, by the time you are done with debating your next case, your opponents will at least respect your opinion (or hate your guts, which still might give you some satisfaction).
This book is for anyone who wants to boost up their skills in logical persuasion, finding loopholes in opponent's logical reasoning.
Lots of interesting and valuable information for a pretty small price! It is written in a short and clear format: each chapter discusses specific idea, giving examples from court cases and average daily life (parent-child, husband-wife, employee-supervisor), concluding with a practical application summary argument vs. counterargument.
So, no reason to read the entire book from beginning to end. One can just pick any chapter and read about how this or that legal (logical) rule can be applied in daily life.
Sept 26, 2015 | The New York Times
Businesspeople generally think of networking as a mutually beneficial meeting for both parties. But that's not usually what it is. Far more often, it is one person asking the other for a favor.
I have been a management consultant, business owner and speaker for more than 12 years. Before that, I was a business executive and a trial lawyer. Along the way I have received invaluable advice from others - guidance that educated me and helped me make important professional connections. Because this advice has been such a great help to me, I believe in helping others in the same way, without expecting anything in return.
During the course of a year I receive numerous requests from people I do not know, asking me to network. I respond by meeting at least once a week with someone who is seeking advice on their careers or businesses, either in person or on the phone.
In the course of these meetings, I have come across people who fall under the category of what I call "networking parasites." These are people who fail to understand that I am giving them information that my regular clients pay for.
I am not alone in this. Doctors, accountants, plumbers, computer experts, lawyers and financial advisers all must deal with people shamelessly asking for meetings, free advice or free services or treatment - without remotely acknowledging that these professionals make their living selling that time and expertise. Over the years, dozens of experts have told me about being accosted at parties and on airplanes by strangers who ask for a free consultation under the guise of "conversation."
Surely you do not want to be the kind of person who antagonizes professionals in this way. So here are some tips to help you avoid becoming a networking parasite.
Margaret Morford is the owner of the HR Edge, a management consulting firm, and the author of "The Hidden Language of Business."
- Make the meeting convenient. Ask for time frames that would work well, and meet at a place that is convenient for them, even if you have to drive across town. If they leave it up to you, give them three options and let them pick the one that works best. Recently, someone asked me to meet him for coffee, and I told him I could make "just about anything work" on a particular Friday. He responded with, "I like to start my day early, so let's meet for coffee near your office at 6 a.m." I wrote back that 6 a.m. was too early, to which he responded, "O.K. Let's make it 7 a.m." If you want me to pull out all the stops for you, this is not the way to start.
- Buy their coffee or meal. Insist on doing this as a sign of how valuable you consider their time and advice. If you are on a tight budget, ask them to coffee, but insist on paying for it by saying, "This is a huge favor to me, so please let me do this small thing for you." If you can manage it financially, try to meet for drinks or dinner after work. You will get more of their attention if you are not sandwiched in during their day.
- Go with a prepared list of questions. People whose advice is worth seeking are busy. They don't have time to sit through your stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Figure out in advance what information you want from them, and send your list ahead of time so they can be thinking about the answers.
- Don't argue about their advice or point out why it wouldn't work for you. You can ask for clarification by finding out how they would handle a particular concern you have, but don't go beyond that. You get to decide whether or not to use their advice.
- Don't ask for intellectual property or materials. I am amazed at the number of people who ask for copies of my PowerPoint presentations and seminar materials to use in their organization, with no understanding that these materials are original and copyrighted - and that's how I make my living.
- Never ask for any written follow-up. It is your job to take good notes during your meeting, not their job to send you bullet points after the meeting. No one should get homework after agreeing to help someone.
- Spend time at the end of the meeting finding out what you can do for them. Do you know anyone who could use their services, or who would make a good professional connection? At the very least, consider writing a recommendation for them on LinkedIn.
- Always thank them more than once. Thank them at the end of the meeting, expressing your appreciation for the time they have spent with you. Follow up with a handwritten note - not an email or a text.
- Do not refer others to the same expert. I just helped someone (whom I didn't know well) polish her résumé and craft her job-search pitch. Then I worked my contacts and helped her land a great new job. The result? I received emails from two strangers, asking me to "network" with them, because the person I had just helped suggested they contact me to do the same for them.
- Ask an expert for free help only once. If the help someone offered you was so valuable that you would like them to provide it again, then pay for it the next time.
- As you ask people for help, always consider how you in turn can help others. At the end of each workweek make a list of the people you have helped, and the favors you have done for which you received nothing in return. If your list is empty week after week, then you really are a networking parasite.
See More "
A collection of "Preoccupations" columns published in The New York Times.
...Scientific advice plays a similar role in crafting agreements on other global issues, ranging from weather and climate change, management of the global commons, cyber security, and even trade and public health. Indeed, the underpinning of almost every durable treaty is such expertise, something that then Secretary of State George Shultz had in mind when he said in a famous 1984 cable to all diplomatic posts: "The revolution in communications, energy, environmental sciences and other aspects of science and technology has … imparted an importance to [science and technology] considerations in foreign affairs undreamed of a generation ago."
... ... ...
The third form of science diplomacy can be thought of as science for diplomacy. Less visible, this activity serves longer-range diplomatic goals by drawing on the deepest traditions of science: the shared values of openness and integrity in the borderless drive for discovery. Even as scientists compete for funding and recognition, they can and do cooperate across countries with wildly different religions, customs, and languages. When scientists do build genuine contacts and achieve concrete results, mutual trust grows among scientific and engineering leaders. In turn, they can reassure wary political leaders of the value of close relations.
Israeli and Egyptian scientists cooperated quietly over many years on agricultural goals and health improvements. Thomas Jefferson fully understood the potential of science diplomacy: "The brotherly spirit of science unites into one family all its votaries of whatever grade, and however widely dispersed throughout the different quarters of the globe." A review of past experiments in science diplomacy, led in the mid-1990s by Alexander Keynan at the New York Academy of Sciences with support from the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, lends credence to this claim.
For example, despite bitter disputes between their governments, Keynan found that Israeli and Egyptian scientists cooperated quietly over many years on agricultural goals and health improvements. Some argue that these projects helped to foster and then preserve a "cold peace" that persists to this day. Another classic case involves physicists from the Soviet Union and United States who held meetings throughout the Cold War, for example the legendary Pugwash talks, to explore concepts of deterrence, to outline command and control measures to avoid mistakes, and to outline concrete possibilities for nuclear arms control.
... ... ...
...the advice of scientists to diplomats remains indispensable.
... ... ...
The New York Times
Send your workplace conundrums to firstname.lastname@example.org, including your name and contact information (even if you want it withheld for publication). The Workologist is a guy with well-intentioned opinions, not a professional career adviser. Letters may be edited.
Are conversations with a human resources department confidential? I'm contemplating retirement in about three years and would like to gather benefit information from human resources now - but I do not want my supervisor to know. Once I decide, I would like to give three weeks' notice.
However, a former colleague tells me that when she gave notice, it appeared as if her supervisor already knew. She'd had three conversations with H.R. before resigning. LOS ANGELES
The short answer: You should not assume that conversations with human resources will remain wholly confidential. And when it comes to a potential staffing issue, H.R. may in fact feel obligated to keep management informed.
Let me back up. "An H.R. professional should maintain the employee's confidentiality to the extent possible," says Edward Yost, H.R. business partner at the Society for Human Resource Management, a trade organization. But that caveat at the end is crucial: H.R. workers, he continues, must negotiate the "razor's edge of balancing confidentiality with the overall needs of the business."
So although managers may not need to be alerted immediately about a potential departure three years in the future, they would almost certainly prefer more than a few weeks to recruit a replacement - a process that can easily take two or three months, Mr. Yost says. Thus, he says, "It's not always realistic for an H.R. employee to say, 'I won't say anything until you put in your notice,' because that's not fair to the business."
Workers often assume there's some sort of H.R. parallel to the confidentiality they'd expect from a doctor or a lawyer. That's not the case, says Debi F. Debiak, a lawyer and labor and employment consultant in Montclair, N.J. Barring circumstances involving, for instance, a medical condition, "there is no legal obligation to maintain confidentiality" about a retirement discussion, she says.
"Once H.R. receives notice of an employee retiring," she says, there may be a de facto "obligation to provide sufficient information to the business unit to plan ahead and ensure a smooth transition." This doesn't necessarily mean that your H.R. contact will make a beeline for your supervisor's office. But he or she might be expected to speak up during, say, a discussion about succession planning.
That said, Mr. Yost says the H.R. worker should be transparent. "No employee should walk out of that office without a realistic expectation of what level of confidentiality they can expect," he says.
Of course, the details at any given company will vary. Mr. Yost says that an employee might choose to have a frank conversation with a trusted H.R. person. If, however, you have doubts (as in this case), you might keep your ultimate plans vague. Perhaps frame your questions as generic inquiries related to long-term or even hypothetical financial or tax planning - without signaling concrete plans to leave.
Setting a Date to Say 'So Long'
I have decided to leave my job early next year to pursue my lifelong goal of hiking the Appalachian Trail. It's a six-month undertaking, and I don't plan to return to the job, although it is a nice one - good pay and benefits, with attentive and supportive managers.
