|
a |
 |
One day a college professor and his class took up the topic, "What does it mean to converse, and how do we converse with each other?" The students immediately began to pepper the professor with possible answers, "Communication, talk to each other, interact, relate, disclosure, statements, discussions, mention, expression, relation, assertion, transmission, declaration," and on and on they went with their suggestions. When the students had exhausted their responses, the professor acknowledged their contributions and then asked them to consider both questions as two halves of a whole. At this point the students responded with how information is transmitted, "by message, announcement, briefing, reports, publicity, letters, notes, bulletins and billboards," were some of their answers. Again the professor asked them to consider the two questions as two halves of a whole. The students became perplexed; his input was not clarifying the topic at all. One frustrated student blurted out, "Professor, what is this whole and halves business you're referring too?" "Now, that's an important question," the professor responded. "The answer to the two questions, 'what does it mean to converse, and how do we converse with each other?' is that all of the players must make a personal contribution to the conversation." Trying to understand the student said, "On the surface, I can see intellectually that contribution by all involved parties is a practical answer to your two questions as being two halves of the whole theory. But, we still haven't answered the question of what you mean by contributing, have we? The professor was quick to point out that, "this is the real point of our questioning." He continued, "The assumption that a connection in conversing includes contributions by more than one party is accurate, otherwise, the communication would be considered a speech. So, the question becomes, what does the process of contributing involve? Let's consider this; when someone is contributing, isn't there someone else who responds to that contribution with a contribution of his or her own, in response to what he heard? Let me make this really simple. When you're responding, you are probably doing one of three things. You are validating, negating, or expanding upon what you heard. By validating, you're simply acknowledging that the point or position made has merit. It's valid or accurate. However, validating does not necessarily mean you agree with the point. For example, if someone makes the comment that there are people who believe in abortion, that comment is valid even if you don't happen to agree with that position. Negation, on the other hand, could be considered the opposite of validation in that to negate means to see what something is not. If the point someone makes is not accurate or valid, then it is said to be false. Validation is truth, negation is false. For example, if someone were to say that everyone believes in abortion, that would be false, and to say so to that person is to negate what is being said. Last is the act of expanding upon what the other person has said. This implies adding to, or saying also, in response to what you have heard. It means building upon the point that you heard with additional statements or comments of your own to move the conversation forward. Do you all understand?" "One additional important point to make here is that in conversations you may hear someone use the word but instead of also, or I agree. When this happens, remind them that whenever we use the word, but, we are disagreeing with what was just heard or said. The yea-but expression really means no, it doesn't mean yes or even also. Don't be the one who learns this lesson the hard way, you need to realize how disruptive this is in conversation." V.P. Mosser
©2001-2008 V.P. Mosser |