Disagreement

That makes sense...I don't see why disagreeing couldn't take the form of civil listening, but if it did what would be the end result? People started listening civilly and continued that throughout the discussion. I can see why in many cases that disagreeing would start out as confrontational but like you said, people that are aware of the concept of civil listening might be able to hone in on those skills and use them throughout the topic being discussed.

yes, that's what I meant.  The action needed then, is to educate people about what civil listening is to have civil discourse involving disagreement.  This could be a greater problem!

I think disagreement does often begin with confrontational listening. Think about it...why are you disagreeing? Because you have opposing viewpoints. So, the whole purpose of initiating a disagreement is due to the fact that you dont agree with someone elses opinion, and you obviously think that your position is right. However, through appropriate disagreement (refutation rather than name calling) you begin to more towards civil listening, and the realization that understanding each other does not make either of you right or wrong.

I agree with all three of you. I feel like after our civil discourse class is over, I will try to concentrate on civil listening. However, it seems frustrating that although we might be more aware of dialogue and discussion and all the different types  (controntational, etc)  after our class, that not many other people will want to start with civil listening... or even move towards it.

So I wonder if you could both be right.  If I'm hearing you right Kate, the process starts with the spark coming from the realization that someone has a different viewpoint, which draws you into engaging.  If at that point you make one little tweak-- assume there's a possibility that the other's view point may be right, and yours may be wrong--- then from the get-go, it's a civil dialogue, as opposed to a confrontational discussion.

Drew

That's a good point Cassie...I'm not the best listener in the first place because I find myself all too often thinking about something else while I'm in a conversation, but I have really started to recognize that lately and am trying to attend to what another person has to say without any interuption. So to get to the point, I think it is a really natural "thing" that all people have certain biases and enter a discussion or debate with the intentions of proving the other party wrong.

Not to change the subject but should we start practicing what Carmen wanted us to do, either tag question, negative interrogitives, or refutation?

i think i need to work a little bit on my civil listening...sometimes i get that lawyer mentality where i just wanna prove the other person wrong...!

Well then you need to post a tag question, don't you?

Kate I agree. Even though we are learning and practicing it in class all quarter, I still find it difficult to stop focusing on "winning" or something of the sort and and start focusing on civil listening.

So, to paraphrase you, Kate, I'm hearing that some people may come into disagreement with confrontational listening tactics, and some (who may be enlightened to civil listening) may come into a disagreement with civil listening tactics.  If this is what you are saying, I agree.  What concerns me, is that in class we put on our list of optimal roles of disagreement that disagreement is to move from confrontational listening to civil listening.  I think this is great...for when it actually happens.  But I want to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that they don't necessarily need to start a disagreement in confrontational listening.  We don't need to MOVE from confrontational listening...we can START (with training and education on the topic) with civil listening.

of course, I'm not saying that i'm the guru of civil listening: never heard the actual term until this class.  but, i just wanted to practice what Carmen wanted us to do on this forum: paraphrase.  hahah...sorry i'm exacerbating this topic on listening.  i need very much to practice civil listening.

Tag question: We'll have to study for our first Quiz tonight, won't we?

Tag Question (for practice): Won't you have to take a class, say in Civil Discourse or another related topic, to help understand and make clear what civil listening actually is. Before this I never would have known.

Yes we will, but Jillian, why are you not one of those students who memorized the terms last week and so didn't have to cram the night before?

sorry, mine was actually a neg. interrogotive

Wouldn't you think that Carmen's quiz would be easy because it is only 15 terms?

i hope so...im hoping its one of those spiderweb things where its like "match each term to the appropriate definition" and you just draw a line....haha i doubt it

Refutation??

So what you are saying is that you think Carmen's quiz is going to be easy, but I feel that it might not be because these 15 terms could all be applied knowledge, making it more difficult than multiple choice.

Refutation??

So what you are saying is that you think Carmen's quiz is going to be easy, but I feel that it might not be because these 15 terms could all be applied knowledge, making it more difficult than multiple choice.

Hey, I've got a question that's been stumping me regarding these terms.   Am I right in thinking that about half of the terms are negative (confrontational, inspired by the desire to win/fear of losing), and the balance are the reverse- intended to consider other points of view based on the notion that they could be right? 