My question is: When is the best time to tell my boss? It's a fairly skilled job position to fill, requiring creative knowledge and some training. It would really benefit the company, I think, to know in advance that it needs to hire someone, and maybe even have me train my replacement, so that there is limited loss of productivity when I leave. Two weeks seems too short, and I don't want to add stress to my manager's plate around the holidays. Suggestions? DURHAM, N.C.
First, assuming that "hiking the Appalachian Trail" isn't a Mark Sanford-inspired euphemism for a more dubious adventure, congratulations on pursuing this longtime dream. Let's hope your manager is happy for you, too. But it's probable that his or her thoughts may turn rather quickly to your replacement.
Let's use the benchmark suggested in the answer to the very different resignation-timing question above as a starting point: Two or three months may not be enough time for your bosses to get a replacement on board for you to train personally - but it's certainly enough notice to keep them from feeling blindsided.
Getting more specific about the timing depends on a mix of practical factors and personal temperament. Your manager would probably prefer to hear about your plans immediately. But I'd recommend waiting until you're absolutely certain that you're really doing this, and that you don't plan to return to the job. Not to be a pessimist, but life is unpredictable, and the last thing you want is to end up trying to rescind your resignation after some curveball event changes your plans.
The Workologist's entrepreneur and manager friends don't like it when I say this, but the logistics of recruiting and training your replacement aren't your problem. (After all, workers are rarely laid off or fired in a way that ensures they have adequate time to "replace" their job in a manner to their liking.) Still, I concede that giving two weeks' notice for a move you've planned for half a year is likely to leave a bad taste in your ex-boss's mouth. It is a good thing to speak up early, particularly if your relationship with your employer is positive.
Just be aware that even the most nurturing manager may suddenly see you as a lame duck or worse the moment you say you are leaving. So give as much notice as you can - without putting yourself at risk.
Jun 19, 2015 | Foreign Policy
...In interviews with Foreign Policy, her European colleagues have described her as "brash," "direct," "forceful," "blunt," "crude," and occasionally, "undiplomatic." But they also stressed that genuine policy differences account for their frustrations with her - in particular, her support for sending arms to Ukraine as the country fends off a Russian-backed rebellion, a policy not supported by the White House.
"She doesn't engage like most diplomats," said a European official. "She comes off as rather ideological."
While European complaints about Nuland's diplomatic style are genuine and fairly ubiquitous, she has also been dealt an incredibly difficult hand.
Nuland frequently meets with senior European leaders who outrank her and delivers messages they often don't want to hear.
In a crisis of this magnitude, many of these delicate tasks would traditionally get kicked up to Nuland's boss, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman. But Sherman has been saddled with the momentous job of leading the U.S. negotiating team in the Iran nuclear talks, giving Nuland an unusual degree of latitude and influence for an assistant secretary.
This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not.
"Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue.
In Europe, Nuland is widely presumed to be the leading advocate for shipping weapons to Kiev - a proposal bitterly opposed by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Greeks who fear setting off a wider conflict with Moscow.
The White House has also argued against providing lethal assistance to Kiev because Moscow enjoys what's known as "escalation dominance," or the ability to outmatch and overwhelm Ukrainian forces regardless of the type of assistance the United States would provide.
Nuland is not the only Obama administration official who has supported arming Ukraine, but in Europe, she has become the face of this policy, thanks to a pivotal event that occurred in February during the annual Munich Security Conference.
At the outset of the forum, Nuland and Gen. Philip Breedlove delivered an off-the-record briefing to the visiting U.S. delegation, which included about a dozen U.S. lawmakers in the House and Senate. Unbeknownst to Nuland and Breedlove, a reporter from the German newspaper Bild snuck into the briefing room and published a report that reverberated across Germany but gained little to no traction in English-language media.
The report said Nuland and Breedlove were pressing U.S. lawmakers to support the shipment of defensive weapons to Ukraine and belittling the diplomatic efforts German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande were making in Russia.
"We would not be in the position to supply so many weapons that Ukraine could defeat Russia. That is not our goal," Breedlove was quoted as saying. "But we must try to raise the price for Putin on the battlefield."
Nuland reportedly added, "I would like to urge you to use the word 'defensive system' to describe what we would be delivering against Putin's offensive systems," according to a translation.
... ... ...
In December, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation authorizing the president to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, troop-operated surveillance drones, and antitank weapons. The president agreed to sign the legislation only because it did not require him to provide the aid, which he has yet to do. Trying a new tactic this week, the Senate included a provision in its military policy bill that would withhold half of the $300 million for Ukrainian security assistance until 20 percent of the funds is spent on lethal weaponry for Kiev. The provision is opposed by the White House for fear that lethal assistance would only serve to escalate the bloodshed in Ukraine and hand Putin an excuse for further violent transgressions.
While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well.
"Some tend to perceive Nuland's assertiveness as a bit too over the edge, at least for the muffled European diplomatic environment," said Federiga Bindi, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
... ... ...
Despite the fact that Nuland is not outside the mainstream of many State Department views on the Ukraine crisis, her reputation as the most pugnacious of hawks isn't likely to subside in the minds of Europeans anytime soon. In many ways, that's because she'll never live down the moment that made her famous: the leaking of a private phone call of her disparaging the European Union in 2014 as the political standoff between the Ukrainian opposition and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych unfurled.
August 18, 2014 | The Chronicle of Higher EducationDespite its fondness for elaborate rituals, higher education really isn't all that polite. Every campus has its faculty or staff member(s) who are notoriously fractious and hard to work with, and, more generally, higher education doesn't really select for "playing well with others." (Indeed, if you Google "academic decorum," a result on the first page includes musings on whether creativity and collegiality are truly compatible.) Higher education's traditional employment practices can mean that people have the opportunity to nurse grudges over extended periods of time.
Paul Ford's recent essay, "How to Be Polite," offers sustained courtesy–understood here as, minimally, respect for others (Do. Not. Touch. Other. People's. Hair. Just . . . No. [How can it be 2014 and this still needs to be explained? But it does!]), but extending into a kind of all-encompassing empathy–as an undervalued professional survival skill:
For example, after two years ago at the end of an arduous corporate project, slowly turning a thousand red squares in a spreadsheet to yellow, then green, my officemate turned to me and said: "I thought you were a terrible ass-kisser when we started working together."
She paused and frowned. "But it actually helped get things done. It was a strategy." (That is how an impolite person gives a compliment. Which I gladly accepted.)
She was surprised to see the stubborn power of politeness over time. Over time. That's the thing. Mostly we talk about politeness in the moment. Please, thank you, no go ahead, I like your hat, cool shoes, you look nice today, please take my seat, sir, ma'am, etc. All good, but fleeting.
Ford's essay explores a few dimensions of courtesy: its role as self-protection; its deference to others; and the way that even this path of self-protection and deference can lead to "a sense of overwhelming love and empathy. I look at the other person and am overwhelmed with joy." Its tone is light, not hectoring, so it's definitely worth reading the whole thing.
There are many opportunities, in an academic setting, to practice this form of sustained politeness–even while being critical. (My most cherished memory of being president of a faculty union was when a member praised my "ability to tell someone to [go to hell] without it sounding insulting.")
One special point I would make in the context of higher ed is that having a flexible memory is important. On the one hand, I would not want anyone to risk harm to their person or career by indiscriminately "having a short memory." People who are bullies or harassers need to be held accountable or avoided, not drawn out in an elaborate social ritual. On the other hand, I also think it's useful if we give people some space for self-reinvention. Instead of using *every* difference in perspective as a chance to revisit the Great Intradepartmental Civil War of 2005, or even just that time that jerk beat you to your preferred parking spot, taking a breath and sorting out issues on their contemporary merits surely has a place.
- This isn't about tone. I'm not interested in being part of the tone police, which feels like an attempt to muffle dissent.
- Relatedly, it's probably somewhat easier to endorse Ford's politeness from positions of relative privilege. That said, I think we're all capable of wishing that people in positions of privilege imagined that people have "around them a two or three foot invisible buffer . . . Whatever happens inside that buffer is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with me."
- Also, I'm extraordinarily reluctant to impose politeness as a requirement, because I've too often seen concerns over "collegiality" used as a fig leaf for some pretty shady practices. So if we can imagine that I'm endorsing Ford's practice of courtesy without in any way suggesting people should be formally sanctioned for lapses in politeness, that would be lovely. Thanks!
How about you? Do you practice strategic courtesy? What works for you?
April 07, 2013 | latimes.com
It works in all kinds of crises -- medical, legal, even existential. It's the 'Ring Theory' of kvetching. The first rule is comfort in, dump out.
When Susan had breast cancer, we heard a lot of lame remarks, but our favorite came from one of Susan's colleagues. She wanted, she needed, to visit Susan after the surgery, but Susan didn't feel like having visitors, and she said so. Her colleague's response? "This isn't just about you."
"It's not?" Susan wondered. "My breast cancer is not about me? It's about you?"
The same theme came up again when our friend Katie had a brain aneurysm. She was in intensive care for a long time and finally got out and into a step-down unit. She was no longer covered with tubes and lines and monitors, but she was still in rough shape. A friend came and saw her and then stepped into the hall with Katie's husband, Pat. "I wasn't prepared for this," she told him. "I don't know if I can handle it."
This woman loves Katie, and she said what she did because the sight of Katie in this condition moved her so deeply. But it was the wrong thing to say. And it was wrong in the same way Susan's colleague's remark was wrong.
Susan has since developed a simple technique to help people avoid this mistake. It works for all kinds of crises: medical, legal, financial, romantic, even existential. She calls it the Ring Theory.
Draw a circle. This is the center ring. In it, put the name of the person at the center of the current trauma. For Katie's aneurysm, that's Katie. Now draw a larger circle around the first one. In that ring put the name of the person next closest to the trauma. In the case of Katie's aneurysm, that was Katie's husband, Pat. Repeat the process as many times as you need to. In each larger ring put the next closest people. Parents and children before more distant relatives. Intimate friends in smaller rings, less intimate friends in larger ones. When you are done you have a Kvetching Order. One of Susan's patients found it useful to tape it to her refrigerator.
... ... ...
When you are talking to a person in a ring smaller than yours, someone closer to the center of the crisis, the goal is to help. Listening is often more helpful than talking. But if you're going to open your mouth, ask yourself if what you are about to say is likely to provide comfort and support. If it isn't, don't say it. Don't, for example, give advice. People who are suffering from trauma don't need advice. They need comfort and support. So say, "I'm sorry" or "This must really be hard for you" or "Can I bring you a pot roast?" Don't say, "You should hear what happened to me" or "Here's what I would do if I were you." And don't say, "This is really bringing me down."
If you want to scream or cry or complain, if you want to tell someone how shocked you are or how icky you feel, or whine about how it reminds you of all the terrible things that have happened to you lately, that's fine. It's a perfectly normal response. Just do it to someone in a bigger ring.
Comfort IN, dump OUT.
There was nothing wrong with Katie's friend saying she was not prepared for how horrible Katie looked, or even that she didn't think she could handle it. The mistake was that she said those things to Pat. She dumped IN.
Complaining to someone in a smaller ring than yours doesn't do either of you any good. On the other hand, being supportive to her principal caregiver may be the best thing you can do for the patient.
Most of us know this. Almost nobody would complain to the patient about how rotten she looks. Almost no one would say that looking at her makes them think of the fragility of life and their own closeness to death. In other words, we know enough not to dump into the center ring. Ring Theory merely expands that intuition and makes it more concrete: Don't just avoid dumping into the center ring, avoid dumping into any ring smaller than your own.
Remember, you can say whatever you want if you just wait until you're talking to someone in a larger ring than yours.
And don't worry. You'll get your turn in the center ring. You can count on that.
Susan Silk is a clinical psychologist. Barry Goldman is an arbitrator and mediator and the author of "The Science of Settlement: Ideas for Negotiators."
While I am very sure much has been written to explore the 'Six Principles of Influence and Persuasion' (by Dr. Robert Cialdini) in practice: to criticise and debunk their simple or superficial nature, I have to admit that I rather like them for that very reason: their simplicity and because they appeal to my sense of 'ah ha, that's one of the reasons I fall for that ploy every time'!
In my training workshops on behavioral change around building effective relationships at work and in learning how to become more influential to get more of the right things done in the right way, I often explore Cialdini's principles and candidates are always intrigued. So often, in my career in human resource management, training and development, I was given feedback like: 'you need to be more influential: you need to influence a wider group of people, you need to get more back-up for your ideas by influencing better'. I am so sorry I did not discover Cialdini sonner!
So, here's the advice, for those working in organisations who have to get agreement and buy-in for their ideas, plans and projects; who have to do that difficult thing of influencing without direct authority, in a world where everyone is very busy and only wants to get out into the sunshine.
Principle One: Reciprocity. We feel obliged to return favours: one good turn deserves another. It's just a simple fact of life. The secret is to be the first to give and choose the person to whom you give wisely. It sounds a bit 'calculating' but actually we do this naturally every day in lots of subtle ways e.g., I help you with that spreadsheet and then a few weeks later I feel totally okay about going back to you to ask for your support in a meeting.
Principle Two: Commitment (and Consistency). We like to be consistent and to honour our commitments. A brilliant example of this in practice was given to me only yesterday in one of my training workshops. The candidate said that he wanted to influence someone on his team to take on more responsibility and to consider taking on a management role. The individual was reluctant to do so, and therefore required some persuading. What he did was give the individual a 'taster' first to get some initial up-front commitment. He gave them a trial in the role, with no obligation to continue afterwards. At the end of the trial period they took up the offer to continue in the role. Ideally, an early commitment needs to be in writing to secure the commitment completely.
Principle Three: Social Proof. We will do what others are doing, especially if they are similar to us. For example, we're more likely to work late if others in our team are doing the same and we are more likely to do this if we feel uncertain e.g., maybe we are newly hired. In my role as a Trainer and Coach within the organisational setting I spent time creating an interest in my projects with people who influenced others: it could be a Senior Operator whom other Operators respected and then highlighting the number of people who were happy with the process already, people similar to the audience I was targeting, using testimonials and case studies.
Principle Four: Liking. We are attracted to people we like. Taking time to build rapport, showing an interest at a personal level and sharing personal stories, all work in our favour when influencing others and bringing them towards our ideas. Developing your emotional intelligence (EQi) and active listening ability, will increase your influencing power especially when using this principle. We can all recall the many times at work when we were really attracted to a senior manager and wanted instinctively to follow them, just because they had shared some personal stories with us and revealed to us their humanity and vulnerability.
Principle Five: Authority. We feel a sense of duty or obligation towards authority. We do what our manager asks of us; we comply with the health and safety rules when the Company Doctor explains how breaking the rules can result in personal injury (especially if they wear a white coat!). We are susceptible to the 'trappings' of authority, and that is why I always used my qualifications after my name to increase my authority in the field of HR/Training and in one company I worked, we were encouraged to display our certificates on the wall behind the desk: it works for Doctors, Dentists and other Practitioners in the health area in particular. You can also use the authority of others to influence and once I agreed a plan with the Managing Director, I used their authority to help get support for my ideas with other people in the organisation.
Principle Six: Scarcity. We are attracted to things and services when we think they are scare or will become scarce. You can use this principle at work by emphasising the urgent important nature of your project and the possible consequences should your ideas not be taken up on time. For example, this is an effective principle to use in organisations with ethical, environmental, quality or safety regulations, if you can sit your project well within the parameters of compliance. The scarcity principle can also be used where there are bottom-line customers who are affected directly by your work.
There are always 'terms and conditions' of use so here they are: the 6 principles are to be used wisely and ethically to the benefit of everyone.
PEJ Pty Ltd (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) - See all my reviews
July 31, 2004This review is from: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (Paperback)
This is the sort of book one is inclined to wish one had read carefully at a young age. All successful people have developed skills to get what they want. As a young man for a while I got my way with a particular person by advising "A" when what I really wanted was "Not-A". But Robert Caldini's great book lays it all out systematically, and I guess I now regard the A/Not-A device as an example of abnormal psychology at work.
Caldini starts by saying: "I can admit it freely now. All my life I've been a patsy." An "easy mark...." This "long-standing status as a sucker" made Cialdini interested in the "psychology of compliance." Why do requests put one way mostly fail while a slightly different approach often wins? For nearly three years Cialdini combined experimental studies with "systematic immersion into the world of compliance professionals - sales operators, fund-raisers, recruiters, advertisers, and others."
There are thousands of different tactics used by those aiming to get someone to say "yes", but the majority fall within six basic categories, each of which is governed by a "fundamental psychological principle that directs human behaviour and, in so doing, gives the tactics their power." The principles are consistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, liking and scarcity. This list deliberately does not include "the simple rule of material self-interest" since this is an obvious motivator not worthy of detailed examination. (As an economist, I am put well and truly in my place by this observation. One assumes that, as in the famous story, Cialdini chose to experiment on economists rather than rats since one gets to like rats after a while.)
Chapter one is entitled "Weapons of influence." Animals and people (even economists!) operate with certain automatic rules that usually produce a good result. Often in this book Cialdini introduces experiments from animal or people studies to buttress the psychological arguments. In this chapter he discusses how mothering behaviour in turkeys is triggered by the "cheep-cheep" sound of young turkeys, a response often observed in the Thornton household, incidentally.
A reflex of many people, especially it seems Americans on holiday, is to use the rule "expensive = good." In fact the example that starts chapter one is of a seller of jewelry who accidentally doubled instead of halved the price of some jewelry it was proving hard to move. After a short absence from her shop, to her surprise she found that the previously difficult-to-move items had all been sold.
Another rule is that people are more likely to agree to a request if a reason is given - "People simply like to have reasons for what they do." So if you need to go to the top of the queue, give a good reason, and most of the time people will let you in. In fact, the research cited shows it was the use of the word "because" rather than the inherent strength of the reason that produces this result.
