Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Set a collaborative frame by including others
Hello guys,
disclaimer: this is not a proven technique, it’s an observation of other people’s speech patterns. I noticed the following: when people are discussing a topic, for instance in a professional setting. By using:
« Maybe »: you leave the possibility of you being wrong or a third way to exist.
“ It’s possible”: same as above.
By using these sentences we are moving towards collaboration rather than confrontation.
What do you think?
In general discussions, I do intentionally use these words and phrases to encourage the other person to give their views and opinions.
You set the frame that the decision is not finalised.
Person A: Option A looks good. Maybe we could go with this option. What does each of you think?
It's sometimes better than disagreeing directly.
Or letting the other person know you don't want to go ahead with his decision at this moment.
Person A: Let's go ahead with this vendor.
Person B: This vendor does sound like a good option. Maybe we could explore these other options and reach a final decision. What do you think?
(Compared to)
Person B: We could explore these other options before reaching a final decision. (Sounds dismissive)
Also good when you don't have a conclusion drawn.
And you would like to avoid influencing other people in a biased manner.
Because you still have assumptions to address in your work or research.
Person A: Do you think patient A has this condition?
Person B: It's possible. Give me a bit more time to look into this. What do you think?
It's also possible to avoid using these phrases to achieve the same effect.
Person A: Do you think patient A has this condition?
Person B: My current stance is yes. But please give me more time to look into this. I do not want to jump to conclusions. What do you think?
For communicating with impulsive people, I would use the former "It's possible".
These people sometimes may only listen to parts of your statements and jump to conclusions.
You can also use this if you prefer to keep information to yourself. Buying time.
If you and your colleague are competing for an assignment, your colleague asks for your opinion on the subject.
You can say "it's possible", but I have not looked into detail on this.
For more methodological people, I would use the latter.
Because you give them a starting point to work with.
At the same time, these people would respect your request that it takes time to reach a proper decision.
Thanks a lot for your answer! :)
These are also good forms to:
- Deal with people who are in high in power, but have fragile ego: or they might feel disempowered and will disagree just to re-acquire power
- Debate with unfair debater / power movers: people who seek to win the debate at all costs seek any opportunity to one-up, so by deploying more philosopher's frames with "maybe", "it's possible", "some people", "in some cases", you defend against their easy attack.
- Convince others: people who are facing cognitive dissonance when you present material they disagree with unconsciously seek an easy way to disagree with you and keep their mindset. By using philosopher's frames you deny them an easy way out and you "force" them to think it over more thoroughly. This is one of the reasons why I often use this format in some of my writings/videos
And, in general, as John says, they are good as they invite more collaborative frames, and reduce the scope and opportunity for escalations and for "me VS you" frames.
- Debate with unfair debater / power movers: people who seek to win the debate at all costs seek any opportunity to one-up, so by deploying more philosopher's frames with "maybe", "it's possible", "some people", "in some cases", you defend against their easy attack.
I used it a lot with unfair debaters. Because it's so easy for them to take an example that contradicts the whole conversation. This is value-taking and a manipulation. By using the words above, the conversation stays alive even though nobody else has nothing else to add for lack of knowledge or ideas.
- Convince others: people who are facing cognitive dissonance when you present material they disagree with unconsciously seek an easy way to disagree with you and keep their mindset. By using philosopher's frames you deny them an easy way out and you "force" them to think it over more thoroughly.
True.
reduce the scope and opportunity for escalations and for "me VS you" frames.
Very important as "me VS you" frames are the slippery slope in this case.
I used it a lot with unfair debaters. Because it's so easy for them to take an example that contradicts the whole conversation. This is value-taking and a manipulation. By using the words above, the conversation stays alive even though nobody else has nothing else to add for lack of knowledge or ideas.
Exactly!
Usually, when you can, it's best to keep those types of people out of your life.
But it's not always possible (which is one reason why a website like this is a helpful tool in life).
Plus, those type of debaters have a tendency to acquire quite some following with their aggressive attitude and YouTube making their videos viral with titles like "X DESTROYS Y" (see Ben Shapiro, for example).
So if you want to confront their (often extreme) ideas effectively, you need to get your hands dirty as well and learn to defend against their power moves and manipulations.
By the way, if someone make the "generalization mistake with you", you can correct it while still keeping the debate value-adding.
For example:
Him: People don't like that
You: Well, you say "people don't like... ", but it's not always true, there are plenty of people who do like that. BUT, I get your point, and...
Such as, you correct the generalized statement, which in some cases can be a power move on its own, but you take the high road and keep arguing more fairly towards a resolution, or at least towards a more civil and value-adding conversation.
I do this often.
Usually, when you can, it's best to keep those types of people out of your life.
But it's not always possible (which is one reason why a website like this is a helpful tool in life).
Plus, those type of debaters have a tendency to acquire quite some following with their aggressive attitude and YouTube making their videos viral with titles like "X DESTROYS Y" (see Ben Shapiro, for example).
So if you want to confront their (often extreme) ideas effectively, you need to get your hands dirty as well and learn to defend against their power moves and manipulations.
100%. I had not yet identified Ben Shapiro like this but you're right.
Such as, you correct the generalized statement, which in some cases can be a power move on its own, but you take the high road and keep arguing more fairly towards a resolution, or at least towards a more civil and value-adding conversation.
I do this often.
Yeah, the problem is most people are not used to debate like this. I mean to really debate to find out a higher truth together, which is what I'm most interested about. So once you side-step the generalized statement, many people are not really able to go further in the conversation. They acquired a blanket idea at some point in their life. Then they threw it around and most people where not able to go past it. Once you go past it you see it for what it is: a screen with nothing behind. It happens to me as well and when I realize I have a blanket idea, I feel dumb and I learn!
#2. Strike When They Overreact (Ie.: Gaslighting)
One of my supervisor, the woman whom I identified as a narcissist, F. did this to me. She took advantage of me and then I overreacted to her abuse. She said calmly: "don't take it personally". I defended a little bit but it was over. She got me to overreact and then struck.
Quote from John Freeman on December 26, 2020, 12:01 pmOne of my supervisor, the woman whom I identified as a narcissist, F. did this to me. She took advantage of me and then I overreacted to her abuse. She said calmly: "don't take it personally". I defended a little bit but it was over. She got me to overreact and then struck.
Not a very good sign about her general character and attitude, focusing on one-upping and dominating others.
