Excellent article on handling disagreements, bbyrd. It's also very relevant to the forum. In the political environment, politicians have primed us to hate and demean those that we have disagreements with. The other side are painted as irredeemable extremists. While I expect a lot of disagreements on this forum, but I also don't want the forum to turn into the polarizing and partisan platforms (all or mostly Christian sites, Atheist/skeptic sites, Democrat or Republican platforms) out there.

I encourage all to read the article. I'll post some of the highlights, some of it is out of order...

First, when encountering disagreement, most people jump into “persuasion mode,” which doesn’t leave much room for listening, or even for pursuing other goals for the interaction. Any conversation could be an opportunity to learn something new, build a relationship that might bear fruit later, or simply have an interesting experience. But most of those goals get forgotten when the urge to persuade sets in. Second, and just as important, is that even when people do wish to make their counterparts feel heard they don’t know how to do so.

...Based on these analyses, we developed an algorithm that picks out specific words and phrases that make people in conflict feel that their counterpart is thoughtfully engaging with their perspective.

We encapsulate this conversational style in the simple acronym H.E.A.R.:

H = Hedge your claims, even when you feel very certain about your beliefs. It signals a recognition that there are some cases or some people who might support your opponent’s perspective.

E = Emphasize agreement. Find some common ground even when you disagree on a particular topic. This does not mean compromising or changing your mind, but rather recognizing that most people in the world can find some broad ideas or values to agree on.

A = Acknowledge the opposing perspective. Rather than jumping in to your own argument, devote a few seconds to restating the other person’s position to demonstrate that you did indeed hear and understand it.

R = Reframing to the positive. Avoid negative and contradictory words, such as “no,” “won’t” or “do not.” At the same time, increase your use of positive words to change the tone of the conversation.

Conversational receptiveness is effective because it makes the interaction less confrontational and therefore less unpleasant. At the same time, it allows both parties to express their perspective. As a result, it gives people some confidence that if they approach a topic of disagreement, their partner will stay in the conversation, and the relationship will not sustain damage.
Source: Same article in the OP or below..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
Excellent article on handling disagreements, bbyrd. It's also very relevant to the forum. In the political environment, politicians have primed us to hate and demean those that we have disagreements with. The other side are painted as irredeemable extremists. While I expect a lot of disagreements on this forum, but I also don't want the forum to turn into the polarizing and partisan platforms (all or mostly Christian sites, Atheist/skeptic sites, Democrat or Republican platforms) out there.

I encourage all to read the article. I'll post some of the highlights, some of it is out of order...


Source: Same article in the OP or below..
there’s even a Bible v for that, that i like bc it can reveal how the Bible can be deceptive, about “those who speak in authority,” which suggests someone spouting facts as if they knew to most ppl, but might also be about those rare ppl one hears who qualify their statements (hedge their replies, etc) or iow pure agnosticism