Then there is "the contrast principle." An example from the retail world illustrates. Salespeople in retail stores are often instructed to sell the most expensive item first. Having paid a lot for a suit, for example, most people it seems pay more for shirts and ties than if they started with those relatively inexpensive items first. Car dealers first sell you the car, then add the optional extras. With a different use of contrast, real estate salespeople start by showing you the undesirable properties first - they have a set of these, called "set-up" properties.
The process of using "weapons of persuasion" is subtle, not crude. "With proper execution, the exploiters need hardly strain a muscle to get their way ... the approach is not unlike that of the Japanese martial art form called jujitsu."
And now to the principles themselves. Each chapter starts with a nice quote, that I have reproduced.
Reciprocation - "Pay every debt, as if God wrote the bill." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
The rule of reciprocation "possesses awesome strength." This is not basically related to liking - people are programmed to respond positively to a request if they have previously accepted a gift even from a stranger. The famous case is the Krishna organisation whose members give people a flower or a book before asking for a donation - works like a charm apparently.
Retailers know the power of the "free gift" - eg the cubes of cheese in food halls, the wine tasting in wine shops or at wineries, the Amway phenomenon, the power of the Tupperware party.
Politics works like this also - "logrolling" being a powerful American example, Lyndon Johnson being the master of this game. The power of the political donation in Australian politics shows this is not just an American trait, although I suspect reciprocation reaches its highest art form there.
A more subtle version of reciprocation comes when one feels bound to respond to a concession. "Will you buy my raffle tickets for $10?" "No" "Will you but two chocolate bars for $2?" Often one does, the original requestor having made a concession one is forced to match.
The most stunning example given by Cialdini concerns the Watergate break-in. Apparently G Gordon Liddy first presented an absolutely outrageous plan. When he was told "no" he later came back with a less costly but still outrageous plan. After a second "no" he finally came up with a stupid but even less expensive plan which several apparently sane men approved.
This chapter ends with a section on "How to say no."
There is another famous quote that says something like: "No good turn goes unpunished." Cialdini does not discuss this apparent contradiction of the reciprocation principle - perhaps it is another example of abnormal psychology.
Commitment and Consistency - "It is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end." - Leonardo da Vinci.
Two Canadian psychologists have shown that , immediately after placing a bet, punters become far more confident about the chances of the horse they back Humans have, Cialdini asserts, a "nearly obsessive desire to be (and to appear) consistent ..." This is another example of a trait that in many circumstances is useful and adaptive. "Without it our lives would be difficult, erratic and disjointed." Too much thinking is difficult. But there is a more perverse attraction of mechanical consistency. "Sometimes it is not the effort of hard, cognative work that makes us shirk thoughtful activity, but the harsh consequences of that activity. Sometimes it is the cursedly clear and unwelcome set of answers provided by straight thinking that makes us mental slackers."
But the forces making for consistency can readily be exploited. Cialdini provides a nice example of how toy stores use this principle to boost post Christmas sales. (Coles Meyer, if you do not know this trick, now is the moment.) But what is it that produces the "click that activates the whirr of the powerful consistency tape?" "Commitment" is the answer. If we take a stand, we are likely to behave in ways stubbornly consistent with that stand.
Telephone marketers routinely ask: "How are you feeling this evening, Mr Jones?" Apparently, once you have said you feel fine, it is hard to refuse to give to the anti-cancer fund or to help a third-world orphan, even thought the initial question and answer were for all appearances a stylized exchange. The researchers have, incidentally, tested whether or not it is the politeness of the initial approach that does the work - no it is not, it is his initial response that has committed Mr Jones.
Cialdini goes on to examine the far more serious issue of how to get prisoners of war (POWs) to cooperate with their captors. The Chinese did a far better job of this than the North Koreans during the second world war - by asking first for a minor act of compliance (which was rewarded) and gradually upping the ante. An important part of the process was that the minor commitment initially achieved was made public - people's written and public commitments being far more powerful than private, unwritten ones. And small inducements are often far more powerful than large ones - since if the inducement is large one will feel one has been paid for the act of compliance, not accepted it as a firm commitment.
This chapter looks quite deeply into the techniques used as well as their application in business situations - eg when people sign on to challenging KPIs. Again it ends with a section on how to say no.
Social proof - "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" - Walter Lippman
TV producers use canned laughter, bar-people often "salt" their tip jar at the start of a shift and evangelical preachers have been known to seed their audiences with "ringers" who are programmed to come forward and commit at the right moment. Cialdini examines the famous case of a cult that has wrongly predicted the end of the world. When this did not occur, the group had to establish another truth, which in this case was a crusade to persuade the world about their peculiar beliefs.
The principle of "social truth" works especially well in conditions of shaken confidence and uncertainty - in the previous example when the beings in flying saucers did not arrive on schedule.
This example leads on to a far more horrible case, that of the murder of Catherine Genovese in New York City in 1964. "For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a women in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens." No-one called the police during the murder, and only one witness called after the women was dead. Everyone was stunned and the witnesses themselves could not explain their inaction. The newspapers seized on the theme of an "uncaring" society.
Two psychologists examined the case. To them the really odd thing was that there were 38 witnesses, none of whom did anything. They found two reasons for the lack of action. When there are more than one person witnessing a crime, personal responsibility is diluted. This is a common issue - eg when a group is asked to do something without someone nominating who is responsible. "(Shared responsibility is no responsibility") But the second reason is more interesting and involves what psychologists call the "pluralistic ignorance effect." At times of uncertainty, people naturally look round to see how others are reacting. If others seem calm and unruffled, one is inclined to act the same way and to convince oneself that the event in question is not really an emergency.
The chapter goes on, covering another example of the consequences of "social proof" - the well documented case of sudden jumps in apparently accidental deaths in the period immediately after a newspaper or TV account of a suicide
A final horrible example concerns the mass suicide in Jonestown.
Learning how to resist the automatic pilot of social proof might be vital. There is also a message for anyone in danger in a crowded situation - do not issue a general cry for help, but try to focus on one person and ask him for explicit help.
Liking - "The main work of a trial attorney is to make a jury like his client" - Clarence Darrow.
Most of us prefer to say yes to the requests of those we like. This principle works, however, when used by total strangers - eg if he pays one a compliment such as "That is a great suit/haircut/car, etc. This much is obvious, but Cialdini goes on to apply it to important matters like the impact of school desegregation upon racial tension, the "good cop/bad cop" situation and the behaviour of sports fans.
How to say no is handled deftly, as usual. ("Say no")
Authority - "Follow an expert" - Virgil.
Again the simple point is obvious, but we learn of more subtle and insidious effects involving the use of fake titles, film stars advertising coffee and trappings of con-men such as flash cars.
Scarcity - "The way to love anything is to realize it might be lost" - GK Chesterton.
This is a ripper chapter, containing as it does the scheme used by the author's brother to fund his way through collage and some severely practical advice on how to deal with toddlers and teenagers.
The scarcity principle is understood by all of us, even economists, who associate scarcity with high prices. But what would you think of a collage student who purchased second hand cars, gave them a cut and polish and advertised them for sale at a distinctly higher price than he had paid? His secret weapon was to ask everyone who responded to his ad to arrive at, say, 2 PM. The first guy to arrive was shown the car and while he was looking another prospective buyer would arrive. Then another. The first guy would be told a queue is forming and given a few more minutes to make up his mind. You could imagine the anxiety that built up in the potential buyers' minds. If the first guy did not buy, the second one almost always did.
This chapter goes on to provide advice on coping with the "terrible twos" and the teenage years based on the theory of "psychological reactance" that is linked to scarcity in some interesting but non-obvious ways. The link concerns the loss of freedoms, and withdrawal of privileges is a classic case of loss of freedom leading to psychological reactance."
Cialdini relates this to the Russian counter-revolution that restored Gorbachev to power ("Freedoms once granted will not be relinquished without a fight.") Another case concerns the close bonding between Romeo and Juliet in the face of parental opposition to their relationship. ("... the teenager will sneak, scheme, and fight to resist ... attempts at control.") Another interesting example concerns directions to a jury to ignore a particular piece of evidence - the conjecture in this case is that such directions may in fact make the jury give greater weight to the banned evidence.
I have provided a far longer account of this book than I intended at outset. To a mere economist, who is drilled to assume the simplest possible mental models of behaviour - "maximizing welfare, "simple self-interest" - both the examples as well as the logic and clever experiments are full of interest. If it is too late for you to benefit, give this book to a much loved member of the younger generation.
Strange as it may seem, overcoming geographic obstacles, winning decisive battles or meeting global business targets are the type of goals often best achieved when pursued indirectly. This is the idea of Obliquity. Oblique approaches are most effective in difficult terrain, or where outcomes depend on interactions with other people.
If you want to go in one direction, the best route may involve going in the other. Paradoxical as it sounds, goals are more likely to be achieved when pursued indirectly. So the most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented, and the happiest people are not those who make happiness their main aim. The name of this idea? Obliquity
... ... ...
