在辯論中如何應對輕微的言語攻擊?


4

在與他人互動時,我通常會嘗試遵循並遵循non-violent communication(NVC)原則。我並不總是按照"觀察/感覺/需求/要求"模式來表達自己,但我確實遵循NVC的一些價值觀:缺乏判斷力和權力關係,試圖平等地滿足我和我的對話者的需求,等等。/ p>

有時候有時候需要就一個抽象主題進行對話,例如政治,有必要交換意見。

我最終把NVC扔掉了,因為那裡的交流不是在請求中結束,而是在交換一些常見觀察的主觀觀點時,NVC沒用。

這一切都可能發生得很好。但是,這可能導致交流比起我們談論一個具體主題時,對彼此的信念更加暴力。它不僅總是代表我,也代表我的對話者。我聽到或說過類似的話:

We should do X ... No, this isn't true because ... This opinion on this is flawed because ...

由於這種話語會給我帶來傷害,並且因為我對傷害他人也感到難過,所以我對這些情況採取了非常迴避的行為。我通常會假裝沒有意見,以至於要說服自己自己沒有。我不喜歡不同意,也許比大多數人更反對,但是我當然也不喜歡被人告知或暗示"我錯了"來思考我的做法。從長遠來看,我避免了越來越多的情況和越來越多的人。

在交流觀點時,是否有交流技術可以抑制口頭攻擊?

希望這將有助於我應用和鼓勵使用一種相互尊重的溝通方式。


尤其是,我正在考慮處理被斷言為真實和/或可被視為冒犯的觀點的技術。

例如,我認為上帝不存在。我可以自由地表達這一點,但是如果我斷言某些人對他們確實如此,就會有些冒犯。

作為信徒,您將如何表達尊重的分歧,並可能也受到我的自信的傷害?

3

Yes, there are communication techniques to tone down verbal aggression in exchanging points of view. These techniques are of necessity mutually respectful because respect is the only thing that humans consistently respond to positively. However, in my experience, even these techniques do not work one hundred percent of the time. The reason: Humans are not robots.

Humans want what they want when they want it because they want it. This being the case, I personally find it helpful to evaluate the situation before engaging. I ask myself questions along these lines:

  • Is this conversation on an intellectual level I enjoy?
  • Can I learn something from this conversation, or contribute something to it, i.e. will it be productive for my life?
  • Will this conversation end peacefully with all parties feeling heard and respected?

If the answer to these question is Yes, I will engage. However, for the answer to be Yes, the people involved will be the kind who respond to respectful communication techniques meant to tone down aggression.

Toning Down the Aggression

I'm looking at The Basics of Nonviolent Communication TM and Common Logical Fallacies (pdf). I think NVC is going to accomplish your goal if you combine this with the tools provided in Logical Fallacies.

Identifying and avoiding being drawn into logical fallacies in emotional debates is a huge step in avoiding the kind of situation you described. For example, there is no such thing as a "flawed opinion."

Opinions are subjective. We all have a right to our own opinion. This does not mean that anyone else will agree with this opinion. People who disagree don't have a right to call it "flawed," however. Logic can be flawed but not opinions. Logic is objective, about principles, how facts work together to make the world go round. Flawed logic is faulty logic that doesn't work; the gears are jammed. There is no such problem with opinions because they are just ideas inside people's heads.

Knowing this difference can enable you to find the correct response to lower aggression. If you are with the kind of people I would choose to be with, NVC will work. Using NVC, inform the person of their logical fallacy.

Applying NVC in Decreasing Aggression

The first step in decreasing aggression in the conversation is to decrease aggression in oneself. From "The Basics of Nonviolent Communication":

NVC uses consciousness, language, and communication skills to create a framework from which you can:

  • express your feelings and needs with clarity and self-responsibility;
  • listen to others’ feelings and needs with compassion and empathy;
  • facilitate mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties involved.

To be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, it can help to remind oneself that the other person has a valid reason for their opinion, even if that opinion is based on faulty logic and incomplete information. Without judging the person harshly for their "wrong-headed ideas," one can compassionately fill them in on what they are missing, all the time keeping in mind that one is merely human and may also be missing an important point. Before doing that, it may help to find out on what their opinion is based.

Here are compassionate things people have said to me in an attempt to get at faulty underlying thinking:

  • Can you explain why you think/say that?
  • I can see why you would say [premise] but I'm not sure why you conclude [whatever I thought would inevitably follow].
  • Let me see if I correctly understand. [Repeat what they think I'm saying. I confirm, or correct if they have it wrong.] I can see where you're coming from but [correct my thinking, which may require a lengthy conversation to fill me in on information I was unaware of, along with reading recommendations].

That opens conversation on the topic of disagreement in an agreeable manner. It may turn out that the person with the "faulty logic" or "wrong opinion" was not completely wrong at all, but had insight/concerns on an angle not previously considered. This NVC approach allows you to change your position without taking accusations of "being wrong." Together, the group of conversationalists can discuss the issues peacefully.

As stated in the opening of this answer, we are human and do not respond one hundred percent as desired at all times. Possibly some members of the conversation group will need a lot more time to think things through before they can accept some of the new propositions brought to light. They may have to "sleep on it" more than one night. It may even happen that someone decides to change sides. People have the right to do that, difficult as it may be on friendships and family ties. In the principles of NVC, we realize that for them it may be a matter of personal integrity. But so is it for us; we disagree on too a deep level to compromise.

At that point, it must be decided whether or not friendship can continue on another basis despite this disagreement. However, because of NVC, we do not also have to deal with feelings of anger, shame, and hatred. This makes it much easier to find a basis for continuing friendship in other interests and areas of life.