Anyhow, your analysis was appreciated.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
At 7:16 PM -0400 22/8/08, shag wrote:
>the core curriculum: 10 required courses in managing things; 3 in
>dealing with people.
>
>and i can tell you that what counts as conflict resolution in these
>programs is probably what i learned. because what i learned was
>pretty much an overview of the most popular stuff out there.
>
>basically, conflict resolution is: how to manipulate people. you are
>told always, always to listen. most important thing. but you listen
>for a reason: to find the hooks where you need to shape the other
>person's reality.
>
>i remember reading this stuff and thinking, what will happen if,
>tomorrow, during our seminars, i point out that it's always going to
>be like playing tic-tac-to once each side in the game learns these
>principles? the game will always be scratch if both sides are trying
>to shape the other's reality to conform with their's. so, what's
>really at issue, if the conflict is between you and superordinate,
>is that the superordinate ultimately has the power to shape your
>reality the most.
>
>and, i mean, if what you are taught is that listening is not because
>you really want to understand where the other person is coming from,
>but because you want to understand where the weaknesses and
>vulnerabilities are so you can hook into them and destroy them,
>twist them and expose them, in order to ensure that *your* reality
>'wins', then this isn't really what people think of as interactive
>human communication -- listening, being heard and hearing the other
>side at all -- but ultimately about manipulating.
>
>and if both sides know like tic-tac-to, then the whole thing is a
>ruse. a scam. if you engage in it, as subordinate, you are kidding
>yourself.
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk