ceclark at students.wisc.edu
Wed Oct 13 05:21:49 CEST 2010
Interesting, Dan. Gosh we enter a new decade and end up agreeing on a
few things. Amazing.
I enjoyed reading your Rapoport rundown. Yes, I have a Rapoport bib
somewhere and had forgotten that piece. I like the "rule" anyway,
although I think I would try it out before foreclosing on it as a
strategy or rule to always follow.
I went to a web page of your horseman after reading your previous post
and was interested and amused with his listing of my friend Nick
Johnson's article on it. If you go to Nick Johnson's pages or merely
google my name and his you will get a link to my gsintro list. Yes, it
is a small world. Actually, Nick Johnson introduced me to g.s. in
1994 or 5. His father wrote a book about g.s. for a course he taught
at the University of Iowa years ago. It is called _People in
Quandaries_. Gays get disgruntled with it because he refers to
homosexuality as a form of mental illness, but of course you might
argue with your natural morality that you won't get much offspring and
extension or perhaps refinement/evolution of the species with
homosexual behavior. What you choose is of course your prerogative. ;)
On Oct 12, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Daniel Davis wrote:
> Carmen and I seem to be in agreement on the relation of egoism to
> sentiment. Damn. Can't even count on egoists to oppose morality
>> Objective is affairs of the object world, which is _not_
>> somebody's idea of
>> what "ought to be."
> Yes. Given your interest in GS and Egoism, I'd expect us to be in
> agreement on
> that one.
>>> I sent an email to
>>> Daniel Dennett, asking him for a reference to Rapoport's Rules of
>>> Debate he
>>> advocated in some lecture. He said he was looking for a good
>> Oh. Dan. That was not Rapoport. That was Ed MacNeal, and the
>> rules for
>> debate were that you had to > state your case until the other
>> person could
>> articulate it correctly. It was some kind of war. I will think
>> of > the name
>> in a minute. I think it was a grokduel.
> No, it was Rapoport. Grokduel is interesting in itself, but it
> wasn't what
> Dennet had talked about.
> As I said, I dug up references. I'll include the links I sent to
> Dennett at the
> bottom of the post. Really funny that you interviewed Rapoport. It's
> a small
> world after all.
>> Who is Dennett?
> Daniel Dennett. Along with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and
> Dawkins, the Four Horsemen of the Counter Apocalypse - the so called
> Atheists. Dennett is a philosopher from Tufts University, focusing
> on philosophy
> of mind, though he has branched out into darwinianism, evolution,
> and religion
> as a natural phenomenon. A rare philosopher who usually makes
> sense, and has
> interesting insights.
> - Dan Davis
> My original email to Dennett, quoting what he said about rules of
> Hi. You said the following at the end of the third day of your 2009
> Lecture about Anatol Rapoport, and Rapoports Rules. I was hoping
> that you had a
> reference, or better, a link to the original. Thank you.
> You said of Rapoport's Rules:
> Here's what you do when you have to comment on a paper.
> The first thing you do is summarize the person's views so well that
> your goal is
> to get them to say "I wish I had put it that way."
> Second, you point out things that you agree with that maybe are not
> agreed to. Anything that you're an ally of the person.
> Third, anything you've learned from the person.
> Only after you've done those three things do you say a word of but,
> a word of
> It's really a wonderful lesson to learn. First of all if you do it
> you've got a very receptive audience in your target. You've already
> shown that
> you understand exactly what that person is trying to do, and you
> agree with him
> about some things he is embattled about, and he has actually taught
> something, so that is somebody who wants to hear what you have to say.
> My second email to Dennett, detailing the relevant references I found.
> I found a decent reference to Rapoport's Rules of Debate in his
> "Fights, Games,
> and Debates".
> Google book links below. I think they'll work for you. Annoyingly, I
> can't cut
> and past from the pages.
> See page 286 snippet and select page 286 link to read pages 286,287
> See page 386 snippets for citation to Carl Rogers article in ETC.
> Rogers, CR "Communication: Its Blocking and Facilitation," ETC., A
> Review of
> General Semantics 9, (1952), pp. 83-88. 100...
> There are a few abridged version of the article on the web. This
> page below has
> the most complete version I saw, though I actually prefer Rapoport's
> framing of
> the idea in his book.
> Interesting that both Rogers and Rapoport are associated with
> General Semantics.
> Some random web page that gives some context, which I cut and paste
> below. Hope
> this helps.
> <7> In Rapoport's Fights, Games and Debates (1960), Rapoport
> essentially defines
> argument as persuasion. He asserts that "the removal of threat,"
> which he
> claims is based on Rogers' technique of permissive therapy, is one
> way to
> persuade (286). He claims that his method is based on Rogerian
> and is designed to help one modify an opponent's image. Rapoport
> this method as a means to help one to prevail over an opponent in an
> Rapoport's method includes three components, from which Young,
> Becker and
> Pike adapt their steps of Rogerian argument. First, arguers must
> convey to
> opponents that they are understood, and then they must delineate the
> of opponents' positions that are valid (287). These steps function by
> threat and enticing opponents to trust and listen to the debaters,
> who may
> then begin describing their positions to more receptive audiences.
> <8> Based on Rapoport's model of Rogerian persuasion, Young, Becker
> Pike explain that the theory of Rogerian argument, in Rhetoric:
> and Change (1970),
> rests on the assumption that out of a need to preserve the stability
> of his
> image, a person will refuse to consider alternatives that he feels are
> threatening, and hence, that changing a person's image depends on
> eliminating this sense of threat. Much of men's resistance to logical
> argument seems explainable by this assumption.
> A strong sense of threat may render the reader immune to even the
> most carefully
> reasoned and well-supported argument. (274)<9> The explicit goal
> of Young,
> Becker and
> Pike's model of Rogerian argument, then, is to reduce threat as a
> means of
> "changing a person's image." Although the word persuasion is not
> used here as it
> is by Rapoport, it is implicitly understood. Maxine Hairston in
> Rogers's Alternative to Traditional Rhetoric" (1976) also links
> argument with persuasion. She interprets the "basic premise" of
> seminal article, "Communication: Its Blocking and its
> Facilitation" as "you
> do not convert people to your point of view by threatening them or
> challenging their values" (373). The logical conclusion to this
> statement is
> that you may be able to convert people to your point of view by
> finding a
> method that is not threatening to them or challenging of their values.
> Hairston asserts that this insight has "profound implications for
> and that
> "any theory of persuasion must take it into account" (373).
> Hairston, Young, Becker and Pike take for granted that Rogers'
> theories are
> appropriate for use by rhetoricians as a means to persuade, this is
> not the
> case. In fact, it may be antithetical to Rogers' ideas to use Rogerian
> theory to persuade.
More information about the nonserviam