LJ confessional

[juldea]

Somewhat tangentially to what I think of as my social circle are the people who actively participate in the "LJ Confessional," which is just a post made about once a year, open to anonymous comments, for people to let loose whatever's on their mind. swashbucklr is I think the closest of my friends to that group, and his post announcing the opening of

Comments

[siderea]

Huh. The thing that came up in the negative feedback? You've never done it (in my recollection) in conversation with me... but you in fact do it in your reply. The feedback was that you make the "assumption that the other person just doesn't get it", and in reply you... make the assumption that the other person just doesn't get it, and explain that "in fact" something else is going on. But what you then go on to explain is this different reality ("my worry that I am explaining myself poorly") is exactly what the other person said was the problem in the first place, not something different at all

[juldea]

Argh. Trying to avoid doing this thing in my reply to you is pretty much leaving me unable to respond at all. Is it just so inherent in my conversation/debate style that I don't know how to talk otherwise? Am I misunderstanding the problem on a higher level? It feels like I can't even come back at this point with a clarification without that being "you don't get it." Isn't that what a clarification actually is? I don't think it's possible for me to engage a debate without the ability to clarify my statements.

[siderea]

This reply is heroic and awesome, just so's you know. :) You're exactly right that it's like you don't know how to talk otherwise. It's a habit, and habits are hard to break. It feels like AUGH WHAT ELSE COULD I POSSIBLY DO?! Also, with a heaping side of, AUGH THIS IS LIKE SAYING ALL THOSE AWFUL PEOPLE IN THE PAST WERE RIGHT

[alexx_kay]

"When someone says, "this thing you're doing, I don't like it", one has the choice of debating it, but it's not the only choice."

Some other choices, appropriate in some circumstances:

* I acknowledge that I do, in fact, do this thing.
* I value your opinion enough to attempt to change this behavior.
* I value doing this thing too much to change it just because you don't like it.

Note the clear distinction between the issue of whether the other person is factually correct, and the issue of whether you share their value judgments about the matter under discussion.

I generally have found it useful to debate matters of fact until agreement is reached. Contrariwise, I have found it it useful to *discuss* matters of values until *understanding* is reached; after that point, if you don't agree, going further rarely accomplishes anything.

[juldea]

"I value your opinion enough to want to understand it more, and thus I will share with you what I think is going on, with the expectation that you will return how you see that thing differently, until I reach a level of understanding such that I can determine whether I value your opinion or this facet of myself more and thus change or not."

:P

I... am frustrated, because I am perceiving your final paragraph to be intended as a lesson or lecture, while I perceive that what you say there is what I do. So here we are again, someone is saying "this thing you're doing is bad," but I don't acknowledge that I do it, and I can't attempt to change it because I don't understand it, and I don't know if I value it because I don't know what it is!

I might have fewer spoons today than yesterday. Sorry. :/

My bad.

[alexx_kay]

My post was largely expanding on Siderea's point which I quoted, in a slightly different direction. I thought what she said was true as far as it went, but could benefit from considering more details. I was thinking of this in the abstract, and not in relation to the upthread discussion of behaviors you may or may not engage in. In hindsight, I see how what I wrote did not properly express that, and I apologize for the lack of clarity.

[juldea]

Well, of course all the people in the past were right. I've known my diplomacy style has SOME kind of problem, I just haven't ever figured out what it is! It's even hard to see now, of course. :)

Early in my comment to you, I used both "debate" and "conversation". By the end of the comment, I was using just "debate" because I was thinking more of political "discussions" of late and less of usual conversation.

I doubt my ability to have a good offense in arguments. I think the reason I'm so stubborn is that otherwise, I would be changing my mind in each debate to match the opinion of whoever was most vociferously arguing against me. Learning to dig in my heels when I've thought something through keeps me from losing all my convictions to the latest smooth-sounding statement. :/

[siderea]

Also: very, very, very important: You always have the right to withdraw, to say, "Huh, I'm going to need to think about that. Thanks." Or to withdraw without saying anything. Nobody has the right to call you on the carpet and demand of you, "IMMEDIATELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHTNESS OF MY ARGUMENT AND CAPITULATE TO MY DEMANDS TO CHANGE", except unless one is in the military and it's one's commanding officer.

[etherial]

There is no reg I'm ware of that says you have to agree with your CO, just to obey them.

[purple_dj]

What if he orders you to agree with him?

[etherial]

The mind is a mysterious box. Who knows what thoughts actually lurk within?

[juldea]

But that's LOSING! ;)

Tangentially reminded of a quote

[alexx_kay]

"Well now, that's *exactly* the whole *POINT* isn't it?!? Every time we discuss anything *logically* I *lose*. So I ask him how is *that* fair, Mr. Smartypants? Logic your way out of that one." -- Nurse Jones