In the last 48 hours i’ve felt the need for more than one of the abilities above. These would be very useful conversational tools.
I think some of these would be harder than others. This one sounds hard: ‘Letting them now that what they said set off alarms bells somewhere in your head, but you aren’t sure why.’ Maybe we could look for both scripts that work between two people who already trust each other, and scripts that work with semi-strangers. Or scripts that do and don’t require both participants to have already read a specific blog post, etc.
I think the script for that one needs two parts for it to work. The first is this-problem-specific and is conveying the belief that “People don’t automatically have access to their motives, and it’s super easy for one to confabulate their motives.” I’ve got a feeling that to really get someone to understand that point would require at least some reading on the topic. Actually, you might need to pair this one with a tangent explaining this idea.
The second ingrediant seems to be a more generic one, and it’s establishing the rule that “Us disagreeing with each other doesn’t mean we have to be on opposite teams.”
That second one is probably the more important part when interacting with a semi-stranger.
In the last 48 hours i’ve felt the need for more than one of the abilities above. These would be very useful conversational tools.
I think some of these would be harder than others. This one sounds hard: ‘Letting them now that what they said set off alarms bells somewhere in your head, but you aren’t sure why.’ Maybe we could look for both scripts that work between two people who already trust each other, and scripts that work with semi-strangers. Or scripts that do and don’t require both participants to have already read a specific blog post, etc.
Why can’t you say it word-for-word? “What you said set off alarm bells in my head and I’m not sure why”.
I think the script for that one needs two parts for it to work. The first is this-problem-specific and is conveying the belief that “People don’t automatically have access to their motives, and it’s super easy for one to confabulate their motives.” I’ve got a feeling that to really get someone to understand that point would require at least some reading on the topic. Actually, you might need to pair this one with a tangent explaining this idea.
The second ingrediant seems to be a more generic one, and it’s establishing the rule that “Us disagreeing with each other doesn’t mean we have to be on opposite teams.”
That second one is probably the more important part when interacting with a semi-stranger.