| ▲ | vidarh 11 hours ago |
| I think in general stripping away the parts you agree with from the argument works great, because it strips away a whole lot of potential for ending up indirectly arguing over things that aren't in contention, and it often also defuses the rest when it turns out the core of the argument perhaps is much smaller than people are willing to get invested in. |
|
| ▲ | soco 9 hours ago | parent [-] |
| How do you do that without sounding negative? Because by doing that there's the risk of the general impression "we didn't agree", as you basically focused on the disagreements. |
| |
| ▲ | vidarh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | "You're totally right about X and Y. I think the only thing we disagree about is Z". People like being told they're right, and you then downplay the importance of the actual remaining disagreement. Often that lowers the stakes for people. They've already "won" since you agreed with most of what they said, so the rest becomes less important. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Repeating back what someone said (specifically: trying to mirror their exact words as best you can remember them) also has proven psychological effects: increased empathy and calming of your own emotional response and theirs. It's a component of a few psych frameworks around improving interpersonal conflict. Ref: https://hartsteinpsychological.com/the-power-of-active-liste... Short template form is "What I think I heard you say is (repeat their words as exactly as possible)? Did I get that right?" | | |
|
|
