My Engagement Proposal
(Here is the context of this discussion)
PO, Instead of me complaining at the end of a relationship/friendship, after they finally get to know how I prefer to be treated and they then realise that I was not suited to them as a friend or possible partner,
I propose that I put my preferences, of how I would like to be treated, upfront.
This means making my implicit demands for relating more explicit.
If anything it could save a lot of time and heart ache and who knows, I may have discovered/recovered a way to find my soul mate. Here are my preferences or explicit demands and I will be practicing using them in this discussion.
The rules of engagement that I prefer to interact with are, 6 words/concepts beginning with A. I would prefer that someone speaks to me with Adjustable, Accountable and ultimately Acceptable language.
That if/when someone fails to achieve this with me, I will try notify them using Appreciation, Acknowledgment and Apology (speech in defense).
*Please note: Any members that participate in this discussion should be aware that although I am not expecting, demanding, or imposing this framework upon them, I reserve the right to practice this framework in any posts and when someone uses what I consider non-adjustable, non-accountable or unacceptable language on me, I will try inform them using appreciation, acknowledgment and apology.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you and if you do not wish to participate I will understand.
Tags: Agreements, Engagement, Parallel, Talking
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on -
As I have said, the value of this lies in the real world of social work in situations of conflict mediation. I will make the rather bold assumption that most people here would share a similar perspective. I don't exactly see people beating a path to your door, Des to make these agreements. Whatever the efficacy of this method in the real world, in the virtual world it's simply a crashing bore to expect people you have never met in the flesh, and whom you are unlikely to ever interact with in other than the most ephemeral way, to change their way of interacting. People guard their freedom of expression jealously over the Net and I for one applaud that because the Internet is quite simply the last place on Earth left to humans to express themselves any way they want. It is sad that you don't seem to appreciate or value that.
I'm not even convinced that your thing is in fact a framework at all, because at its core, it is not about releasing the thinking potential of the participants, like the Six Hats, Shoes or Medals. You are, throughout this, continually obsessed with how others present themselves to you which has little or nothing to do with the value or quality of any thinking involved. It all has to do with your deep emotional need for others to treat you as you would wish, something that now screams off the page in strobe-lit text.
The rather unfortunate part appears to be that you yourself Des know this, and that in order to set up a trial of your idea, you need first to create conflict so that you can then be seen to be the agent that is adept at dealing with conflict. However, no conflict exists, however hard you try, so all your attempts to require people to talk in a manner that is acceptable to you is a little bit obsessional, to say the least.
Your latest posts even seem to be of the order "it's my way or the highway" which is a bit scary and merely add to the obsessional and even delusional impression we are receiving of you. Every time you pop up it's time to groan because before we even read you now, we can virtually predict what you will be on about.
Nobody's interested, mate. Find another forum. If you continue, your discussions and blogs may be closed down. That would be a last resort, but your obsessional nature is starting to negatively impact our impression of you.
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on -
Glad you and most people here share my perspective Kim. I should not have any trouble getting participants.
You seem to be be doing well being so "bored" by my approach.
"changing the way people interact" is called creativity Kim and always hard to achieve.
There are so many places on the net and even this forum to express yourself, in any way you wish Kim. This place is for this framework.
You got it in one Kim, this discussion is all about how I wish to be treated only.
Is this too radical an approach for the Edward de Bono Society to cope with?
This seems to be a conflicting view to mine Kim, so I agree my approach elicits conflict if the reader does not agree with the framework.
I guess I am obsessed with my framework probably nearly as much as EdB is with his. I guess to achieve anything a healthy obsession is needed, dont you think Kim.
I am sure everyone can speak for them selves Kim. I am not sure who exactly the "we" you refer about but I thnk I could guess. I understand that I don't tow the line and conform to how you expect me to think and act but that does not make me wrong in my approach or the bad guy Kim. Just possibly misunderstood a bit like how any new thinker is usually received.
Thanks for letting me know that YOU are not interested Kim. I really did not expect any takers so thanks for starting the discussion off. I am sure some people will see, after reading it why I think this framework of treating others is needed.
I expect my discussion to be closed down and to be kicked off this site Kim as, like you I think I am too radical in my thinking. But asking explicitly to be treated a specific way really is not a radical request just unusual.
Thanks again for letting me know Kim but I am sure you will agree that your tone and content fall way outside this framework.
