From: David Lubkin (lubkin@unreasonable.com)
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 19:00:24 MDT
On 9/28/99, at 12:15 PM, Ottley Darron L Contr 388 RANS wrote:
>It is difficult to follow this thread as who is being offended by what.
>Either you are direct and truthful (perhaps offending the more sensetive in
>the process of efficient communication) or you are politically correct and
>ambiguous (perhaps offending those who desire actual information). Either
>is a learned means of communication.
They are not mutually exclusive. I attempt to be direct, truthful, *and*
sensitive to my audience. (Most of the time.) It's not that hard; it just
takes practice, and empathy.
Why do I bother? Well, why do I communicate in the first place?
- I want someone to do something, or refrain from doing something.
- I want to convince them of something.
- I'm maintaining or strengthening an emotional bond with them.
- I want to pass on information that might be useful to them (because I'm
a nice guy).
- etc.
All communication results in an emotional response in the other person. Define
+5 as extremely positive, 0 as neutral, and -5 as extremely negative. Depending
on how I phrase my remarks, I can potentially evoke an emotional response
anywhere on that spectrum. Of course, since the other person comes with
preconceptions and an emotional history, there is a limit to how much influence
you may have on the emotional response.
But the more positive the emotional response you can evoke, the more receptive
the person is going to be to what you have to say. They will be more likely to
respond to what you've said in accordance with your goals.
And whatever emotional response you evoke will prejudice them further in your
favor or against you when you speak to them next.
In the libertarian community, this has been an issue from the beginning. Some
people present our message in stark, absolutist terms, without regard for the POV
of the other person. This gives the speaker an adrenaline rush of self-righteousness.
But it does little to persuade the other person and usually turns them off. And makes
them that much less receptive to hearing from the next libertarian they meet.
Why should I care if Crockerians follow Crocker's Rules?
- I view the list as a community, or even a family. Deliberate or oblivious insensitivity
evokes strong emotional responses, which triggers flame wars, reduces the signal-
to-noise ratio of the list, and reduces the community bond.
- Practioners of Crocker's Rules make it more difficult for me (and others who try to be
tactful) to persuade the outer world about issues important to me.
- As members of my clan, I'd like to see you all succeed.
Emotional response *may* cease to be an issue in IA/upload world. But we're not
there yet.
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST