When someone says something to you as though you might be
interested in his opinion, you have two choices: hear him out; or tell him
you’re not interested and walk away from him. Of course there is a variation:
hear him out but ignore him, tune him out and don’t respond. It’s the same as the second choice only rude
and disingenuous.
On the other hand if you hear him out and really try
listening to what he is saying, you face a few other choices. Here are some:
- Make notes on his points; outline it so you capture his logic and meaning
- Note which points are not clear or articulate; perhaps they are non sequiters are mean nothing; follow up with him for clarification
- Note the points which you disagree with on a factual or logical basis; these are errors in the other person’s presentation; discuss this with him
- Discount emotional elements which may comprise a diatribe; instead seek what the meaning is; perhaps he is just angry or frustrated; remove as much of that as possible to uncover the truer picture of his points
- Now make a determination of whether you agree or disagree; tell him
- But also note points you’d like more information about and see how this information may expand your understanding of the subject matter.
All of this takes time and discipline. And you may not have
it readily available. He may not let you have the time. He may press you or
debate you thus obscuring the discipline you are attempting to apply to his
‘argument.’ If that is the case you can give up and walk away, or persist.
Recently I shared with my blog readers a writer of a letter
to the editor of our local paper. I’m one of the editors. So I was the one
detailed to determine if the letter should be printed. We said no for the print
edition, but yes to placing it on our website in a special section of Rants ‘N
Raves. He objected to this treatment. I told him his letter’s tone and verbiage
were uncivil and disrespectful to other persons; if he kept to facts and ideas,
we might change our mind.
The chain of emails that
sparked could be used as a road map of disconnected communications. We were
talking over and past each other, not seeking understanding. To be honest, he
started the chain of invective and accusations, but I persisted in trying to
get him to write and discuss his point of view on a logical and calm basis. So
far I haven’t gotten very far. I invited him to read Thomas Friedman’s book,
The World is Flat; I even offered to share an outline of the book I had written
to help him explore the contents of the book before reading it. He asked me to read Ameritopia by Mark Levin.
If I read that book he promised to read Friedman’s book. I looked it up on the Internet and am not
sure I want to read this tome as being far too conservative and blathering. I
know the Friedman book is not an ideological snow job; I thought it would be
but was pleasantly surprised that it is not. I’m not sure about Levin’s book,
though. So I am dithering about reading it.
As I slept on this I awoke with the sense that I still need
to connect with this person and try to understand his point of view
better. By that process I’m hoping he
may actually try to understand my point of view as well. In such a way we might
actually help each other along a difficult path of communication. One can hope. I haven’t decided what I will do yet. I’ll
keep you posted.
Have you had such challenges? Is this as difficult for you
as it is for me? Why do you suppose that is? Building bridges. It is not easy.
March 3, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment