Seriously thoughtful When Reasonable People Take Positions

[rebarnmom]

Originally Posted by =X=

Yep, there was a study a while back that had the same conclusion with regards to "Road Rage". Where the "isolation" factor is that we are hidden in our cars.

=X=

I'll never forget the time I was working as a bookstore manager (a very costly job which is beside the point) when one of the staff members at the customer service desk answered the phone & received an extremely harsh tongue-lashing from a customer. After the customer vented sufficiently, in total coolness, this employee, who knew this customer personally, said "Hi, Mr. So & So..., this is your neighbor...). The customer (probably mortified), apologized and changed his tone completely realizing that he had just unloaded on someone he knew. I always thought that it shouldn't matter if you knew the person handling your call or not. Didn't everyone deserve common courtesy... stranger or known. But I guess being on the other end of the telephone (this is way back when they had cords), a harsh word to a lowly employee seemed justified. I was so proud of that young man and not so sure how well it would've been handled by anyone else. Of course I've also seen many a disgruntled customer lash out at an employee face to face as well. Hopefully, if we did our job right, they left with a better demeanor than they came in with!

[Xenophon]

So just when I have no clue how to patch things up, there're Moejoe and Ralph Sir Edward connecting over food and drink...

Have a great meal and hoist one for me, guys! (whether it's IRL, virtually, metaphorically, or whatever)

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Well count me in But I'd like a pint of John Smith's Best Bitter instead of Guiness, ta very much

If I'm picking from that side of the pond, the choice is easy: Sam Smith's Nut Brown Ale. Just don't look too closely at the "old brewery"

Xenophon

[Dr. Drib]

How does one deal with a narcissistic personality who thinks she/he is always right and, furthermore, uses language in a way that belittles another person?

I think personalities like the above feed off of debate and argumentation. Remember, we're talking about a personality type that systematically demeans another's words.

Take certain novels, for example, where there always needs to be someone in control of a group of people, where part of the novel's development is concerned with the tension of someone always wanting to control other human beings.

I once worked for a narcissistic, controlling personality. He loved being in control. One afternoon, after he left, I rearranged my office. (I was a Publication's Editor for an association.) The next day when I came to work, he had rearranged the room the way it had been the day before.

Don

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

I once worked for a narcissistic, controlling personality. He loved being in control. One afternoon, after he left, I rearranged my office. (I was a Publication's Editor for an association.) The next day when I came to work, he had rearranged the room the way it had been the day before.

Okay, after my initial response, I had to think about how we do things in our office. In the job my group does, individuals may work separate portfolios, but they perform the same duties from one portfolio to the next. So if one person's out of the office, the desk has to be arranged in such a way that the person covering the duties can find things.

So it's not so much - in our case - a situation of being "controlling" for the love of having it "my way". It's a case of requiring uniformity to make it easy to ensure the job gets done.

But even in our case, we seldom would simply rearrange things to our requirements - we'd ask the person to do so. We might have to verify and/or oversee the task, but we'd at least respect their "space" enough to ask them to make the changes!

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

How does one deal with a narcissistic personality who thinks she/he is always right and, furthermore, uses language in a way that belittles another person?

I think personalities like the above feed off of debate and argumentation. Remember, we're talking about a personality type that systematically demeans another's words.

Take certain novels, for example, where there always needs to be someone in control of a group of people, where part of the novel's development is concerned with the tension of someone always wanting to control other human beings.

I once worked for a narcissistic, controlling personality. He loved being in control. One afternoon, after he left, I rearranged my office. (I was a Publication's Editor for an association.) The next day when I came to work, he had rearranged the room the way it had been the day before.

Don

My strategy, if at all possible, is to not engage them in debate and argumentation. I turn away and avoid protracted discussions with such people. I grew up with a sister who always had to win every argument. I learned early on that turning away was my best strategy.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by ProfJulie

My strategy, if at all possible, is to not engage them in debate and argumentation. I turn away and avoid protracted discussions with such people.

I think I've seen you doing that on these boards Prof; and just wanted to say for showing more restraint than I think I could have mustered.

It doesn't go unnoticed.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by ProfJulie

My strategy, if at all possible, is to not engage them in debate and argumentation. I turn away and avoid protracted discussions with such people. I grew up with a sister who always had to win every argument. I learned early on that turning away was my best strategy.

Yes, and that's exactly what I do.

When I see someone is going to be disagreeable - and it's quite clear in one's writing if that person will be this way - then I won't respond or reply. I think the reason I do this is because I feel it fuels the narcissistic personality. It feeds them, so to speak. They need fuel in which to continue to argue. Remember, I do this when someone is both disagreeable and controlling at the same time.

