OT
I guess that few are in a thread like this in order to achieve consensus
Ya think??? <g>
In my early days on SI I actually tried to apply some of the consensus facilitation process partly because it was so ingrained in me to work collaboratively and partly as an experiment to see what might be applicable to this kind of forum. What I suspected and what proved true is that the consensus process, as I learned and practiced it, cannot work without the facilitator having firm control. Still, various group analytical techniques can be effective in fostering thread hygiene, a condition that I used to care about and work hard to achieve.
I totally disagree that you need to explain how you got there. You just need to provide enough evidence to convince.
Whoops! That's not what I had in mind. (Perhaps you were responding to my essence rather than my words. <g>)
I meant that you should have an explanation, not necessarily that you should offer it to anyone else. So you are sure of your ground and don't make errors in judgment. Persuading someone else is another matter.
You also don't need to persuade anyone when you determine to buy a particular stock. You don't have to persuade the broker. There's no one to persuade. But it's really helpful if you know why you picked it.
I many cases, such as your doctor example, even when other parties are involved there is no need to persuade. His expertise is usually just accepted by his patients. If, however, if he doesn't know why he's prescribing said drug, then I would consider his professionalism most questionable. As for persuasion, if he encounters a patient who is reluctant, it's very persuasive if he can cite a rationale. "The success rate for this medication for your condition is 97% and there are no reported side effects" will usually seal the deal.
(I tend to evaluate advice from doctors or plumbers or auto mechanics based on how fluidly they come up with an explanation if asked. If I know nothing of the subject but the expert tells me I need to replace some gizmo, I ask him why he thinks that. If he quickly gives me any plausible reason, I usually accept the advice. If he says, in effect, "because I said so" or "that's the way we do it," or scratches his head, I run away and find a different expert. If he said "it's a hunch," I would respect his candor and may very well take his advice.)
I agree that, when convincing is involved, you need only enough evidence to convince. But, if the other party is not persuaded by your say-so, explaining your rationale can help. It fosters respect between honest players. And it can also clarify any confusion between the parties or illuminate why they are on different sides of a question. Say someone states "all prisons should be painted blue." You could start arguing the point or you could ask why the party thinks that. If he says "just because I like the color, blue," your response is "well, OK." If he says because blue stems violence or aids digestion or reduces recidivism, you might have yourself an interesting discussion. And you'd know up front what the discussion was about.
I didn't have it bookmarked but it's bookmarked now. I've had the left/right wing thread bookmarked because you occasionally post something interesting there.
I also didn't mean to suggest that explanations should be demanded, particularly in real time in a crisis scenario.
Re this forum, I have found interesting how people respond to being asked how they came to their position. Over the years I have asked that a lot, not so much anymore. I have a strong, genuine interest in understanding different points of view. Thoughtful, together people are typically happy to oblige and then debate the topic. Most people react defensively. I've learned that asking risks getting my head bitten off. A sad commentary on the state of discourse.
As an MBTI/INTJ personality profile, nearly none of my conclusions are derived from logic
I don't think that's an INTJ thing. (No explanation offered. <g>)
|