George W. Bush speaks mangled English rather than mangled French because James Wolfe captured Quebec in 1759 and made the British crown the dominant influence in Northern America. Eschewing obvious lines of attack, Wolfe's men scaled the precipitous Heights of Abraham and took the city from the unprepared defenders. There are many such episodes in military history. The Germans defeated the Maginot Line by going round it, while Japanese invaders bicycled through the Malayan jungle to capture Singapore, whose guns faced out to sea. Oblique approaches are most effective in difficult terrain, or where outcomes depend on interactions with other people. Obliquity is the idea that goals are often best achieved when pursued indirectly.
Obliquity is characteristic of systems that are complex, imperfectly understood, and change their nature as we engage with them. Forests have all these features. Fire is the greatest enemy of the forest. From the late 19th century, the policy of the US National Parks Service was of zero tolerance towards fire. Every outbreak, however small, would be extinguished. But the incidence of fire did not fall: it increased.
Computer simulation of fire control policies suggests the explanation. Most forest fires are small, and burn themselves out. In doing so, they remove combustible undergrowth, and create firebreaks that limit the spread of future fires. In 1972, the National Park Service determined a new policy: it would put out man-made fires, but allow natural ones to burn.
Sixteen years later, the largest fire known swept through Yellowstone National Park. In extremely dry conditions, several fires – some sparked by lightning, some by arsonists – joined together. The blaze was fought by 25,000 firefighters at a cost of $120 million; more than a third of the park's vegetation was destroyed.
Today's guidelines allow forest rangers to use their judgment in deciding which fires should be tackled and which left to burn. Experience has shown that too much effort devoted to fire extinction is counterproductive. Time demonstrates, but only slowly, whether policy has gone too far in one direction, or the other. Forest management illustrates obliquity: the preservation of the forest is not best pursued directly, but managed through a holistic approach that considers and balances multiple objectives.
Forests are not the only systems structured in this way. Obliquity is equally relevant to our businesses and our bodies, to the management of our lives and our national economies. We do not maximise shareholder value or the length of our lives, our happiness or the gross national product, for the simple but fundamental reason that we do not know how to and never will. No one will ever be buried with the epitaph "He maximised shareholder value". Not just because it is a less than inspiring objective, but because even with hindsight there is no way of recognising whether the objective has been achieved.
... ... ...
The 20th century saw the rise and fall of modernist rationalism in many activities. Nowhere was the change more visible, or the results more disastrous, than in architecture and town planning. In the modernist vision, technology emancipated builders from tradition and accumulated knowledge. Twentieth- century planners could redesign our environment from first principles.
Charles Jencks, the architectural commentator, announced that modernism ended at 3.32pm on July 15 1972, when demolition contractors detonated the fuses to blow up the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St Louis, Missouri. Less than two decades earlier, the scheme had won awards for its pioneering, visionary architecture. Tower blocks were the supreme expression of Le Corbusier's view that "a house is a machine for living in". Corbusier himself designed the first such buildings, the Unite d'Habitation on the edge of Marseille.
But a house is not simply a machine for living in. There is a difference between a house and a home. The functions of a home are complex and the utility of a building depends not only on its design but on the reactions of those who live in it. The occupants of the Pruitt-Igoe scheme, like those of similar buildings, were alienated by the isolation of a living environment that saw no need for accidental, unplanned social interactions. They showed no respect for its public spaces. The functionality of the blocks proved, in the end, not to be functional.
Communities are complex organisms, imperfectly understood, and their functioning depends on their social relations. Great architects implicitly understand obliquity, but obliquity is so important to the design of towns that the most successful towns have no designer at all. The planned city was conceived in the late 19th century. Baron Hausmann swept away the jumble of Paris streets that had developed over the centuries to create grand boulevards. From the 1920s to 1968, the powerful, autocratic Robert Moses controlled the physical environment of New York, driving expressways through apartments, offices and factories.
The zenith of these ideas was reached in planned cities such as the designed capitals of Brasilia, Canberra and Chandigarh. But all these cities are dull. They lack the vitality of real communities. As with tower blocks, their very functionality is dysfunctional.
The National Park officials who thought they could eliminate fire; the managers who thought they could reinvent ICI and Boeing; the architects who believed they could discard thousands of years of experience and redesign buildings on purely functional lines; the planners who attempted to rationalise the patchwork evolution of historic cities: all made the same mistake of underestimating the complexity of the system with which they dealt and the value of the traditional knowledge they inherited. And the answer to their problem is not better analysis and more sophisticated modelling, but more humility.
Such humility is not commonly found in the business world. Re-engineering the Corporation by Michael Hammer and James Champy became a New York Times bestseller in 1993. Hammer and Champy are as radical in aspiration as Le Corbusier: "Re-engineering means asking the question `If I were re-creating this company today, given what I know and given current technology, what would it look like?' Re-engineering a company means tossing aside old systems and starting over. It involves going back to the beginning and inventing a better way of doing work."
Obliquity gives rise to the profit-seeking paradox: the most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented. ICI and Boeing illustrate how a greater focus on shareholder returns was self-defeating in its own narrow terms. Comparisons of the same companies over time are mirrored in contrasts between different companies in the same industries. In their 2002 book, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras compared outstanding companies with adequate but less remarkable companies with similar operations.
Merck and Pfizer was one such comparison. Collins and Porras compared the philosophy of George Merck ("We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been") with that of John McKeen of Pfizer ("So far as humanly possible, we aim to get profit out of everything we do.")
Collins and Porras also paired Hewlett Packard with Texas Instruments, Procter & Gamble with Colgate, Marriott with Howard Johnson, and found the same result in each case: the company that put more emphasis on profit in its declaration of objectives was the less profitable in its financial statements.
Similarly the richest men are not the most materialistic. Sam Walton, founder and principal shareholder of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, drove himself around in a pick-up truck. "I have concentrated all along on building the finest retailing company that we possibly could. Period. Creating a huge personal fortune was never particularly a goal of mine," Walton said. Still, five of the top 10 places in the Forbes rich list are occupied by members of the Walton family.
Henry Ford was sued by stockholders who resented his determination to expand his automotive business rather than distribute the profits. When they won their case, most of the dividend that the court required the Ford Motor Company to pay went to Henry himself. He used the money to buy back stock and regain freedom of operations. The dissatisfied stockholders would have done better to keep quiet.
Warren Buffett, the most successful investor in history, still lives in the Omaha bungalow he bought almost 50 years ago and continues to take pleasure in a Nebraskan steak washed down with cherry Coke. For Buffett: "It's not that I want money. It's the fun of making money and watching it grow."
The individuals who are most successful at making money are not those who are most interested in making money. This is not surprising. The principal route to great wealth is the creation of a successful business, and building a successful business demands exceptional talents and hard work. There is no reason to think these characteristics are associated with greed and materialism: rather the opposite. People who are obsessively interested in money are drawn to get-rich-quick schemes rather than to business opportunities, and when these schemes come off, as occasionally they do, they retire to their villas in the sun.
And so, the greatest happiness is rarely achieved by those who set out to be happy. The development of psychology and neurophysiology gives us more insight into the real determinants of happiness. Author and psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explores the nature of happiness by listening to what people say about their activities through what he calls experience sampling. He pages people frequently to write down structured reports of exactly how they feel about what they are doing at that moment.
Although we crave time for passive leisure, people engaged in watching television reported low levels of contentment. Csikszentmihalyi's systematic finding is that the activities that yield the highest for satisfaction with life require the successful performance of challenging tasks. These moments are encountered as frequently in work as outside it, and they constitute the state of mind which Csikszentmihalyi describes as flow. "Flow tends to occur when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable."
Csikszentmihalyi's formulation exactly parallels that of Boeing's Bill Allen – "the greatest pleasure that life has to offer is the satisfaction that flows from participating in a difficult and challenging undertaking." Flow is as characteristic of the successful business as of the contented individual.
Yet there are fundamental differences. While the quest for happiness is complementary – by achieving it we make it easier, not harder, for others to achieve the same goal – the development of business is competitive. Tolstoy claimed in Anna Karenina that "All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
However, the opposite is true in commercial life. Unhappy businesses resemble one another: each successful company is successful in its own way. Business achievement depends on doing things that others cannot do – and still find difficult to do even after others have seen the benefits they bring to the imitators. So the most profitable companies are those that are successful with major challenges – like Boeing's creation of the jumbo jet or ICI's development of a pharmaceutical division. For Csikszentmihalyi, flow is the accomplishment of a difficult task, involving the successful match of capabilities to environment. In the less elegant language of business gurus, Collins and Porras describe the same phenomenon in business as the achievement of "big hairy audacious goals".
Companies that succeed in such challenges are disproportionately represented in the case studies of business schools. We don't hear much about business innovators who adopted big hairy audacious goals and failed, although failure, not success is the norm. For every Bill Gates, Sam Walton and Warren Buffett, there are a hundred people with similar ambitions, and not necessarily much less talent, whose pictures will never be seen on the front cover of Fortune magazine.