-
Permalink Reply by Asa Jomard on -
Someone asked me the other day where I see myself in five years time. I said I had no idea, maybe on the moon.
So how can someone like me know how I want to be treated. And find the voice to express it?
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
Good question Asa.
But this is about how you or I want to be treated now, not in five years.
In 5 years I expect it to be different than now as it has changed over the past 5 years, heck tomorrow it will be different again, I believe.
Funny, to activate the Golden Rule of treating someone,
understanding how we want to be treated is required.
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on -
The site usually doesn't find it's necessary to silence people who do not interact "normally." Many people who are interested in de Bono's ideas are still learning English and this makes what they are able to say somewhat limited. So we must understand and accept that they have this trouble and attempt to understand them as best we can. It would be grossly unreasonable to ask those people to talk to you in a certain way.
The site DOES have a policy of preventing internet trolls and spammers. Des, as long as you don't act like a troll, you can say anything you want. There's quite a bit already on the internet about trolls, their psychology and what their tactics are, etc.
Obviously, there is no trollish flaming going on here, (thankfully!) What I'm concerned with is a subset of trolling when a well-meaning poster obsessively adheres to and frequently restates their own idiosyncratic beliefs and requirements, acting as a gatekeeper for newbies. The effect is to get newbies to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that the troll is delivering a deliberate bait. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. This is a form of "hazing," similar to bullying.
One of the more obvious features of a troll is they have no interest in the topic at hand. This is why I've previously asked if you're interested in learning thinking skills. You don't appear to be. However, in this post, you're attempting to use PO. This is a nod to the site's topic - Thanks!
It appears that you're using PO as a hyPOthesis - but what you're proposing is not a new idea for you, so you're not really doing any thinking by using PO. Instead, you're using PO to deliver a proPOsal to us - to convince us to do what you want us to do. This is misunderstanding the use of PO.
Maybe one of the trainers could help here...
If you'd like to do some thinking with PO, one of the easiest ways to do this is by retrieving an unrelated & perhaps random noun, and then relating that new noun to your favorite topic.
Let's say - your objective is to get people to buy into using your system to correspond with you - right?
I'm sure we can help you apply some de Bono thinking techniques for your topic, if you're will to do some thinking with these tools...
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
Franis when I interact on this site I am learning constantly although it not apparent to you, it seems, it does not mean that my new thinking does not exist and I thnk it is wrong for you to assume so.
My framework is set up so that the type of feedback I am hoping to receive is where people simply state their awareness that it is their view only, which then reduces the chance of such simple error in logic that I think you are making. I.e. Using Adjustable language such as emphasizing “in my view…” or “I think….” etc. Would then soften the ground for you to receive my feedback.
For example Kim stating what you and Luis stated also about me "imposing" or "demanding" someone to “comply” is crucial in my understanding where what I am trying to achieve is so different than what anyone else is trying to achieve.
Of course I am not “demanding” or “imposing” anyone to do anything as everyone here has a free choice to participate or not. Your failure to see this seems to prove my view that your eyes are clouded over to this obvious point of free will and choice. As far as I am concerned “asking” or “proposing” is not the same as “demanding or “imposing”. I have no power over anyone other than to create a discussion that I hope people will desire to participate in.
Back to your point about not being a “new idea to me”. As I have mentioned in the PO context, the lateral thinking I am proposing is quite valid, I think where we stop reacting to failed relationships of complaining about what we consider inappropriate treatment at the end and after the fact and act more proactively by stating our preferences for how we would like to be treated before or upon meeting. Radical thought, I think, as difficult as this approach is. (never been worded like this before)
I think that because this approach is so different to how you or anyone reading this, approaches relationships, that I am always going to be treated as a renegade on this subject. But just because it is different to how you Luis and Kim approach life, it should not be deemed that I am "wrong" & you are "right".
I had not put this together until today and after reading Kim’s protestations of this problem that he has with my approach. This is all "new" to me.
I am sorry for any foreign speakers reading this or any of my past posts. I did not understand that I was supposed to tailor my language to suit you.
At this stage I do not require the use of any trainers, though thanks for the offer.
I don't know what a "Troll" is.
-
Permalink Reply by Franis on
-
I had some experiences which led me to imagine there were better ways to avoid problems in relationships. Some of them were about blame and responsibility. But it wasn't until there was a problem that the other person realized that my way of refusing to blame each other allowed advantages. With my way, we were able to forgive the misunderstanding and design a way forward by interrupting the sequences of our reactions. Their way was being concerned with assigning blame and determining "Truth." This continued the conflict indefinitely and pandered to a rather petty fulfillment of determining and being "right."
