At 05:06 PM 1/25/2002 -0600, Adrian Jadic wrote: >However, we still think of ourselves that *we are the good* and not in an >arogant way. And, we still need to convince the ones that don't believe in >metric to believe in it. How we do this depends on our stature, character >and education.
and >PS: I am not parading superior to the dumbos. I don't read this in my >messages! However, I did not spend 20 years in schools to consider myself >uneducated. I don't think any of us intend to act superior. However, I know in my own case that I often can appear that way to others if I do not make a conscious effort to communicate in their paradigm. In other words, the issue here is NOT how we intend to be seen, it is how others ACTUALLY see us. I think that very frequently well-educated people (which includes most of the people on this list) INTEND to be seen as thoughtful, educated and concerned, but are actually SEEN as being overbearing, superior, etc. I am not trying to point fingers at anyone, but I know I have been guilty of this, and have seen numerous well-intentioned and highly-educated managers do exactly this when dealing with various lower-level employees. Which brings me to the Ransberger Pivot. This is a technique I learned from a Libertarian group, and works it wonders when you are trying to communicate with (i.e., educate) those who may be resistant to your message. I've used it when I've been a guest on radio talk shows -- it is a wonderful tool. In short: before expressing your view, express sympathy with the view of the person you are talking to. If not the specific view, then what is worrying them about what you are saying. Here is an example I have actually used on a talk show. Some will disagree with what I said, but overlook the politics and look at the technique: Caller: "So, I understand that you Libertarians think prostitution should be legalized." Jim: "You know, it is really a shame that we live in a world where women feel the need to sell sex to put food on the table. And I really understand how having such women around can make you feel that our morals are being degraded. Consider this, however: if we have women around who believe the only way to buy food is to sell their bodies, what do we achieve by making that one way illegal? Wouldn't both society and these women be better off if instead we helped them find better ways of making a living?" Imagine the difference if I had replied: "Heck, yes, anyone who wants to sell their body should be able to!" Which response is more likely to make the caller listen to my reasoning? Now, here is a made-up example of talking to a business man trying to convince him to use metric. Obviously this is a bit simplistic, but remember the technique: Businessman: "If you force me to switch to metric, then I will have all these expensive, non-metric machines and equipment that will be obsolete. I'll fight that anyway I can!" Metricationist: "I can really understand how you would be upset if metrication destroyed the value of your machinery or other assets. I would be upset if someone passed a law that destroyed valuable assets of mine. However, I think I can show you how metricating your business does not have to cause you to lose any assets, and, in fact, can make you more competitive." By expressing sympathy with the concerns of the businessman, he is far more likely to listen to your reasoning. Hope this helps! Jim Elwell