Success through obliquity is a product of natural selection in an uncertain, but competitive, environment. It is almost certainly true that, on average, profit-oriented companies are more profitable than less profit-oriented companies. It is very likely that on average people who are interested in money are richer than people who are not. But at the same time that the most profitable companies are not the most profit-oriented, the richest people are not those most interested in money. Outstanding success is the product of obliquity.
This oblique relationship between intention and outcome is the subtle, but frequently misunderstood, message contained in Richard Dawkins' metaphor of the selfish gene. The gene is not actually selfish: the gene has no motive at all, in the sense in which we normally talk about motive. Genes that survive the processes of selection are those well adapted to their environment, and such adaptation was not the product of any conscious design. And this is also true of the forests we travel thousands of miles to see, the great capital cities of history, the traditions of classical architecture, and the development of great businesses. All of them are the product of evolution in a universe too complex and unpredictable for any of us fully to understand. All of them survive and prosper because they are well adapted to their environment.
The University of Sheffield Sports Engineering Research Group, after analysing David Beckham's performance on the football field, announced in 2002 that they had discovered a physics genius. The scientists had identified the complex differential equations that need to be solved to bend it like Beckham. No doubt their computers are already crunching numbers to tell Jonny Wilkinson how to drop a goal.
But little research is needed to confirm that Beckham is not a physics genius. Solving equations of motion is a means of understanding what happens, but is not a means of making it happen. Similarly, the financial returns of a business record what it achieves but are not the means by which it is achieved. Successful companies do maximise long-term shareholder value, or at least create large quantities of it. But that does not imply they were any more capable of formally calculating the results of their activities than Beckham can. Still less can we infer that such calculations were the basis of their achievement.
Would Boeing really have benefited from careful analyses in the mid-1960s of the prospective return on investment from development of the 747? An analyst would have had to anticipate the oil shock, the globalisation of world markets and the development of the aviation industry through to the end of the century. Anyone who has built models of these kinds, or scrutinised them carefully, knows that the range of possible assumptions is always wide enough to allow the analyst to come up with whatever answer the person commissioning the assessment wants to hear.
ICI might have made calculations in the 1950s that estimated the market capitalisation Zeneca would have achieved in the year 2000. Their strategists could then have put that number into a discounted cash flow calculation to estimate a return on the company's early investment in its pharmaceutical business. But no one would or should have taken such a calculation seriously.
The distinction between intent and outcome is central to obliquity. Wealth, family relationships, employment all contribute to happiness but these activities are not best conducted with happiness as their goal. The pursuit of happiness is a strange phrase in the US constitution because happiness is not best achieved when pursued. A satisfying life depends above all on building good personal relationships with other people – but we entirely miss the point if we seek to develop these relationships with our personal happiness as a primary goal.
Humans have well developed capacities to detect purely instrumental behaviour. The actions of the man who buys us a drink in the hope that we will buy his mutual funds are formally the same as those of the friend who buys us a drink because he likes our company, but it is usually not too difficult to spot the difference. And the difference matters to us. "Honesty is the best policy, but he who is governed by that maxim is not an honest man," wrote Archbishop Whately three centuries ago. If we deal with someone for whom honesty is the best policy, we can never be sure that this is not the occasion on which he will conclude that honesty is no longer the best policy. Such experiences have been frequent in financial markets in the last decade. We do better to rely on people who are honest by character rather than honest by choice.
In a similar way, the statement "we look after employees because we care" is not the same as the statement "we have introduced new compensation arrangements because, having calculated the relative costs of benefits enhancements and staff turnover, and commissioned a consultant's report on the policies of competitors, we believe it will produce a net enhancement of earnings per share". Even if the pensions and healthcare benefits are the same, the response from those affected is different. That is why companies that put the second statement in their board papers and investor presentations typically put the first statement in their press releases and communications to employees. But people who work in a business generally know its nature well enough to see the instrumentality at work.
Marks and Spencer was famous for decades for the breadth of its staff welfare programme. In particular, the company pioneered the provision of high-quality meals at nominal prices. The policy did not originate in any nice calculation of costs and benefits. It was adopted when a shop assistant fainted as Simon Marks was making one of his legendary store visits. Marks discovered that her husband was unemployed and the family did not have enough to eat. Marks was not engaged in philanthropy – he did not offer to feed his employee's family. Nor was his purpose the creation of shareholder value. Marks was making a sincerely felt statement about the kind of business he wanted his company to be. Such statements about the nature of the business defined the iconic company Marks and Spencer became. As at ICI and Boeing, Marks and Spencer was to sacrifice that status in the rationalist 1990s in the ultimately unsuccessful pursuit of growth in earnings per share.
You don't prolong life much by adopting long life as your goal. Nor do you learn much about the sources of longevity by asking very old people how they did it. Medical interventions don't have a large overall impact on life expectancy – medicine is to health what fire control is to forest management. The most important influences on life expectancy are environment and general health. We extend our lives most effectively, not through hypochondria, but by caring for our bodies and ourselves in a comprehensive, holistic manner.
Happiness is achieved in the same way. As John Stuart Mill said: "Those only are happy who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness… aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way."
The great cities of the world lift our spirits, not because some great designer set out to achieve that effect, but because of their lack of planning, their diversity and vitality, their unexpected encounters and conjunctions. And they evolve, not through conservative preservation or planned change, but by a process in which undistinguished buildings are torn down and only the best examples of each era are preserved.
Forest management is unexpectedly complex. The regimented plantation proved as unsuccessful as the planned city, and ecologists today are tearing such plantations down. Monocultural forests are not only dull to look at, but vulnerable to disease and fire. Managed woodlands are economically and environmentally superior. But no one knows the best way to manage a forest, or even what "best" means in this context. Our objective in a complex system is not to find the optimum, because no one can know before or after whether such an optimum has been achieved. We can and should be satisfied with an outcome that is good enough.
What is true of forests is equally true of businesses. The great corporations of the modern world were not built by people whose overriding interest was wealth, profit, or shareholder value. To paraphrase Mill: their focus was on business followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they found profit by the way.
This is how Hewlett Packard described it: "Profit is a cornerstone of what we do… but it has never been the point in and of itself. The point, in fact, is to win, and winning is judged in the eyes of the customer and by doing something you can be proud of."
Obliquity is relevant whenever complex systems evolve in an uncertain environment, and whenever the effect of our actions depends on the ways in which others respond to them. There is a role for carrots and sticks, but to rely on carrots and sticks alone is effective only when we employ donkeys and when goals are simple. Directness is appropriate. When the environment is stable, objectives are one dimensional and transparent, and it is possible to determine when and whether goals have been achieved. Obliquity is inevitable when the environment is complex and changing, purposes are multiple and conflicting, and when we cannot tell, even with hindsight, whether they have been fulfilled.
... ... ...
Tags: Business, Decisions, Fads, Management, Miscellaneous, obliquity, Strategy, Theory
March 1st, 2011
We have all been awed by a Manager or a Team Member who always seems to know what to say and how to say it in any situation. These people know how to communicate with diplomacy, tact and confidence.
The way in which we communicate can elicit positive or negative emotions. If we communicate aggressively, without respect or sensitivity, defensive or angry emotions can prevent others from hearing the message we are trying to convey. Communicating with diplomacy and tact is an approach that combines strength and sensitivity and keeps negative emotions at bay.
The Six Rules for Disagreeing Agreeably
Rule #1: Give others the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the person who made that outrageous generalization isn't really insensitive. Maybe this person has had a painful experience that made him overreact.
Rule #2: After giving someone the benefit of the doubt, listen to learn and truly understand why this person holds this belief. We must let him/her know we've heard them and we are genuinely trying to see things from their perspective.
Rule #3: Always take responsibility for our own feelings, when disagreeing with someone. Make a commitment to respond using "I" statements only. When we begin with "you" we come off as blaming and confrontational and immediately put the other person on the defensive. This reduces the chance of our point of view being heard.
Rule #4: Use a cushion. Connect or "cushion" a different opinion, starting with "I hear what you're saying" Or "I appreciate your view on". Again, begin with the word "I" and not "You said…" or it will sound confrontational.
Rule #5: Eliminate the words "but" or "however" from our vocabulary. Once we have cushioned the other person's opinion, use "and," or pause and say nothing, following the cushion. Acknowledging the individual's point of view and following it with a "but" or "however" erases the acknowledgement.
Rule #6: State our point of view or opinion with relevant and factual evidence. Keep our emotions out of the equation by using the following formula:
- Take time to reflect:
What do I think?
Why do I think it?
What evidence do I have?
- Then speak:
"One example is"
"This shows that"
"Therefore, I think"
2/15/2013 | Forbes.com
The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter-'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning. – Mark Twain
Darlene Price, author of Well Said! Presentations and Conversations That Get Results, concurs. "Words matter," she says. "They are a key component of persuasive communication. Regardless of the audience, topic, or industry, or whether the setting is a stand-up presentation, sit-down conversation, telephone discussion, or an online meeting, a leader uses language to influence someone's mind in order to achieve a certain result. That's one reason they're seen as leaders; their words compel people to follow."
