Preventing arguments

[nlpmac]

I've noticed a characteristic of discussions of mine whereby a simple discussion can quickly turn into a loud toned argument without my realization or intention. From my analysis I liken the process almost exactly to that of microphone speaker feedback noise. For example, if I have a problem making a point, in some small manner, I will proceed to try with more effort (usually by change of voice tone to more confrontational and louder tone) to make my point heard.

The problem is that it creates this feedback loop that can quickly turn into an argument without even fully realizing it. If I can't get my point across -the voice goes up again (out of desperation). It's virtually automatic. It doesn't just happen with me. I've seen it happen with many people. It usually happens between opiniated people (some ppl just don't care). Can someone suggest how to avoid this problem?

[Charlie]

Nlpmac,

It seems like you are, in conversation, sort of trying to open a door, and when it doesn't open quickly enough, you keep pushing even harder.

How about trying a different door???

A few humble suggestions for you to learn more about:

1. Rapport
2. Pacing & Leading
3. Conversational Reframing / Sleight of Mouth

Re point 3, some products that may help:

- "Mind-Lines (The Magic of Conversational Reframing)" = a book by Bobby G. Bodenhamer and L. Michael Hall.
- "Sleight of Mouth (The Magic of Conversational Belief Change)" = a book by Robert Dilts.
- "Sleight of Mouth Patterns (Changing Beliefs Conversationally)" by Robert Dilts = four videos & a training booklet.
- "Conversational Reframing" by Philip Rockliff = A CD on which is burnt a 97 page web-site, packed with hundreds of interlinked examples of all the different reframing patterns.

All good stuff.

Charlie.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[nlpmac]

thanks charlie your first comment was pretty much spot on. Often in a conversation that i'm trying to debate or express different opinions on, my preference is towards an efficient conversation. For instance, if a person starts expressing an opinion and they say something that I believe is incorrect (like a fact) or something I don't understand at all, I'll try to address that immediately rather than wait for the entire explanation that may or may not turn out to be incorrect because it was based on a wrong fact or I have no idea of what they're talking about. A lot of times it quickly keeps the conversation on track. But it also can cause problems because some ppl feel like I'm "railroading" them when i'm only trying to distill the discussion so we're both on a similar wavelength.

Concerning the suggestions. I'm not certain they are useful in some respects or rather i don't fully see how to apply the techniques. For instance I usually have good rapport with the people to enter these types of discussions. If I don't have good rapport with someone I don't make an effort to enter these types of conversations at all. The thing is I find the feedback loop happens so fast rapport is almost irrlevant. It's just like the microphone example you could be talking in the mic just fine but then move too close to the speaker and wham you get unavoidable feedback because it happens so quickly. The only way to avoid it is probably foreseeing it and identifying it like a hazard and then keeping mindful of steering clear of that trap.

Pacing from my understanding is to "mimic" or adopt a similar tone and then when you have a connection then you can change the tone. But what happens if the other person raises their voice first from some cue of frustration? If I'm to follow that tone of voice then you'd get a feedback loop once again. And if you don't follow their voice tone then wouldn't you be out of "synch" with them?? In essence the way I see it the feedback problem is a pacing problem gone crazy.

[Charlie]

nlpmac,

You mention re "something that I believe is incorrect" & your addressing that immediately, and, if I'm understanding you right, you are maybe in addressing this actually immediately "Lead"ing before you've even Paced.

Because you may believe what they are saying is "incorrect" you are perhaps, in the quickness of conversation, ignoring the fact that actually what the other person is saying to you is actually quite correct, FROM THEIR SUBJECTIVE MODEL OF THE WORLD.

There are perhaps different facets to Pacing/Leading, but I think a key to Pacing is to respect another persons 'Model of the World' before Leading towards expanding that Model of the World.

Of course I don't know the kind of conversations you've been having, but let me present a very simple example of my own, and maybe you can extrapolate something from it.

Say somebody brusqely says to me something like:

"I have to smoke a lot of cigarettes, because I have such a stressful life, so don't you even think about criticising me about it!"

In order to Pace, I could immediately reply something like:

"No, I certainly wouldn't criticise you, because I completely respect the fact you feel the need for some kind of personal relaxation, and cigarettes at the moment are providing that for you."

I've paced them, because I've reassured them I won't criticise, and I've also joined their 'Model of the World' by using a Conversational Reframe of 'Positive Intent', i.e. "feel the need for some kind of relaxation"

If I then wanted to Lead, I could say something like:

"And I wonder what other kinds of relaxation could be available to you instead of smoking?"

If that Lead didn't work, then I could go back to Pacing, until I felt I'd built enough Rapport to start to Lead again.

The above is an incredibly trivial example, but it works.

Very often when I speak to people, I IMMEDIATELY find some way of externally agreeing with them (i.e. Pacing) using words, EVEN IF internally I actually disagree with them!

Think about it.

And if you want to post some examples/snippets of problem conversations you've had, I'd be happy to have a go at Conversationally Reframing them.

The possibilities are truly endless.

Charlie.

[nlpmac]

thanks charlie that was good advice. yeah when I posted the "correct them when I think they made a mistake" I knew it would be easy to identify that as a potential problem.

I'm pretty open to subjective interpretations so I understand where you're going with when you're talking about "they're reality". However i more interject when it's a factual conflict.

Like for instance if I'm discussing a movie and my friend says "I didn't agree with the way that Jackie character treated her son I thought she was awfully cold for a mother." And maybe I would interject with something like "But that wasn't her son that was her son's friend." I mostly interject on things like that; when they're basing an opinion on a questionable fact.