I'm asking because a number of these terms could go either way.   Negative interrogatives, tag questions, and bounded discourse could be positive or negative it would seem.  But in all three cases... or at least the first two, Carmen's examples in class were all negative.  So I'm wondering if for purposes of the class and the definintions of the terms, do the terms only match the meaning intended if they're used in a negative fashion?

I see where you are coming from Drew. But I think bounded discourse can keep its meaning the same but be somewhat positive. I think she gave the example of not talking about religion at the dinner table or something of that sort... which could be helpful or more appropriate in some households or environments.

While it is important to practice civil listening and realize that you may be wrong, that level of uncertainty is likely to weaken your arguement in any disagreement. Why should anyone agree with you when you're unsure if you agree with yourself?

I'm not necessarily saying that the point of every disagreement is to convince the other party that you are right but it sounds like civil listening can just end up with everyone wondering if anyone is right?

I agree with you in a way Brenden, but I think the point of realizing that you may be wrong is to simply get in that frame of mind.  Not to literally say "You are possibly right..." because i think those words could potentially weaken your argument.  But, if he/she just thinks those words to themselves, I think that it could allow them to become a more civil listener.  I'm definitely with you on the fact of keeping your argument strong, though, and yes it would be quite boring and annoying for everyone to wonder if anyone is right.  Does that make sense? 

In terms of being either positive or negative I feel that, like what was said already, it could go either way.  Generally when you disagree with someone, the notion of seeing that action as negative comes from the fact that he/she is not in agreeance with you.  It's not so much whether it is a happy/sad situation but the fact that you do have thes polar opposites/differences when you're in this state.

i agree on this comment,, its not so much that were saying it out loud but the fact that were open to thinking that we could be proven wrong. i think its always important to know both sides in order to have a good argument not only because it shows you have done your reasearch but the facts could be utilized as a counter argument. so while civil listening might feel like your getting weak you might actually end up having an advantage, its just a risk we are willing and sometimes needing to take.

On the other hand, when someone gets in the state of mind where they disagree with the other person and view them as wrong this tends to affect their views of everything the other person says. Being in an open mindset allows people to carefully consider everything they here, but being in an indecisive mindset prevents anyone from forming an opinion about anything.

I too agree that it is important to understand where both sides are coming from. And I think you're right Laura that new facts can be used in your advantage. One important concept I always try to remember when being an open listener is that there may be something I can learn from someone I disagree with. If we assume we're always right then that leaves very little room to grow...in my opinion. I think alot can be gained if we enter dialogue as civil listener.

I think in some ways it would be most effective to enter dialogue as a civil listener and move into confrontational listening. If you start a disagreement with listening very carefully and non judgementally than you will more carefully think about your own views and they could change and improve. After carefully thinking about both their views and your own you will be more able to make an informed decision as to what you really think is the right view. I strongly believe that people should have a view of what is right and wrong, but they should think about it carefully and logically (people often get grounded in their views without much thought about them). This will lead to a strong argument at the end of the disagrement.

In other words, what I hear you saying Brenden... is that it is important to enter dialogue as a civil listener to gather information from both sides to decide where you stand and to gain a better understanding of what you believe to be right or wrong. And to help develop a stronger foundation for your argument, is that correct?

If so, I can agree with that, it's important to have facts behind your reasoning.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You're paraphrase might have even said it better than I did, I'll have to carefully consider as a civil reader which one is better.

It's important to have an opinion (even if it may be wrong), isn't it?

As long as opinions are expressed in a respectful manner then yes :)

But its better to hold in your opinion if you know the other person is going to get hurt and damage a friendship, isn't it? 

[quote=woldenh]

But its better to hold in your opinion if you know the other person is going to get hurt and damage a friendship, isn't it? 

That's a provocative question, Hilary.  I'm thinking about what it means to be a "respectful" friend and also the notion of silence as complicity.  I've had experiences when not sharing my point of view when it was different from the other person's ended up being more hurtful and damaging in the end.  (Happened with one of my sisters just recently, in fact.)

Maybe part of my resistance here also results from my reluctance to accept the reference that I've heard in this chain on disagreement about "both sides."   I've observed that sometimes there's really only one side (based on the evidence) - for example, the horror of the Holocaust.  But most other times, there are multiple sides to any complex issue, yes?

That's why I have no problem in endorsing the value of always trying to be a civil listener in the sense of being open to new sides/views and always worry about being a confrontational listener.  I can still hold my own perspective, but don't want to miss some new angle.  It's that fullness of truth that defines true scholarship, methinks.