I can't speak to "most of the time" as I only have experience with my relationships. In my current one, problem solving and empathy both are used to great results.
GaMEChld
joined 1 year ago
I already use one... Oh, do you not speak English? Or have some condition that affects reading comprehension? You might need to reread this entire thread more carefully. You haven't answered a single question that I asked. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Aren't you the one who accused me of "red-herring" and other nonsense?
Concurrently, constantly telling a rational problem solver problems and not letting them offer solutions ALSO takes a mental toll on the listener.
It's bidirectional. It probably will result in compassion fatigue.
Fair enough! That makes sense to me.
Oh yes, I wasn't pointing a finger at you specifically. Rather, I thought your response was excellent! I'm more just pointing out the civility of our discourse so that other people can learn effective communication strategies, and better my own as well. Thank you for your reasonable responses.
Thank you for proving my point. Your contributions to science will not be forgotten.
I have follow-up questions. How many people were you successful at convincing of something while calling them names?
I already see that you are an embellishing liar, because you said only I am an idiot, but your post history shows otherwise.
Do you find your conversation skills particularly effective? Do you think there's anything you can do to improve them?
Thanks for the example! I'll definitely check that out.
Sure. But then shouldn't people be convincing those people of why that thinking is bad? See my other comment regarding building consensus:
Hmm... I understand the desire for reducing the spread of damaging theories, but there also seems to be an element of burying one's head in the sand to that approach. Wouldn't it be more productive to explain logically and dispassionately what the problems with the thought processes are rather than ignore the problem?
How does that approach build consensus to effect meaningful policy change?
Simply ignoring the person's position doesn't convince them to vote differently.
It's both. We are both simultaneously capable of free will, yet are also products of the universe that created us. So my answer to your question, in my humble opinion, is yes. Yes, we can victim blame while simultaneously lamenting the corporate landscape.
Let's make this simpler. This corporate greed is a problem, yes? What actions have you taken to remove this problem?
Very interesting. Exactly the type of information I was looking for, thanks for providing. I do wonder why the question was down voted. That doesn't seem like a productive way to achieve the desired result if the desired result is to convince more people that giving up beef is the lowest hanging fruit on the path to fighting climate change.
If anyone who down voted me reads this, please tell me why you did so that I may better understand how to communicate effectively.
Vlasky todo babala