How to have a discussion.
Link
I found this thing earlier today and thought it was interesting.
What's everyone's opinion on it?
I found this thing earlier today and thought it was interesting.
What's everyone's opinion on it?
I don't agree about that being how human beings exchange ideas.
Discussions like that are too much work. Let's all agree not to discuss anything.
I read it and are we trying to discuss it, if so I vote no. Also when were we "rational" "human" beings.
If someone realises they will have to pay, they will not enter the contract. They must be enticed in with the idea that they have the chance of winning. You can then attempt to discretely convert them to your way of thinking thus winning the game. This is like a game of chess as they will be aiming for the same outcome, except in their favour.
They must be enticed in with the idea that they have the chance of winning.
You're talking about a dispute. That can in extreme cases be solved by a higher power, such as a teacher (in school) or a judge (later). There you can win or lose.
You cannot win a discussion. You cannot lose either. If you're doing it right, both sides can learn new things from it. You may in the end have a different opinion than in the beginning (although most of the time no big changes happen).
If you really want to put this in terms of winning and losing, I would say the person who changed their mind most is the winner, because they supposedly learned the most. That still doesn't make the other person the loser.
Some people treat a discussion as a dispute and try to win in the way you describe. Discussing with those people is useless. They will not teach you anything new.
You're talking about a dispute. That can in extreme cases be solved by a higher power, such as a teacher (in school) or a judge (later). There you can win or lose.
You cannot win a discussion. You cannot lose either. If you're doing it right, both sides can learn new things from it. You may in the end have a different opinion than in the beginning (although most of the time no big changes happen).
If you really want to put this in terms of winning and losing, I would say the person who changed their mind most is the winner, because they supposedly learned the most. That still doesn't make the other person the loser.
Some people treat a discussion as a dispute and try to win in the way you describe. Discussing with those people is useless. They will not teach you anything new.
They will not teach you anything new.
If you become hyper-defensive, you would block out useful information... your affect would cloud your ability to absorb it.
I think a discussion is always object-oriented, for this reason the objective is achieved one way or another or else the discussion fails to achieve closure. So it is a win-or-lose situation.
If we look at conversation, well, that's different. It could be about anything and serve any purpose. Often the purpose would be to gain rapport or to promote a certain self-image; this would be true in the case of placing value one the receiver. If this value was absent, a conversation may be an investigation into the receiver's potential value or out of a need for self-validation such as an appearance of being social.
If you become hyper-defensive, you would block out useful information... your affect would cloud your ability to absorb it.
I think a discussion is always object-oriented, for this reason the objective is achieved one way or another or else the discussion fails to achieve closure. So it is a win-or-lose situation.
If we look at conversation, well, that's different. It could be about anything and serve any purpose. Often the purpose would be to gain rapport or to promote a certain self-image; this would be true in the case of placing value one the receiver. If this value was absent, a conversation may be an investigation into the receiver's potential value or out of a need for self-validation such as an appearance of being social.
