Is having me write a paper on the Pillow Talk method. http://cf.linnbenton.edu/artcom/performing_arts/burdonk/upload/SP218PillowTalk.pdf And I am wanting some others input into the 5 steps.. what do you do when you are right and the other person is wrong? what do you do when you are wrong and the other person is right? What happens if you are both right, or both wrong?
Compromise somehow, there's always a middle ground to most things. If no compromises can be found then it is best to just leave each other alone and go on your own ways. If that isn't possible then one person must be willing to allow the others point of view to be the one that is correct. In many marriages, as example, one spouse or another will give in just to stop the argument fropm escalating or continuing on forever. Even though you know that you are right sometimes it is better off to let it go to save the marriage.
I'm one who has broken much of what I'll discuss here- even on this forum. By no means, by saying what I say now, am I suggesting that I practice what I preach. However, I do try, when I can maintain my rational mind. -----I've learned rather the hard way that whenever people argue, both sides are wrong. There is nothing wrong with confrontation. Confrontation is healthy and promotes communication and understanding. However, when a confrontational party refuses to learn; It then becomes an argument. Control over emotion is crucial. Any topic that is firmly agreed upon or disagreed with also has a strong emotional element. It becomes very important to avoid the emotion trap. Anger is counter productive in almost any disagreement. Although a person can be angry when they confront, they cannot confront angrily. In a confrontation, avoiding any personal attacks or insults, derision or anything else that will inflame emotions can keep things calmer. "You're wrong and you can't see my side because you're stupid!" It's clear that doesn't help anything... "Can you agree that some of my points are valid? Can you tell me why some of them are not valid?" Gender makes a big difference. I can talk to a woman that way but it's not as easy to talk to a guy that way. He'll think I'm a pussy. So I slug him in the face, then ask him if my points are valid and which ones aren't and why. He's usually more receptive, then. Unconsciousness counts as a complete agreement with my side. Anyway... I disagree with number 5 on the paper. Truth is purely a subjective word. It's overused too often and it's used inappropriately even more often. I would use the word, "Validity." Any position can have valid arguments in it even if the whole of the stance is disagreeable. Example: Racism. A man says, "I'm racist because I see so many Blacks and Hispanics in bad neighborhoods dealing and doing drugs." His point has validity. A counter-argument is: "Crime doesn't pay for most criminals, so they end up in poor neighborhoods. Minorities have also had lower incomes and ended up in poor neighborhoods. Imagine what it's like for those people tolerating such activities where they live..." That argument also has validity. Number 2 on the list is my most important one. It's one I bear in mind after each point they make. If it is a valid point, I ask myself why it is so valid to me. I ask myself if I'm wrong and if I'm being pigheaded. I've changed my position on many topics because of this. Always remembering the other parties potential to have more validity in their reasons than you have is important. If I find their validity wanting, I conclude that I still disagree and why I do.
Could you make a valid argument for every point mentioned in the sight? Could you make some valid points?
lol.. I am not able to get the objectives ATM for the class... But this is just an example of what I have written so far... 1: You are right and the other person (or view) is wrong. This view is how most arguments turn into HUGE fights. Everyone always wants to thinks that they are right, and the other person is wrong. They do not want to hear the other person’s side of the story no matter what it is. In couples it also leads to massive fights leading to breakups. Just to understand later that the other person had a valid reason to disagree with you, and to see the other side of the story. 4: It isn’t important which position is right or wrong. It really isn’t important who is right and who isn’t in some talks. Though there are times when it IS important that one person is right and it is important, and the wrong person will just have to deal with the fact that they may not have been right this time, but there is always a next time
I agree with your take on 4. I covered 5 and 2 but um... I'm kinda not willing to write your homework for you here, either... In all seriousness, given your posts, Christa-- You seem more than capable of answering them all on your own. I should think this thread can be a resource by exposing you to minor points you may not have thought of... But as far as detailing examples of one through four of when they are applicable and when not- You seem to already know. If I were you, I would complete the entire assignment First. Write it out and let it sit for a while. By then maybe more people will have offered contribution in this thread. And if no one does... Well... I'm not quite sure you need any help, anyway.
Well I have it written already, I am just wanting to see how other people perceive them. I have to just write out a summery of what I wrote. This class has some points that make me wonder what everyone else things, or does for some of the assignments...