I once tried to write rationally to someone about a situation, but logic and cohesion were thrown out the door. One can't "argue" with irrationality.

Don

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by ProfJulie

My strategy, if at all possible, is to not engage them in debate and argumentation. I turn away and avoid protracted discussions with such people. I grew up with a sister who always had to win every argument. I learned early on that turning away was my best strategy.

Online, at least, I normally try one (or maybe two) rounds of polite, rational and respectful debate. This is often effective. But the effectiveness comes from the fact that my identification of such people in the online environment is often iffy (perhaps due to missing social cues, and the like; perhaps it's my poor understanding -- who knows!). Many people who at first appeared to be in the group Dr. Drib was describing show themselves to be quite reasonable when given a chance (and politely challenged to be more careful in their writing).

When the problem persists, a quick <plonk>* via the ignore functionality is the most effective response I've found.

Xenophon

* The sound of a dropped stone falling into the water at the bottom of a deep, deep well.

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think I've seen you doing that on these boards Prof; and just wanted to say for showing more restraint than I think I could have mustered.

It doesn't go unnoticed.

I'll confess, I have employed that strategy a few times here. It is not the easiest thing to do and does require some restraint, but it works quite well. It is interesting to see an argument peter out when one does not engage the other.

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Yes, and that's exactly what I do.

When I see someone is going to be disagreeable - and it's quite clear in one's writing if that person will be this way - then I won't respond or reply. I think the reason I do this is because I feel it fuels the narcissistic personality. It feeds them, so to speak. They need fuel in which to continue to argue. Remember, I do this when someone is both disagreeable and controlling at the same time.

I once tried to write rationally to someone about a situation, but logic and cohesion were thrown out the door. One can't "argue" with irrationality.

Don

Yes, it really is a waste of time and energy to try to carry on a rational discussion with someone who just wants to be disagreeable and "win" the argument. And continuing to carry on with such an individual just seems to fan the flame. Many times, the person's position is pretty thin, but they don't see it that way and so they persist with the same thin argument over and over again.

I remember once after not engaging my sister for several months (perhaps a year), I couldn't help myself and responded in a way that fed her flame. I saw a light come on in her eyes, like she was thinking, "Finally, this is what I have been waiting for all this time," as she geared up to pound me into the ground. I didn't make that mistake again.

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Online, at least, I normally try one (or maybe two) rounds of polite, rational and respectful debate. This is often effective. But the effectiveness comes from the fact that my identification of such people in the online environment is often iffy (perhaps due to missing social cues, and the like; perhaps it's my poor understanding -- who knows!). Many people who at first appeared to be in the group Dr. Drib was describing show themselves to be quite reasonable when given a chance (and politely challenged to be more careful in their writing).

When the problem persists, a quick <plonk>* via the ignore functionality is the most effective response I've found.

Xenophon

* The sound of a dropped stone falling into the water at the bottom of a deep, deep well.

On forums, I remind myself that I do not know the people well enough to get too fully vested in an argument with them about something I care deeply about.

I also remind myself that nothing said on a forum should be taken personally. Although that is hard to believe sometimes....[I am a moderator on another forum and it is unbelievable some of the things strangers have written to me in private messages.]

[pilotbob]

My biggest issue with "discussion" in a forum is that they are "usually" not productive. The participants keep repeating the same arguments over and over. Restating in slightly different words. Also, it seems that people involved can't determine that they have stated their position and there is nothing more to say.

But, isn't that all that is important. You've stated your case, and presented your argument and issues. The fact that you have convinced anyone of "your" beliefs or moved them to your position should not matter. I think people that expect that to happen is when things break down. They start going from reasoned facts and arguments to statements like "You are just too stupid to understand" or other more personal statements.

Is it really that important that everyone agrees with you? It is not to me... which is why I don't (I hope I don't) get to the the point of personal insults and such. I just agree to disagree and move on with my life.

BOb

[YGG-]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It's easy to fix. All Americans must now have tea, with plenty of milk and sugar, at 4pm every day. That'll solve it!

AND good Bordeaux twice a week + Champagne on Saturdays (cheese we'll come to at a later phase... hm, difficult point, all those germs in cheese )

[pshrynk]

I have to echo BOb's approach. I tend to make a statement about what I think and then leave it there. If I am convinced by someone's argument, then I try to respond with an acknowledgement. If another person holds a pov that is abhorrent to me, I tend to jump in for a few posts and then dissolve to background if the "debate" continues without any sign of shifting views. It's too easy to have a discussion devolve into flame wars on the internet, in my experience.