Hi dear colleagues,
Is there any specific way to successfully discuss an idea with someone? How do we raise the dialogue to a high level of morality?
هل هناك اسلوب معين لإنجاح مناقشة فكرة ما مع شخص ما؟ كيف نرقى بالحوار إلى مستوى عالي من الأخلاق؟
Thank you for sharing your opinions
Regards
The dialogue depends on the type of corresponding person, is it a cultured or not.
The dialogue depends on the type of corresponding person, is it a cultured or not.
The person should be educated and knowledgeable about the subject of the discussion and not be ignorant of it.
The discussion should be conducted in a calm and understanding atmosphere.
The acceptance of the opinion and the other opinion under any circumstances.
The cultural time must be given to the other party to complete the idea for discussion.
The ambience of the discussion must calm the constructive proposition.
At the beginning of the discussion, we must start with the agreed upon matters, so that the debate on the things that are disputed will continue.
More important than the dialogue itself is the level of the person you discuss in terms of culture, knowledge and ethics
To raise the level of dialogue is to leave the argument of the ignorant
One of the most important factors for the success of any serious discussion is not sticking to personal opinion or trying to impose my thoughts on others without persuasion
Mutual respect, sincerity and transparency must be key ingredients in such dialogues.
Well, what is ignorance? Surely, unless this is about specific types who cannot raise the debate than fine, why then bother? If it is a racist type, well again there are different sorts, some are provocatively so while others do not realise their views are wrong-the latter can be reached. But again, what is ignorance? I might find ignorant those you don't find ignorant. Then surely this can merely amount to different points of view, the I respect your viewpoint but I prefer to differ position.
It depends on the educational background of the person as well as his morals.
A good question and a scientific answer of course depends on the opposite person, his culture, his style and the dialogue if he responds to the discussion or not
With regards
The quality of the response and feedback decides about the direction of communicative dialogue or polylogue; sometimes, the discourse is simply killed by a lack of compassion, i.e. a one-way-road mentality. A higher level of ethical morality can only be reached by a true dialectics of passion (heart) and reason (brain). In this understanding, the question-response-tool (hand) serves as a selection procedure of the communication process itself; as a cultural result, there will evolve a human group structure around the topic of the discourse, which is characterized by cognitive distances. The research method of multi-dimensional scaling can 'draw' very informative 'pictures' of such psycho-logical groupings in science and life.
First of all, I agree with my fellow RG colleagues Stanley Wilkin Sir and Arben J Salihu
Sir.In my opinion, it takes sometime to spin a yarn of verbose when discussing something significant and big. What matters the most is how you involve people in your discussion and how you present your circumlocutory to them.
People usually get attracted to grandiloquent periphrastic discussions and widely participate in it. The process of involving people and convincing them of your point of view is a big thing and everyone is not a master to it.
Further, I think, someone who is eloquent with his language, who knows what he/she is capable of, and holds a good knowledge of the subject of discussion, can ace it well!
Best regards,
Dear Dr. Stephen I. Ternyik, Thanks a lot for your valuable addition.
I fully agree with you about the "One-Way-Road Mentality Problem" which is a very large obstacle to promote the dialogue as much as possible.
Regards
Excellent answer dear Dr. Sahar Qazi,
I liked your words a lot because which are very logical, but I would say that sometimes even if the person is proficient, fluent in the language and also has a significant asset in the subject of discussion, despite this, sometimes he may be shocked with someone who do not know the meaning of the discussion at all. In fact, once you have a discussion with him, you find yourself in what is known as "Byzantine discussion" without any benefit.
Regards
I mentioned this once before here: But in a debate, many (too many) I have been involved in I employ my finest arguments against entrenched views with no empirical basis, provide wonderfully considered argument and counter argument, my position informed and eloquent and the other person walks away happily convinced of exactly the same. I think 'what a fool'. Unfortunately, they think the same thing too! I think 'I won that argument', they think exactly the same.
Be very very clear more than clarity itself. Be very soft.
You speak. You also listen
Depends on the nature of the interlocutors, especially the person corresponding. Greetings
The method of dialogue and discussion depends on the person you are discussing.
One need to have mutual trust and confidence. Integrity and self respect are necessary for a meaningful interaction.
we can raise the dialogue to a high level of morality if we are respect our differences between us, when we understand any person have a specific things make us need each other to share this life.
Based on the fact that nobody has the "absolute truth", everyone of us understands it from her/his own small angle build by our background experiences in life. As a consequence, wisdom is to try to approach the "absolute truth" by learning from others (not judging them) to have a wider angle of understanding. I would also to add that more people are different from us, the more we learn. On the other hand, there is no interesting discussion and nothing to learn with people who think exactly like us. Those who travel a lot are wiser before they learn a lot from different cultures and also become more human.
I am with Dr. Dhyaa Allban. It depends on the relationship between the people. However, in any dialogue respect is the key element.
Thanks a lot dear Dr. Ashok Pundir, Dr. Lina Al-Obaidy, Dr. Zin Eddine Dadach, Dr. Abdullah Noori and Dr. Luaay Abdulwahid Shihab for your valuable additions. I appreciate your contributions.
This requires a mutual understanding and shared background knowledge. This will help greatly in making their conversation effective.
- Refrain from speaking negative speech, using soft,
- Be patient; it is a practical expression of wisdom, trust, and love.
- The distinction between the person and his behavior, where it is necessary to communicate with others taking into account their intrinsic value, regardless of their behavior.
- Choose a positive response, being responsible for your behavior and attitude.
- Keep promises broken; to influence others.
- Focus on the axis of impact.
- Encourage others to accept the laws of life, and listen to them. Expect good prospects from others, and impose goodwill.
- Try to understand others and understand their ways of thinking.
- Avoid making judgments in advance.
- Make other parties feel that you understand them, so as to consolidate the relationship, trust. In order to reform the relationship with others, to avoid increasing the problem.
- Recognition of error, asking for forgiveness, and apology.
- Highlight the aspects that bring you together, to prevent making the problem bigger than these aspects. And make them feel the extent of their influence on you, to increase confidence.
Respect for dissenting opinions and non-intolerance can contribute to the success of the debate.
That's right, thanks a lot dear Dr. Mohammed Salah Nasr for this valuable addition.
Best regards
It depends on experience, commond and knowledge regarding the agenda topic.The topic should be discussed with the person having experience and sound knowledge in that respective area.
Thanks a lot dear Dr. Nazim Hassan and Dr. Wajid Zaman for your opinions. I appreciate them.
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude