“I think B and C are causing you to come to wrong conclusions on topic T.”
This could work if you know them well enough to know what the root causes of the irrationality are. Online however that is often not the case. It is more likely that B and C are just symptoms. In some cases B and C are not evidence of irrationality and B has misperceived them. It does not matter how open B is to correction on the issue though if A reacts negatively to to the statement however.
“I think B and C are causing you to communicate poorly on topic T.”
This is definitely less heavy. Though I have encountered many people who tie themselves too closely to their method of communication and have a hard time updating on it.
When a particular communication style, argument style seems to be the cause of many communication failures and unresolved arguments, two options come to my mind: go for breadth or dig deep. Going for breadth would be taking a new approach or several to get the point across such as the new approaches you offered. Digging deep would be B reducing and defining every part of A’s supposed failing argument style iteratively with A. This would continue until it is clear where the difference in perception lies and weather or not it possible to resolve the issue with the data at hand or if further data is need and perhaps even how to obtain it.
Going for breadth can resolve the argument in one step if you hit one of the right argument out of the near infinite number of incorrect arguments. Being overly optimistic about picking the right argument by going for breadth increases the time it takes to resolve the argument compared to the many step, often tedious dig deep.
Digging deep is surprisingly often shortens the time to resolution when compared to going for breadth. It only works if A and B are will to spend the effort to do so though.
This could work if you know them well enough to know what the root causes of the irrationality are. Online however that is often not the case. It is more likely that B and C are just symptoms. In some cases B and C are not evidence of irrationality and B has misperceived them. It does not matter how open B is to correction on the issue though if A reacts negatively to to the statement however.
This is definitely less heavy. Though I have encountered many people who tie themselves too closely to their method of communication and have a hard time updating on it.
When a particular communication style, argument style seems to be the cause of many communication failures and unresolved arguments, two options come to my mind: go for breadth or dig deep. Going for breadth would be taking a new approach or several to get the point across such as the new approaches you offered. Digging deep would be B reducing and defining every part of A’s supposed failing argument style iteratively with A. This would continue until it is clear where the difference in perception lies and weather or not it possible to resolve the issue with the data at hand or if further data is need and perhaps even how to obtain it.
Going for breadth can resolve the argument in one step if you hit one of the right argument out of the near infinite number of incorrect arguments. Being overly optimistic about picking the right argument by going for breadth increases the time it takes to resolve the argument compared to the many step, often tedious dig deep.
Digging deep is surprisingly often shortens the time to resolution when compared to going for breadth. It only works if A and B are will to spend the effort to do so though.