Therefore, if you want to be perceived as a leader in the workplace, a great place to start is by deliberately choosing to speak words and phrases that are empowering to yourself and others; to use language that captivates, motivates, and inspires; and to communicate a vocal image that conveys clarity, confidence, and credibility, she adds.
"In speaking with hundreds of executives and senior leaders over the past twenty years, certain phrases consistently come up as career-limiting phrases that jeopardize one's professional image and potential for promotion," Price says. "To the speaker they may seem like harmless words, however, to the listener they reveal a more critical issue: In a workplace where employers must be cutting-edge, competitive, and cost-effective, employees who use these phrases will likely be replaced with those who convey a more positive attitude, collaborative spirit, proactive behavior and professional demeanor."
Here are 13 phrases that should be banned from the office:
"It's not fair."
She got a raise, you didn't. He was recognized, you weren't. "Some people have food to eat while others starve," Price says. "Injustices happen on the job and in the world every day. Whether it's a troubling issue at work or a serious problem for the planet, the point in avoiding this phrase is to be proactive about the issues versus complaining, or worse, passively whining." Instead, document the facts, build a case, and present an intelligent argument to the person or group who can help you.
"That's not my problem," "That's not my job," or "I don't get paid enough for this."
If you asked someone for help, and the person replied with one of the above phrases, how would you feel? "As importantly, what would it say about him or her?" Price says. "Regardless of how inconvenient or inappropriate a request may be, it is likely important to the other person or they would not have asked. Therefore, as a contributing member of the team, a top priority is to care about the success of others (or at least act as though you do)." An unconcerned, detached and self-serving attitude quickly limits career advancement.
"This doesn't mean you have to say yes; it does mean you need to be articulate and thoughtful when saying no," she adds. "For example, if your boss issues an unreasonable request, rather than saying, 'You've got to be kidding me. I don't get paid enough for this,' instead say, 'I'll be glad to help. Given my current tasks of A, B, and C, which one of these shall I place on hold while I work on this new assignment?' This clearly communicates teamwork and helpfulness, while reminding your boss of your current work load and the need to set realistic expectations."
... ... ...
"He's a jerk," or "She's lazy," or "My job stinks," or "I hate this company."
Nothing tanks a career faster than name-calling, Price says. "Not only does it reveal juvenile school-yard immaturity, it's language that is liable and fire-able."
Avoid making unkind, judgmental statements that will inevitably reflect poorly on you. If you have a genuine complaint about someone or something, communicate the issue with tact, consideration and neutrality.
"But we've always done it that way."
"The most effective leaders value innovation, creative thinking and problem solving skills in their employees," Price says. In one fell swoop, this phrase reveals you are the opposite: stuck in the past, inflexible, and closed-minded. "Instead say, 'Wow, that's an interesting idea. How would that work?' Or, 'That's a different approach. Let's discuss the pros and cons.'"
"That's impossible" or "There's nothing I can do."
Really? Are you sure you've considered every single possible solution and the list is now exhausted? "When you make the mistake of saying these negative phrases, your words convey a pessimistic, passive, even hopeless outlook," Price says. "This approach is seldom valued in the workplace. Employers notice, recognize and promote a can-do attitude. Despite the glum circumstances, communicate through your words what you can contribute to the situation."
Instead, try something like, "I'll be glad to check on it again," "Let's discuss what's possible under these circumstances," or, "What I can do is this."
"You should have…" or "You could have…"
You probably wouldn't be thrilled if someone said: "You should have told me about this sooner!" Or, "You could have tried a little harder." "Chances are, these fault-finding words inflict feelings of blame and finger-pointing," Price says. "Ideally, the workplace fosters equality, collaboration and teamwork. Instead of making someone feel guilty (even if they are), take a more productive non-judgmental approach." Say, "Next time, to ensure proper planning, please bring this to my attention immediately." Or, "In the future, I recommend…"
"I may be wrong, but…" or "This may be a silly idea, but…"
These phrases are known as discounting, Price explains. They diminish the impact of what follows and reduce your credibility. "Remember that your spoken words reveal to the world how much value you place on yourself and your message. For this reason, eliminate any prefacing phrase that demeans the importance of who you are or lessens the significance of what you contribute."
Don't say, "This may be a silly idea, but I was thinking that maybe we might conduct the quarterly meeting online instead, okay?" Instead, assert your recommendation: "To reduce travel costs and increase time efficiency, I recommend we conduct the quarterly meeting online."
... ... ....
These are common phrases that might be difficult to eliminate completely from your everyday conversations-but the trick is to gain awareness of the language you're using. "As is often the case with bad habits, we are unconscious of the fact we're saying career-limiting words and phrases," Price says.
Here are a few tips to build self-awareness and eradicate the phrases from your conversations:
Record yourself. When you're on the phone in a business setting, record your side of the conversation, she suggests. "Listen carefully to the recording afterward (on the way home from work). Did you use any of the phrases on this list, or any other words or phrases that may be perceived as limiting or negative? Write down the phrase you used, mark through it, and beside it construct an alternate phrase that more positively communicates your message." Keep this list handy, by your phone or next to your computer monitor, and review it daily.
Enlist a buddy. When you're in meetings (and may not be able to record), ask a trusted co-worker to listen carefully to your language. "Ask them to write down any career-limiting words, phrases, actions or attitudes they perceive to be negative," she says. "Treat them to lunch, check your ego at the door, and let them tell you what they heard."
Listen for these phrases when others speak. When you hear how jeopardizing these phrases actually sound when spoken by another, it sends a powerful message to your brain heightening your own self awareness. Price says you should ask yourself, "How could she have phrased that idea in a different way?" Or, "What words would have communicated his point more positively?"Zuleyma CastilloThat's not my problem," "That's not my job," or "I don't get paid enough for this."Michał Skrzędziejewski
So your saying that if your Boss or the HR is asking you to get a drink at Starbucks or their lunch, that part of your job..
Since when do workers go out and get their boss their drink and lunches.PermalinkJoey Mollica
I disagree with a lot of things in this article. For example, I don't see any problem with "no problem" – saying that "you're welcome" is much better is just nitpicking and over-analyzing a simple statement.
I also think (believe?) it's perfectly fine to say "It's not my job" if it really isn't your job – some people make outrageous requests, and believing that "Regardless of how inconvenient or inappropriate a request may be, it is likely important to the other person or they would not have asked" is just wishful thinking.
Finally, take a look at the sentence: "Next time, to ensure proper planning, please bring this to my attention immediately". I cannot imagine a human being (unless it's a mindless corporate robot) using this in a normal conversation. Nobody speaks like that. If somebody told me "You should have told me about it earlier" and if he or she had valid reason to say so, I can admit my mistake and try to be better in the future.
As always use common sense.Permalink1 month agoTodd Mumford
When my dad was a boy, his headmaster would catch him saying "I think…" and retort with "Rick, the rest of the world doesn't care what you THINK!". I'm reminded of this every time I hear somebody say "I think …."!Peggy Puskar
I can understand most of the called out terms to avoid however I believe that this applies to large corporations and not all of it is applicable to smaller business owners as a whole. Normally with a smaller office, everyone works together and often you will hear the "no problem" instead of "your welcome" and that is simply because it is a smaller environment and the employees are a tight group of individuals.Eva Rinaldi
Being positive but assertive and closed-lipped (meaning keep it short and to the point) is always the best practice!The only thing I can't stand is when "we've always done it this way." and then suddenly I'm getting reprimanded for something I've been praised for or at least watched doing, a few hundred times.Phil Tipp
Hmmm. Most of this is either self-evident, in terms of pure manners and ought to have been taught from nursery school onwards – or is otherwise utter American business-twaddle, pop-psych soundbite tosh.
A gentleman moderates his speech to suit the circumstances and his surroundings, and does so in order to communicate clearly and unambiguously to his peers and masters, his intentions and opinions when they are asked of him, in the idiom and manner most suited to his stature, voice, masculinity and lastly, perceived rank.
Ruffling feathers is something to which all men should naturally aspire. Squirming conformity is a little death – consider the brevity of life, the length of history and one's place in it. Better to live one day as a lion, than a hundred days as a lamb.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." Plato
Furthermore, can you imagine Caesar, or Alexander, responding to thankyou's by squeaking "You're welcome" as spoken by mealy-mouthed worms?William Gempel
One thing that is not mentioned in this article is profanity. When you curse, you are just lowering yourself to an unflattering level of competence. Cursing is simply a poor choice of words that can easily with a little self control, be properly eliminated from your vocabulary. Instead of sounding like a fool, people will admire you.
If "no problem" implies that there could have been a problem, then "you're welcome" certainly also implies that you might not have been welcome. Watch yourself. Every time you make a positive statement you imply that the opposite of what you are expressing is a possibility.
Between Us Girls
Happily though, diplomacy involves certain skills that, given some practice and patience, everyone can learn:
This is perhaps the biggest part of diplomacy. Learning to control our own defenses and put off our own agendas for long enough to hear what the other person is saying is critical. Active listening (making eye contact, avoiding the temptation to interrupt unless it is to ask relevant questions, rephrasing what the person has expressed to make sure you are getting their message) is most important. There can be no negotiations unless there is communication.