1.) In considering yourself correct and the other person incorrect, you must validate your own reasons for being correct. This may be easy, but it may also be difficult. For example: Seat Belt Laws. If the law is to be written in and voted on, One person may feel that it's a persons own responsibility to fasten their seatbelt. It's a personal choice. Another can point out that a person that doesn't often will die in an accdient and leave a burden on the taxpayers. It's difficult to argue against a position that can always be justified with Safety and Security. Freedom is a politically difficult stance to defend. By placing yourself in the defense of your position, you must examine why you have chosen that position and weigh the merit of each argument before you can put it out. A.) When do we draw the line at where we stop sacrificing freedoms for security? B.) If today we compromise, because how can one argue against the safety and wellbeing of others... How can we be sure that tomorrow, the argument will not shift over a little more to security? 2.) By treating yourself to their position, you must validate their reasons for arguing the opposing viewpoint. This is very similar to one, as you must validate your own by comparing your statements merit against your opponents. But it can have the side effect of causing you to consider something you would not have thought of when focusing primarily on your own position. This is healthiest, not in debate, but when personal disagreements can cause you to forget things that may be sensitive or very personal reasons for the other person. 3.) This one is not as straight forward as the other two. Because in many cases, both positions are not equal. If one is arguing in favor of genocide, You cannot honestly conclude that number 3 has validity. However, How a Person Behaves is still crucial to the outcome of the disagreement. By considering behavior, rather than merit of argument, a person must examine that aspect which wants to find personal faults within the other person to cause them to take a stance that you find so vehemently disagreeable. It can help you to maintain a calm disposition by remembering that their perspective, no matter how twisted you find it, is the one seen through their eyes. Accusing them of being Bad, Evil or corrupt is not likely to inspire them to re-examine their position. By being as responsible with your behavior as possible, you help to ensure that your opponent remains calm and not personally defensive, just defensive with his arguments. Because an angry person is not too likely to reveal their true feelings on a matter. They are likely to express whatever is the most hurtful. 4.) The importance of the argument is based entirely by the outcome of it. A quarrel about who gets to drive the car would fit in with number 4 on the list very nicely. This one applies to when Selfish Reasons are the primary cause of disagreement. However, in some cases a disagreement can have severe consequences depending on the outcome, including life or death. Two doctors disagreeing over a diagnosis in the emergency room while a patient slips away lack the luxury of assuming neither position is right or wrong. They must let go of a Personal Investment over whose position is right or wrong. But the outcome relies on the correct answer being reached. 5.) Exchanging the word, "validity" for truth, we find ourselves back at points 1 and 2. This brings the exercise full circle.
this is what I had wrote: For this assignment I chose my dad to help. We didn’t put our heads on the pillow due to personal spaces. But we do disagree on a lot, and according to him, I am never right (95% of the time anyways). I have come to understand other people’s views for arguments, or even sides of stories. 1: You are right and the other person (or view) is wrong. This view is how most arguments turn into HUGE fights. Everyone always wants to thinks that they are right, and the other person is wrong. They do not want to hear the other person’s side of the story no matter what it is. In couples it also leads to massive fights leading to breakups. Just to understand later that the other person had a valid reason to disagree with you, and to see the other side of the story. 2: They are right and you are wrong. It is very hard to admit that you are wrong. It takes some time of hearing both sides of the story, and knowing that you may not understand, before you can admit that you are wrong. No one wants to hear that they are wrong. But it takes a strong person to admit that they are wrong, even after hours of debate. 3: Both your positions are correct, and both are wrong. This problem happens a lot in the world. But no one wants to admit that they have no idea what they are talking about. 4: It isn’t important which position is right or wrong. It really isn’t important who is right and who isn’t in some talks. Though there are times when it IS important that one person is right and it is important, and the wrong person will just have to deal with the fact that they may not have been right this time, but there is always a next time. 5: Finally affirm that there is truth in all four positions. As stated before and above, every one of these has truth in each one. It is of human nature to be wrong, but it takes a strong person to say that they could possibly wrong. Any position can have valid arguments in it even if the whole of the stance is disagreeable.
hehee I like that.. A friend of mine likes to tell me that is so wrong its right when I start getting off topic or something... I will end up answering my own questions and not even know it.
1-imagine future events if you did argue, and compare it to the future shaped by you not arguing, compare, and then decide whether to argue or not. 2-put yourself in the other guy's shoes, absorb him and adopt his argument as your own, see whether you'll see what he sees[in him being right and you wrong]. 3-a- if you can see how he was right and you were wrong, admit it and thank him. 3-b- if you can see how he's right but it doesn't negate you being right as well show him you understand his POV but explain how it doesn't conflict with yours. 3-c-if you absorbed his POV and found a mistake in it which makes it wrong... ...repeat point 1.
