Conversation Protocol

“Converse views”, “conversely speaking”, or “on the converse”, why is it that people do not get that “conversation” is the sharing of opposite views or converse views?

In our bipolar world of conversation we seem to be overly agreeing far too much and too often (absolutely!) or overly disagreeing (that’s bullshit, you’re wrong! ). The return of the “conversation” and converging closer to the golden middle could be a god send.

For millennia, an arms race of techniques have evolved that use forms of conversation to convert people into acquiescing. Techniques so clever that we are not even aware that we are acquiescing and think that we have agreed instead. Browbeating and bribes being the most common forms.
(Read 1984, by George Orwell)

I believe that the true use of conversation is to converge our views not to try to convert the other’s. I think that an agreement is necessary before we converse, that convergence is our
goal and not the converting of the other.

Once agreed to, I think we would then need to agree to expose these converting techniques
and apply our agreed converging ones.

And vollah! we now have a conversation protocol. Rethink Perfect is my part of the proposal for this conversation protocol.

This entry was posted in Agreements and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s