Sending a Clear Message
The way you state your own needs can make or break the problems-solving process. Attacking the person, belittling their concerns or putting them on the defensive will always backfire. Using "I-Statements," saying "I feel___________________________when _________________________. What I need is ___________________________" rather than "You always_______________, I hate it when you _______________________, You are_____________________________" is the best approach to enabling someone to not get defensive and actually be able to hear what you are saying.
Being able to see a problem through someone else's eyes, from their perspective, helps you to know how to approach them and how best to devise a solution that meets their needs as well as your own.
Finding Common Ground
In any dispute, there is always something, no matter how minuscule it may be, that you and the other party can agree upon. Take a lesson from Barack Obama's recent debate with John McCain. He often began his comments with a statement of John McCain's comments or positions he could agree with and then went on to differentiate himself. This tactic allowed people who might be McCain supporters or Independent's leaning in that direction, to be more open and willing to listen to his commentary. In working out your issue with another person, it always pays to find any smidgen of common ground you can and then to build upon it. You end up transforming your relationship from one of adversaries to one of a team working together to find a creative solution.
Nothing shuts down a negotiation or a conversation more quickly than angry comments, raised voices and insults or threats. Think before you speak and excuse yourself briefly to calm down if things get too heated.
Constructive problem-solving takes a little more time than a quick fix. Knowing this ahead of time can make the process less stressful.
So, we know that while diplomatic efforts don't always meet with success, they really are our best and most sensible first line of defense. Foreign diplomats and skilled leaders have been using the art of diplomacy to great advantage for many, many years. But how can diplomacy help you and me?
Let's go back to some of the everyday problems I listed. Johnny doesn't want to share his Play-Doh. We could just give Johnny a scolding look and ask him if he's forgotten his manners and remind him that "it's nice to share." Johnny feels like no one understands, like everybody is mad at him and that they now think he's a "bad boy." He cries, or throws a tantrum. There's a big scene, mom's embarrassed and that makes her even more mad. Johnny gets sent to his room....or.....
Johnny's mom asks him why he doesn't want to share. He tells her that he hates having the colors of Play-Poh getting all mixed up. He wants to keep the colors separate so he has all of the colors to play with next time and the next time. Mom acknowledges and validates those feelings by listening and together they try to come up with a compromise. She tells him that she feels bad when Johnny's cousin feels left out or unable to play with his toys and tells him she'd like to find someway to make everybody happy. "How about if only one color is opened at a time and it has to be put away before another color is opened," she offers? Johnny accepts the compromise, everyone gets to play with the Play-Doh and no one ends up in tears.
In a more difficult situation, like the one involving feuding relatives and wedding receptions, diplomacy can be trickier. Seating everyone separately, may lead to strained relations with Uncle Bob. Seating them together and letting them hash it out, may lead to ugliness on what should be a beautiful day. What to do? The person planning the seating needs to know whose feelings and objections will be the strongest. If Aunt Rose is the most adamant about seating, she must talk about options with Aunt Rose. By allowing Rose to state her objections, by trying to understand, accept and be considerate of her feelings, a solution becomes more likely.
Where's the common ground? Both the bride and Aunt Rose want the day to be beautiful and enjoyable, Uncle Bob and Aunt Rose want to spend time together without Mary involved. Given that, both the bride and Aunt Rose can begin to brainstorm ideas of how to make that happen (short of throwing Aunt Mary under the limousine in the parking lot). Perhaps Uncle Bob and Aunt Rose could mingle during the cocktail hour and be seated separately for the dinner? Maybe Aunt Rose and her brother Bob could be seated next to each other with Mary on the other side of Bob so Bob acts as physical buffer?
Diplomacy isn't always easy, but given time and practice, the art of diplomacy can resolve and sometimes even prevent many of the conflicts we face in our everyday lives. What's in it for us? Fewer tantrums from our children, less fighting at wedding receptions, preserved relationships with coworkers, circumvented battles with our teenaged daughters and far fewer headaches for ourselves. I think it's worth the effort...do you?
Mental Help Net
As a social emotion, anger is experienced through communication. Angry people tend to have distinct communication postures that they habitually take up when communicating with others. Psychologists have described four of these communication postures, each possessing its own motto:
- The Aggressive communications posture says: "I count but you don't count."
- The Passive communications posture says: "I don't count."
- The Passive-Aggressive communications posture says : "I count. You don't count but I'm not going to tell you about it."
- The Assertive communications posture says: "I count and you do too."
As you might guess, angry people tend to use the Aggressive and Passive-Aggressive postures a whole lot. Aggressive communicators are more likely to start an argument than they are to get the results they want achieved, however. Being passive in your communications is also a mistake, as it communicates weakness and tends to invite further aggression. The assertive communications posture is the most useful and balanced of all the postures as it is the only posture that communicates respect for all parties. Communicating Assertively is the most likely way to ensure that everyone involved gets their needs taken care of. Learning how to become Assertive rather than aggressive or passive-aggressive is an important step in discovering how to communicate appropriately with others.
People who are habitually aggressive tend to fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be Assertive. Specifically, they tend confuse assertiveness with aggression, and think they already are acting assertively. This is frequently a mistaken impression however. Both aggressive and assertive communications postures can involve fierce and persuasive communication. They are fundamentally different things, however, in that aggressive communication tends to go on the offense – it attacks and berates the other – while Assertive communication uses anger and fierceness only in defense. Assertive people stand up for themselves and their rights and do not take crap from others. However, they manage to do this without crossing the line into aggressiveness; they do not attack the person they are communicating with unnecessarily. Assertiveness is "anger in self-defense" whereas aggressiveness is "anger because I feel like it".
Google matched content
Minimize office gossip
The Art of Positive Criticism
Rules of Verbal Self Defense against Corporate Psychopaths
James Schoonmaker (Centreville, Virginia USA)3.0 out of 5 stars An Inside View . . ., September 20, 2000
Of a complex and important profession. Sir Harold Nicolson's book, originally published near the beginning of WWII, filled a large gap for several decades. Many books have been written on statecraft, and even a few on the tactics used in statecraft and diplomacy, but never (since Castiglioni's Art of the Courier during the Renaissance) had a book been written on how to be a good diplomat.
The book begins with a short history of the development of modern diplomacy, and then moves on to discuss recent changes and factors in modern diplomacy and to compare diplomacy as practiced by different countries. In reality, this is a handbook for new and aspiring diplomats, as it covers such things as the day-to-day duties of a junior secretary and how to perform them, diplomatic jargon, and proper use of diplomatic techniques.
For the conduct of foreign policy, I would recommend Chas. Freeman's more recent book Arts of Power. However, there is still nothing, outside of official government handbooks, that describes the inner functionings of a diplomat's life so well as Nicolson's book.
M. B. Alcat "Curiosity killed the cat, but sa... (Los Angeles, California)A really good place to start ..., February 13, 2004
Sir Harold Nicolson, the author of this book, was a prestigious British diplomat who served on the British delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, among other tasks. He knew his craft, and wanted to share that knowledge with others. That is probably the reason why he wrote this book, "Diplomacy". In "Diplomacy", not only does he tell the reader about the origin of diplomacy and its development: he also manages to explain what being a diplomat is about, and which qualifications should aspiring diplomats have. For example, he believes that veracity, precision, calm, loyalty, good character and modesty are essential attributes of a good diplomat.
Nicolson wrote "Diplomacy" a long time ago: the first edition was published in 1939. Notwithstanding that, his book is nowadays as useful as in the day it was published, because it allows the reader to understand what diplomacy is, from the point of view of a diplomat. This book is informative, but also entertaining. His eloquent prose attracts the reader, who cannot help but be interested by the many anecdotes regarding life in the Foreign Service that the author recollects in order to get his point across more clearly.
In conclusion, I can recommend this book to those who are interested in International Relations and would like to know more about diplomacy. I give it only four stars because even if it is a very good book, it doesn't include the latest developments in the diplomatic field. All the same, it is a really good place to start :)
Backstabbing for Beginners My Crash Course in International Diplomacy
Soussan, a former program associate for the United Nations, provides an insider's perspective on the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal in this absorbing memoir. The author was a 24-year-old idealist when he went to work for the U.N.'s recently launched program to provide aid to Iraqi civilians suffering under the economic sanctions imposed after the Gulf War.
He found a culture of incompetence where there is no truth but consensus and initiative is highly risky.
USNAVYVET2002 (DC): Hits The Nail On The Head, December 6, 2008
I am surprised this book has not been given more attention and that there aren't more customer reviews on it. Then it dawned on me: the book is critical of the UN; no wonder it hasn't received more media attention. That being said, it is a very, very good read. I have seen first hand the damage that a large government bureaucracy can dish out. Mr. Soussan's account of turf wars, bickering, egos and backstabbing is spot on.
The pure concept of diplomacy - José Calvet De Magalhães - Google Books
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2020 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site|
Last modified: February 04, 2021