I've learned to allow a relationship to evolve however it does start, encouraging many contact points. When there's a problem, I can always trot out my examples as my offering to the other person & the continuance of our relationship. The person goes for my ideas if they find them useful. They don't - if my previous experience is useless for them in this instance. But I would never make it a condition of engagement that they MUST find my previous experience useful - or else!
Trying to get agreement on the front end is more trouble than it is worth. There is no advantage. It makes you think - is this person so difficult to get along with that he demands agreements like these before anything has gone wrong?
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
Your approach Franis is obviously your choice and one you are entitled to make.
I have personally chosen my path Franis, surely if I am not hurting anyone else I should be allowed the same respect.
PS I reiterate that everyone has a choice and free will. That unless I go up to someone with a gun to their head, I don't think I can be accused of "demanding". I am "proposing" or "asking" people to participate and try this approach. It is their "choice". I don't expect many or even any takers.
When I meet a potential partner, for example, and if she smoked, I would simply let her know my preference for a non-smoker. If she wanted to continue to smoke, she would obviously not be suited to me. Simple. The same goes for my framework if she does not want to try or have one for me to try then she is not suited to me, simple and my choice.
This is not a "demand" or a "must" it is a simple choice of mine that I am entitled to make and have, I thnk. If you could explain where my DEMAND and MUST exists, we could move on to something else Franis.
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
Ok Franis thanks for your feedback once again. I admit that I have been demanding people to comply to my framework and I have decided to drop my demands on anyone and everyone to comply.
I will continue to practice using my framework and when someone uses what I consider nonadjustable, nonaccountable or unacceptable language on me I will practice using appreciation, acknowledgment and apology to explain how I prefer to be treated.
This means that I will not expect, demand or insist that they comply to the framework in anyway, just that I will state my desire to be treated a certain way and once again they have the choice to satisfy my desire or ignore it.
My mistake was that I am trying to avoid being abused and accused. I guess it just comes with being part of humanity. I guess it is through the example of usng the framework that I can prove and improve it for myself only.
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
I guess my demands of people were/are implicit and not explicit.
Is there anything wrong with having demands? We all have heard of "reasonable demands". For example, to clean up after oneself is a reasonable demand, explicit or implicit. And I suppose we all think that our own demands are always reasonable, which may or may not be the case. Anyway I much prefer explicit demands at least there are no shocks afterwards.
I am trying to make any demands that I may have explicit, so that they can be looked at to see if they are reasonable or not.
I think that most relationships are built on implicit demands and implicit agreements and that is the reason that they fail. With explicit demands (demands in the open) there would probably be a lot less failed relationships as there would be a lot less relationships.
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Jones on
-
But you can just adopt the strategy that everybody reacts according to their needs the whole time. You use the word "demands" but all demands are based on needs so I prefer to go straight there. Demands are the very articulation of needs, like a child crying in a crib. Seen like this, you learn to see everyone's reaction to you as an expression of some inner truth about them. As such it points to them, not to you. This is, nonetheless, valuable information to you if you want to deal with them somehow.
People give themselves away at every tick of the clock by a variety of factors, by how they talk, by how they dress, by how they walk, by their interests, their experience, by what they like, by what they ignore - people are a living document of themselves. Its called the Passing Parade. Are you going to set up a framework to govern these things as well? How others react to something says far more about themselves than what it is they are reacting to - which could be you. This is your magic circle of protection. You then "shrug off" anything that irks your taste about them. Done like this, we don't get bogged down in protracted and negotiated conflict over language. The mere fact that we have to use language at all in negotiation puts us behind the 8 ball in human affairs.
The codes approach beckons.
A propos of your rules of engagement, I would specify
dbc 15/5
-
Permalink Reply by Desmond Sherlock on
-
I agree Kim, it is how one reacts that reveal our implicit demands or perceived needs.
"you should know better!" for example says a lot about the person's needs when using such a term, or "I am sick of this" etc.
My goal has always been to apply my framework to myself first to reduce my reactions. Reacting with Appreciation, Acknowledgment and Apology is far better than reacting with aggression especially if I use the 3As sincerely which I think I can.
I think it is pretty apparent that the "benefits" of having a framework during negotiations means that we can always refer to it at any time when deemed appropriate.
It provides a place of safety I think.
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
