posted on June 18, 2004 08:13:44 PM new
This means you. Accustomed as I am to these forums, I know when the posters are trying to razz each other. In fun or not, it makes for a lively forum. But how best to represent your agenda to the opposing viewpoint? Are you using words that, for the very people you are trying to reach, are negatively charged? Are you arguing from a foundation that they repudiate from the get-go?
This is a long article. It is about communication. The woman writing it is, IMHO, a dangerous liberal. Thankfully, she won't stay liberal much longer. Or, at least I hope.
posted on June 19, 2004 11:42:26 AM new
I have spoken to Randi and his institute is here in Fort Lauderdale. But I am not sure what he and Geller have to do with the essence of cultures. This "must read" article is, IMHO, a pseudo-intellectual piece that says a lot of nothing.
posted on June 19, 2004 01:21:15 PM new
parklane - I guess I had preconceived notions about what direction this article was going to take.
After reading this I didn't come away with any pointers on how we could better communicate our views here with one another in a more positive way.
sorry - Maybe I missed the point entirely and am not seeing the same picture you got from reading this?????
What I came away with was a person, who I believe started to go through a normal 'mid-life' crisis, who has re-evaluated her life-long held beliefs and her related work. A person who has come to see things differently than she once did and is working to understand her own complete reversal of beliefs.
posted on June 19, 2004 10:26:26 PM new
If two talkers understand the same meaning for a word and use it the same we have great communication. If you do a round robin of thirty people whispering to each other in turn, the message you receive is nothing like you sent. If you have two people with agendas, preconceived notions, different hot buttons, pet peeves, deeply held beliefs, and a deep mis-trust of the rabid interpretation that may be construed in the value judgment of your words; A statement can suffer signal degradation equivalent to what you might see when transferring the data through 5, 6, 7, maybe 8 people. Two people utilizing polarized paradigms can effectively mangle a message between each other to the point of making the 'chat' gibberish. What starts out to be communicated gets altered beyond sense when it finally get deciphered through all the fluxes of meanings and values.
Windtalkers is a great movie. Everybody gets on the same page as to what the Navajo word means. Frog meant tank, bird meant airplane, etc. A high level of fidelity in the medium.
Oh, And here is a mantra that will make you smarter -- Tagoo Siam Ohwah. Align your center, keep a relaxed loci as you repeat the mantra, and you will actually sense the synaptic connections as you get smarter.
______________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
