Amazing way of SOLVING difficult issues Bashny.Net

I want to share one of their favorite exercises: "Again, I agree that further" — amazing way to joint discussion of difficult issues. We have developed this exercise, this method, together with his wife, Marina Smirnova, and often his practice. First, we exercise just love and often it just playing when you walk: take any difficult question begin: "I heard what you said..." — and more! Secondly, we will use it when we have real, hard differences. Without it — no question, because he is correct. calmer, easier.





Limits of use — in dealing with a wild and aggressive people, this approach is not suitable. Again, I agree, add a - format discussion of contentious, difficult issues in the family and between employees at work — in any case, to communicate with honest people who are interested in a collaborative relationship. Hopefully, you are surrounded by such people. In addition, it is one of the great exercises of the Course, developing the ability to listen.

The procedureFirst is determine the subject of controversy. For this — the interviewer should formulate his thesis as either clearly that it was a thesis and to be repeated. If you agree on this point completely, then smile and agree. If you do not agree, then — no, don't mind! First, formulate your thesis, opposing the thesis of the interlocutor. To start the discussion and argue interlocutor, without defining its own position is wrong and illiterate, it usually produces only an altercation and does not lead to anything common and reasonable. So, formulate your thesis and identify the subject of the disagreement.

Practice. 1. If you say, "the Orange is round", and the source: "the Pineapple is delicious", you have something to discuss? 2. If your thesis is: "the Family WE are the family to which all families should aspire," and the thesis of the interlocutor: "the Family I+I — a record of two opinions and the division of areas of responsibility" — there are clear subject differences? 3. And if you believe that the family should be equal partners, and the source for what the family must be the head of the family — whether the subject matter of the disagreements in this discussion possible? The answers can be found here.

Now, when the subject of a disagreement is identified, repeat the thesis of the interlocutor as literally as possible.

"I heard you say their children educate the parents, first and foremost by example". (If the person believes that he meant not so, he must repeat my idea more simply and clearly).

I agree with the fact that you think this statement is reasonable. It is better to speak not literally, and in your own words.

"I agree that the influence of parents on children is very strong, and the example of parents is very important for children." (In this statement the position of the interlocutor a bit reformulated, and if the person believes that it has distorted his view, he may have to say about it)

Add, add what, in your opinion, the vision is not enough. Share your opinion, but not separate, and in General, and in relation to what has been said by the interlocutor, supplementing his position and opinion.

"I want to add that children are influenced not only by their parents. Affect them, and no less seriously, their classmates in school, and their value may be materially different from the values accepted in the family, children affected, and TV that children watch several hours in a row. In this situation, to rely only on the fact that the example of parents do their children wrong."

Now similarly makes the source.Repeat the thesis of the interlocutor as literally as possible.

"I heard that children are strongly influenced not only by parents by example, but and classmates and TV, and you think that in such a situation to act one example is not enough."

I agree with the fact that you think this statement is reasonable. It is better to speak not literally, and in your own words.

"I agree on that apply to children and media, and teen environment, and in such circumstances act one of its example is not enough".

Add the fact that, in your opinion, the vision is not enough. Share your opinion, but not separate, and in General, and in relation to what has been said by the interlocutor, supplementing his position and opinion.

"I want to add that conversations with children a little that will achieve and to do of his classmates enemies — all wrong. The family must be more General Affairs, playing games — more time spent with parents together."

And so on...

Errors and hintsAs the experience of University students, often occur following typical mistakes.

The sides had not defined its position, there is no clear thesis. On the one hand, sometimes, the thesis is formulated, and the other side starts to protest, not defined and not disclose their position. Unclear rationale of the thesis. When there is no argument that to discuss? There are two errors: one side doesn't ground, the second side of justification does not ask. Addition is not associated with the previous line of conversation. Of course, you can start a new topic, but it is better to do one line and be asked to formulate a thesis are not separate, but directly connected with the previous conversation, which is an obvious addition. The curve option — when the complement is a direct objection to the thesis of the interlocutor... then what you agreed, gentlemen? Examples ofquite a Few live, real examples of using this exercise, to finding and understanding can be viewed here →

What makes this exercise (practice)

• Removes unnecessary emotions, includes the head. When you start to repeat after interlocutor something extra emotions go. You focused I think. Investigation: even if the subject is sharp, you calm yourself, calm your interlocutor. This format teaches to respect each other and usually proves to be a reliable barrier of rudeness and assaults.
• Helps the sides to understand the perspective of each other. If you have the opportunity to build a Configurator or simply agree — it happens.
• In terms of personal development — teaches to effectively listen and hear, developing logic and reasoning: teaches to justify its position and to Express their thoughts coherently. This conversation is an excellent intellectual gymnastics and many couples the evening is a favorite game while walking.

Limits of use this format

• The conversation in this format, making the conversation slow. If you want to negotiate quickly, a minute — this format is not suitable.
• This technique assumes equality of the sides, mutual respect for points of view to each other, provokes conflict in the cases, when you begin to discuss that either in this format when the source expects an immediate implementation of its requirements or the adoption of its charges. published by P. S. And remember, just changing your mind — together we change the world! ©
  
     
  
  

Source: www.psychologos.ru/articles/view/povtorizpt_soglasiszpt_dobav