The Art of Communication

[kvnchrist]

In how many ways do we as human beings communicate with each other and are we fully ware of the difficulties that some have in understanding us. Are we capable of allowing others to debate our strongest held beliefs, without reverting to personal attacks and if so are we debaters or simply people wanting promote ourselves above the topic at hand. Are those who turn to flaming and personal attacks defending and ideal or their own self image and how can we as observers rebuild the integrity of a cherished member who has lost it?

Political and spiritual debates can be as intense as the feelings of Love and hate, but do we allow discussion on important issues based on our rigid understandings or based on our abilities to articulate well, our feelings. I know that there are those who see things as abstract and those who see things as concrete. This is called the left brain/right brain thinking and the two have their strengths and weaknesses, but it is hard for those who use more of one side to communicate with one who uses more of the other side. Both persons are acting in accord with each other, but neither can grasp where in other is coming from.

 

Is it communication just to spout words and make stances or is it communication to try to understand where the other person is coming from and try to meet them in the middle.

[HeyYou]

If you can't attack the issue, attack the person. By making accusations, however far-fetched they may be, you cast doubt on the persons credibility. In my view, the person resorting to personal attacks is the one that has credibility issues though...... From what I have seen of some of the current issues in my area though, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

[Aurielius]

If you can't attack the issue, attack the person. By making accusations, however far-fetched they may be, you cast doubt on the persons credibility. In my view, the person resorting to personal attacks is the one that has credibility issues though...... From what I have seen of some of the current issues in my area though, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The first rule of cross examination of a witness is to question their credibility, if they are not credible then their testimony likely is not either. Not all messengers and messages can be separated cleanly. Just an opposing point of view. :whistling:

Edited July 8, 2011 by Aurielius

[Deleted472477User]

If you can't attack the issue, attack the person. By making accusations, however far-fetched they may be, you cast doubt on the persons credibility. In my view, the person resorting to personal attacks is the one that has credibility issues though...... From what I have seen of some of the current issues in my area though, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The first rule of cross examination of a witness is to question their credibility, if they are not credible then their testimony likely is not either. Not all messengers and messages can be separated cleanly. Just an opposing point of view. :whistling:

 

True. I'm new to debating, and my own approach is entirely too emotionally driven with not enough supporting facts. I'm trying to correct this.

 

For the OP (so I don't have two posts in a row):

 

People have different beliefs on things, and I'm good with that. It's how life is. I don't mind if people disagree with me, so long as they are more "I disagree, this is how I feel because..." as opposed to "I disagree with you, and also, you suck, and you're patronizing/snotty/an idiot" because of it. I'm more likely to try and see where the other person is coming from and assess my own views if the opposition is being polite. The other way just makes me decide someone is a jerk and less likely to think "Hey, maybe I'm not thinking things through as well as I should."

 

Debates can get intense and heated without people falling into 'Greater Internet Freaktard Theory'.

 

I admit my own delivery can use some work, which is why I'm trying hard to correct that.

[Aurielius]

If you can't attack the issue, attack the person. By making accusations, however far-fetched they may be, you cast doubt on the persons credibility. In my view, the person resorting to personal attacks is the one that has credibility issues though...... From what I have seen of some of the current issues in my area though, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The first rule of cross examination of a witness is to question their credibility, if they are not credible then their testimony likely is not either. Not all messengers and messages can be separated cleanly. Just an opposing point of view. :whistling:

People have different beliefs on things, and I'm good with that. It's how life is. I don't mind if people disagree with me, so long as they are more "I disagree, this is how I feel because..." as opposed to "I disagree with you, and also, you suck, and you're patronizing/snotty/an idiot" because of it. I'm more likely to try and see where the other person is coming from and assess my own views if the opposition is being polite. The other way just makes me decide someone is a jerk and less likely to think "Hey, maybe I'm not thinking things through as well as I should."

I believe I used the term credibility not assault, so when someone makes a statement in which they are drawing on personal knowledge one is perfectly entitled to impeach them and there by the message. Not sure where you got the latter half of your paragraph from my one sentence. One is always entitled to feel subjectively to any heated exchange whether that is a true evaluation is again subjective.

