Let me try to apply it to an example in my own life. I’m frequently telling people about a project I’m working on. I’d like it to be well received, to make a good impression, and also to enlist help or advice.
This is probably consultation, collaboration, or delegation, depending on whom I’m talking to, right?
And “how to win people to your way of thinking” clearly seems to apply.
“Never say you’re wrong” confuses me—yes, there are people you can’t afford to flatly contradict, but what do you do if you actually need to accomplish a task and the thing they’re suggesting seems like a bad idea? There are cases where “do it their way without complaint” is unwise. So far I’ve been trying to ask a lot of questions to make sure I haven’t misunderstood them, but sooner or later it’s inevitable to encounter someone who really is wrong.
“Let the other person do most of the talking”—I use this often (it’s also a good social anxiety hack to take the pressure off myself!) but it seems to be more difficult in a scenario where you only have a few minutes of their time and need to “pitch” an idea. Is it wrong to launch into a quick summary in such cases?
“Get the other person saying ‘yes, yes’ right away”—I know to transition gradually from claims that I know will be agreed with towards claims that might be more controversial or doubtful, but I think I probably err too much on the side of never bringing up things that I don’t expect to get agreement on. Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
“Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view”—this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I’m talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I’m saying and he’s saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as “remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!” Am I missing something?
Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
You want to make sure you are doing collaborative truth seeking not adversarial truth seeking. Some statements to bring people to the same side in the intent to seek truth can help. “we agree that we both want to get to the bottom of this, and with the right evidence we’d definitely change our minds. Let’s work together to find out what the true state of affairs is.
Make smaller claims. I make a lot of progress by only doing small steps. you may find that you have made inferential leaps in reasoning if you make smaller steps.
Vulnerability suggests you need to dare greatly and take the risk in sharing the things that are hard to say—in order to reap the rewards of connecting well.
See the other person’s point of view
You need to be able to say, “I understand that you say x” and have them agree. You don’t have to say, “you are so right when you say x”
It depends what you want. The 4 were specifically about making a decision. Say, “should we fire Bob” or “we are firing you” vs “this is your chance to tell us why we aren’t going to fire you”. Where it’s important to be on the same page about the type of conversation you are having.
For telling people about a project, you probably want to share and connect. Give some understanding, be vulnerable.
The rest are the summary of the book htwfim. I disagree with a few of them and find nvc better.
“never say you are wrong”
“you are wrong” is a lot like “your map is wrong”. It is less accusatory to say instead “my map says this”. Optimum form would be, “I am confused. If I am understanding what you said correctly you said x, where my understanding was y. Can you explain why you think x?”
“Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view”—this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I’m talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I’m saying and he’s saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as “remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!” Am I missing something?
Which parts of this are hardest—are you able to do things like guess at when a jargon word would be unfamiliar to the person you’re talking to?
Or is the difficulty more in having to remind yourself something like, “Oh right, some people honestly believe X,” and then ask yourself, “So what would that make them think about Y?” while the conversation is ongoing?
I can usually tailor the level of jargon correctly. What I can’t do that well is figure out how to not make my presence burdensome—I can feel that I need to “come up with something to say” that makes it worth talking to me, and I’m not great at coming up with those quickly. (When a kid says “tell me a story”, I can’t do that either. I’m great at discussions, where you have to speak off the cuff in relation to some subject, but open-ended improv is hell.)
You have the option of repeating back to people what they have just said or asked. “your question was xyz”. “oh you want x”. It’s good for validation of what they say, it’s good for giving you a bit more time to talk.
You might like to read the book “impro” to understand how spontaneous responses are supposed to work.
Interesting—I wouldn’t have connected that to seeing from another’s point of view. Is there a connection there I’m missing? They seem like separate skills to me.
I really like this.
Let me try to apply it to an example in my own life. I’m frequently telling people about a project I’m working on. I’d like it to be well received, to make a good impression, and also to enlist help or advice.
This is probably consultation, collaboration, or delegation, depending on whom I’m talking to, right?
And “how to win people to your way of thinking” clearly seems to apply.
“Never say you’re wrong” confuses me—yes, there are people you can’t afford to flatly contradict, but what do you do if you actually need to accomplish a task and the thing they’re suggesting seems like a bad idea? There are cases where “do it their way without complaint” is unwise. So far I’ve been trying to ask a lot of questions to make sure I haven’t misunderstood them, but sooner or later it’s inevitable to encounter someone who really is wrong.
“Let the other person do most of the talking”—I use this often (it’s also a good social anxiety hack to take the pressure off myself!) but it seems to be more difficult in a scenario where you only have a few minutes of their time and need to “pitch” an idea. Is it wrong to launch into a quick summary in such cases?
“Get the other person saying ‘yes, yes’ right away”—I know to transition gradually from claims that I know will be agreed with towards claims that might be more controversial or doubtful, but I think I probably err too much on the side of never bringing up things that I don’t expect to get agreement on. Any advice on how to incrementally push further without skipping all the way to becoming shocking/offensive?
“Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view”—this is just straight up hard for me, especially if I’m talking to a stranger and am also just trying to keep track of the content of what I’m saying and he’s saying, while avoiding social faux pas. It seems about as hard as “remember to multiply three-digit numbers in your head while you have your conversation!” Am I missing something?
You want to make sure you are doing collaborative truth seeking not adversarial truth seeking. Some statements to bring people to the same side in the intent to seek truth can help. “we agree that we both want to get to the bottom of this, and with the right evidence we’d definitely change our minds. Let’s work together to find out what the true state of affairs is.
Make smaller claims. I make a lot of progress by only doing small steps. you may find that you have made inferential leaps in reasoning if you make smaller steps.
Vulnerability suggests you need to dare greatly and take the risk in sharing the things that are hard to say—in order to reap the rewards of connecting well.
You need to be able to say, “I understand that you say x” and have them agree. You don’t have to say, “you are so right when you say x”
Silly question. Which “this”?
It depends what you want. The 4 were specifically about making a decision. Say, “should we fire Bob” or “we are firing you” vs “this is your chance to tell us why we aren’t going to fire you”. Where it’s important to be on the same page about the type of conversation you are having.
For telling people about a project, you probably want to share and connect. Give some understanding, be vulnerable.
The rest are the summary of the book htwfim. I disagree with a few of them and find nvc better.
“you are wrong” is a lot like “your map is wrong”. It is less accusatory to say instead “my map says this”. Optimum form would be, “I am confused. If I am understanding what you said correctly you said x, where my understanding was y. Can you explain why you think x?”
Which parts of this are hardest—are you able to do things like guess at when a jargon word would be unfamiliar to the person you’re talking to?
Or is the difficulty more in having to remind yourself something like, “Oh right, some people honestly believe X,” and then ask yourself, “So what would that make them think about Y?” while the conversation is ongoing?
I can usually tailor the level of jargon correctly. What I can’t do that well is figure out how to not make my presence burdensome—I can feel that I need to “come up with something to say” that makes it worth talking to me, and I’m not great at coming up with those quickly. (When a kid says “tell me a story”, I can’t do that either. I’m great at discussions, where you have to speak off the cuff in relation to some subject, but open-ended improv is hell.)
You have the option of repeating back to people what they have just said or asked. “your question was xyz”. “oh you want x”. It’s good for validation of what they say, it’s good for giving you a bit more time to talk.
You might like to read the book “impro” to understand how spontaneous responses are supposed to work.
Interesting—I wouldn’t have connected that to seeing from another’s point of view. Is there a connection there I’m missing? They seem like separate skills to me.