It a little grey on deciding what's factual and where to draw the line on interjecting so I try to be conservative about it. It just doesn't make sense for someone to go on stating an opinion when if they realized the situation or fact was otherwise then they probably'd form a different opinion. Mind you I don't have a problem with a difference of opinion I just want the other person to have the right facts when basing their opinion. I would want the same thing myself.

Yeah I need more practice on those pacing/leading type techniques. Those seem awfully handy. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention.

[TaffyE]

Like for instance if I'm discussing a movie and my friend says "I didn't agree with the way that Jackie character treated her son I thought she was awfully cold for a mother." And maybe I would interject with something like "But that wasn't her son that was her son's friend." I mostly interject on things like that; when they're basing an opinion on a questionable fact.

In that situation you could say "Oh, I thought it was ....." infering that you may have got the wrong end of the stick ( even though you hadn't), which can then lead to a discussion of the true facts.
There aren't many people who can be told in a bold fashion that they are wrong and not take offence/become defensive. Softening the response makes a big difference

[nlpmac]

thanks, taffy. yes that's a good suggestion and technique. I do use that technique very often if not most of the time. I neglected to phrase it in that fashion above. I think I may even do that to a fault because I feel it sounds very wishy washy if you overuse it because you will never sound llike a confident person if you always use "I'm not sure but..." "don't quote me on this..." etc. Obviously it's up to your judgement when to be adamant about something and when to just agree to disagree. It's a useful technique though.

[Charlie]

I more interject when it's a factual conflict. Like for instance if I'm discussing a movie and my friend says "I didn't agree with the way that Jackie character treated her son I thought she was awfully cold for a mother." And maybe I would interject with something like "But that wasn't her son that was her son's friend." I mostly interject on things like that; when they're basing an opinion on a questionable fact.


Yeah, I can understand that.

I guess I'd tend to choose my response depending on how sensitive the person is to criticism. If they seem very sensitive, I might say something like "Yes, one expects more warmth from a mother character. And actually, I'm really not sure, but I think that wasn't her son that was her son's friend, but I don't know, I'm really not sure."

My initial part of my response is an immediate Pace, albeit a bit generalised (chunked up). The second part of the response is a Referential Index Shift to myself, i.e. I seem to be the one who is not sure. This softens any criticism.

What happens next depends on the other person's response to what I have said.


Yeah I need more practice on those pacing/leading type techniques. Those seem awfully handy.

Pacing/Leading has been described as a 'Meta-Pattern' to a lot of other NLP patterns/techniques.

I think this certainly is the case with regard to Conversational Reframing language patterns.

And remember the old NLP saying: "The meaning of every communication is the response you get..........."

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Charlie.

[skip]

nlpmac,

Just for the fun (?) of it, why dont you do your best to keep a log of all the times you correct someone and just very briefly what it was about. Very briefly.

Then at the end of each day, review the log, and ask yourself, "How important, to the overall scheme of things, was it that I correct that person?"

See sometimes people need to be corrected, because they are operating on information that could be dangerous to get wrong.

Sometimes doing something wrong or having the wrong information can be costly.

But there are lots of times when getting some deatil is completely inconsequential.

I am wondering how often you feel a need to correct someone, and the only justifiable reason for correcting them is that the incorrectness offends your sensibilities.

If you do this, you may find that it isnt nearly as necessary to correct people as you have previously thought.

Then you can focus on how to go about correcting people, when it is really important that you do.

skip

[Terry (existing)]

Had I chosen earlier to reply to your first post, I would have said what you have said in your subsequent postings. Had I done so though, you would have felt very agrieved and put down, so it is much better that you point out the problem for yourself, and at least have the satifaction of solving it. Each of us has the right to an opinion of our own, and it may well differ in many ways from the opinion of someone else. If you listen to others and attempt to understand their comments, you have time to formulate when and if you should disagree or not. By doing this, you indicate that you respect their opinion, and they in turn will respect yours more than if all you do is jump in without regard for what they are saying, and dispute before they have completed a sentence. Your actions based on your own comments, indicate a disregard to anything no agreeable to you, and even perhaps a willingness to take credit for what you agree with regardless of who said it. These actions are an indication at times, of a poor self image, demanding constant boosts of ego. Try respecting the views of others more, and you may well find your own self respect gaining ground as it reflects back to you in a new attitude....

[Five]

nlpmac and all others looking for practice outlets.
Try the message boards/forums where you can debate. Most of the general discussion boards will have subjects you can disagree with. When I feel "wikkid" I seek out someone whose posts I am familiar with and proceed to tear up his ideas. Sometimes overtly, somtimes subtley. Many times it is the other way - I get trounced, and usually by several folks. Some of them are most unkind.
This is really good practice in all areas of verbal communication. It teaches you self control, and hones your intellect. Use all the NLP ideas you can. This can and does carry over into live interactions. When you've gotten the verbal part down well this way, you can better concentrate on the various body language techniques.

[Persuasion Skills]

Alot of good stuff here,

I particulary like Skips suggestion re logging the amount of times you correct a person and Terrys "I thought" softner.

Another method might be to say "I was taking to John and they thought..."

This way you are moving any implied criticism even further away from you!

Slight of mouth is also very good at reframing info, but its always important that if you criticise / correct that you do it in a friendly and constructive way.

I've always liked the "If... Then.." approach

If you corrected me less then I would'nt feel so flustered around you...

Hope that helps

Marc
www.persuasion-skills.co.uk (http://www.persuasion-skills.co.uk)