[Deleted472477User]

If you can't attack the issue, attack the person. By making accusations, however far-fetched they may be, you cast doubt on the persons credibility. In my view, the person resorting to personal attacks is the one that has credibility issues though...... From what I have seen of some of the current issues in my area though, that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The first rule of cross examination of a witness is to question their credibility, if they are not credible then their testimony likely is not either. Not all messengers and messages can be separated cleanly. Just an opposing point of view. :whistling:

People have different beliefs on things, and I'm good with that. It's how life is. I don't mind if people disagree with me, so long as they are more "I disagree, this is how I feel because..." as opposed to "I disagree with you, and also, you suck, and you're patronizing/snotty/an idiot" because of it. I'm more likely to try and see where the other person is coming from and assess my own views if the opposition is being polite. The other way just makes me decide someone is a jerk and less likely to think "Hey, maybe I'm not thinking things through as well as I should."

I believe I used the term credibility not assault, so when someone makes a statement in which they are drawing on personal knowledge one is perfectly entitled to impeach them and there by the message. Not sure where you got the latter half of your paragraph from my one sentence. One is always entitled to feel subjectively to any heated exchange whether that is a true evaluation is again subjective.

 

Apologies. I should have posted when I wasn't feeling so rushed. It was meant as a "This stuff happens" rather than anything at you per se. I also didn't want to post twice in a row.

[Sync182]

Communication is achieved when two (or more) parties use the same medium in such a way as ideas and opinons are shared in a meaningful manner to enable a desired outcome to be obtained.

 

Communication is losing its definition thanks to the texting/social media generation. :-/

 

I also didn't want to post twice in a row.

 

You CAN edit, you know. ;)

 

 

 

//WOOT! 300 posts! :D

[WrathOfDeadguy]

My take on communication in debate is that if your premises are reasonable and your logic is sound, then you've made your case as well as if you'd linked half a dozen studies saying the same thing. I'm willing to listen to anybody on anything as long as they can get from "if" to "then" without resorting to baseless ad hominem or tripping over their own logical heels (ie the "violent people play videogames therefore videogames make people violent" line that we see so often).

 

There is a common misconception, one which troubles me greatly, that "credentialed" and "credible" are synonyms. Folks will take anything as gospel as long as the author has a doctorate, no matter what kind, even if they don't know what field said author studied (ie a man with a PhD in Astrophysics presenting an argument about climate change). It is also greatly troubling when I see a perfectly sound and reasonable argument dismissed out of hand because the person presenting it didn't have credentials. In neither case is independent confirmation of the author's claims sought, and I believe that unfortunate failure to do follow-up research results in an awful lot of good ideas being ignored and an awful lot of bad ideas turned into law and public policy.

 

Communication breaks down when context and content are ignored.

[kvnchrist]

My take on communication in debate is that if your premises are reasonable and your logic is sound, then you've made your case as well as if you'd linked half a dozen studies saying the same thing. I'm willing to listen to anybody on anything as long as they can get from "if" to "then" without resorting to baseless ad hominem or tripping over their own logical heels (ie the "violent people play videogames therefore videogames make people violent" line that we see so often).

 

There is a common misconception, one which troubles me greatly, that "credentialed" and "credible" are synonyms. Folks will take anything as gospel as long as the author has a doctorate, no matter what kind, even if they don't know what field said author studied (ie a man with a PhD in Astrophysics presenting an argument about climate change). It is also greatly troubling when I see a perfectly sound and reasonable argument dismissed out of hand because the person presenting it didn't have credentials. In neither case is independent confirmation of the author's claims sought, and I believe that unfortunate failure to do follow-up research results in an awful lot of good ideas being ignored and an awful lot of bad ideas turned into law and public policy.

 

Communication breaks down when context and content are ignored.

 

 

A very good point. I've come across several people in one particular site that start every rebuttal with their credentials. Then they commenced to try to talk over and down to everybody else. It's not like these people can produce these documents. I wanted so much to put out my masters in underwater basket weaving, but I never got around to it. The debate area over there hasn't had a new post in it in the past 3 months and the admin started asking people why.

[Deleted472477User]

Communication is achieved when two (or more) parties use the same medium in such a way as ideas and opinons are shared in a meaningful manner to enable a desired outcome to be obtained.

 

Communication is losing its definition thanks to the texting/social media generation. :-/

 

I also didn't want to post twice in a row.

 

You CAN edit, you know. ;)

 

 

 

//WOOT! 300 posts! :D

 

Good point. Derp on me!