A rogerian argument

A rogerian argument

 · Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic blogger.com by: using Rogerian argumentation is that the writer or speaker gains the attention of the audience and prevents them from immediately arguing in opposition. The effect is that you'll be more likely to persuade your listeners or readers. Here are some Rogerian argument ideas. Rogerian Argument Outline blogger.com Size: 9KB The Rogerian argument seeks to discuss both opposing and proposing sides of an argument, while the Rogerian classical argument aims to disprove the opposing views. A classical argument is one that the writer aims to persuade the reader and

Rogerian Argument | English

Rogerian argument or Rogerian rhetoric is a rhetorical and conflict resolution strategy based on empathizing with others, seeking common ground and mutual understanding and learningwhile avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization. Sincerhetoricians have applied the ideas of Rogers—with contributions by Anatol Rapoport —to rhetoric and argumentationproducing Rogerian argument.

A key principle of Rogerian argument is that, instead of advocating one's own position and trying to refute the other's position, one tries to state the other's position with as much care as one would have stated one's own position, emphasizing what is strong or valid in the other's argument.

Rhetoricians have designed various methods for applying these Rogerian rhetorical principles in practice. Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught. Already in the s Rapoport had noted some of the limitations of Rogerian argumentand other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades.

For example, a rogerian argument, they concluded that Rogerian argument is less likely to be appropriate or effective when communicating with violent or discriminatory people or institutions, in situations of social exclusion or extreme power inequality, a rogerian argument in judicial settings that use formal adversarial procedures.

Some empirical research has tested role reversal and found that its effectiveness depends on the issue and situation. In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the s and s [6] [7] by the textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change [8] by the University of Michigan professors Richard E.

Young, Alton L. Beckerand Kenneth L. They borrowed the term Rogerian and related ideas from the polymath Anatol Rapoport[6] [7] who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university. Young, Becker, and Pike's textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change followed Rapoport's book Fights, Games, and Debates [11] in describing three ways of changing people that could be applied in debates: the Pavlovian strategy, the Freudian strategy, and the Rogerian strategy. The Pavlovian strategy represents people "as a bundle of habits that can be shaped and controlled" by punishments and rewards.

The Freudian strategy represents people as consciously espousing beliefs that are produced by unconscious or hidden motives that are unknown to them; changing people's beliefs—and changing any behaviors that are caused by those a rogerian argument revealing the hidden motives.

The Rogerian strategy represents people as usually trying to protect themselves from what they perceive to be threatening. Rapoport noted that Freudian psychoanalysts often diagnose people's defenses against what is perceived to be threateningsince such defenses can be among the hidden motives that the Freudian strategy tries to uncover.

A work by Carl Rogers that was especially influential in the formulation of Rogerian argument was his paper "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation", [28] published in the same year as his book Client-Centered Therapy. One idea that Rogers emphasized several a rogerian argument in his paper that is not mentioned in textbook treatments of Rogerian argument is third-party intervention, a rogerian argument.

Rogerian argument is an application of Rogers' ideas about communication, taught by rhetoric teachers who were inspired by Rapoport, [6] [7] but Rogers' ideas about communication have also been applied somewhat differently by many others: for example, Marshall Rosenberg created nonviolent communicationa process of conflict resolution and nonviolent living, after studying and working with Rogers, [37] and other writing teachers used some of Rogers' ideas in developing expressivist theories of writing.

There are different opinions about whether Rogerian rhetoric is like or unlike classical rhetoric from ancient Greece and Rome. Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's Pavlovian strategy and Freudian strategy all share the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, but the Rogerian strategy has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal, a rogerian argument.

English professor Andrea Lunsfordresponding to Young, Becker, and Pike in a article, argued that the three principles of Rogerian strategy that they borrowed from Rapoport could be found in various parts of Aristotle 's writings, a rogerian argument, and so were already in the classical tradition.

English professor Paul G. Bator a rogerian argument in that Rogerian argument is more different from Aristotle's rhetoric than Lunsford had concluded.

Professor of communication Douglas Brent said that Rogerian rhetoric is not the captatio benevolentiae securing of good will taught by Cicero and later by medieval rhetoricians. By the end of the s, the term Rapoport debate [52] [53] was used to refer to what Anatol Rapoport called ethical debate[54] which is debate guided by Rapoport's Rogerian strategy. Philosopher Daniel Dennetta rogerian argument, in his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinkingcalled these principles Rapoport's rules of debate, a rogerian argument, [55] a term that other authors have since adopted.

Rapoport proposed three main principles of ethical debate: [27] [58] [59] a rogerian argument. Daniel Dennett 's version of Rapoport's rules, which Dennett considered to be "somewhat more portable and versatile", is:. Dennett's other advice, in his presentation of Rapoport's rules, had more of an adversarial outlook than a Rogerian one: he said that some people "don't deserve such respectful attention" and that he found it to "be sheer joy to skewer and roast" such people.

If there are somewhat a rogerian argument contradictions, you a rogerian argument carefully expose them to view—and then dump on them. In a summary of Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules, Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by modeling prosocial behavior : one party demonstrates respect and intellectual openness so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.

English professor Michael Austin, a rogerian argument, in his book We Must Not Be Enemiespointed out the connection between Rapoport's three a rogerian argument of ethical debate, published inand Rapoport's tit-for-tat algorithm that won political scientist Robert Axelrod 's repeated prisoner's dilemma computer tournaments around In the s, R.

Duncan Luce had introduced Rapoport to the prisoner's dilemma game, a rogerian argument, [77] a kind of non-zero-sum game. Rapoport proceeded to publish a landmark book of empirical psychological research using the game, followed by another book in on empirical research about seventy-eight 2 × 2 two-person non-zero-sum games.

Rapoport himself, in his discussion of the Rogerian strategy in Fights, Games, and Debatesconnected the ethics of debate to non-zero-sum games.

Rapoport pointed out "that a rigorous examination of game-like conflict leads inevitably" to the examination of debates, because "strictly rigorous game theory when extrapolated to cover other than two-person zero-sum games" requires consideration of issues such as "communication theory, psychology, even ethics" that are beyond simple game-like rules.

Austin said that the characteristics that Rapoport programmed into the tit-for-tat algorithm are similar to Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate: both tit-for-tat and Rapoport's rules of debate are guidelines for producing a beneficial outcome in certain "non-zero-sum" situations.

In informal oral communicationRogerian argument must be flexible because others can interject and show that one has failed to state their position and situation adequately, and then one must modify one's previous statements before continuing, resulting in an unpredictable sequence of conversation that is guided by the general principles of Rogerian strategy.

Carl Rogers himself was primarily interested in spontaneous oral communication, [86] and Douglas Brent considered the "native" mode of Rogerian communication to be mutual exploration of an issue through face-to-face oral communication. In formal written communication that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or audience analysisto be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately.

The first two of Young, Becker, and Pike's four phases of written Rogerian argument are based a rogerian argument the first two of Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate.

Maxine Hairston, in a section on "Rogerian or nonthreatening argument" in her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoricadvised that one "shouldn't start writing with a detailed plan in mind" but might start by making four lists: the other's concerns, one's own key points, anticipated problems, and points of agreement or common ground.

Robert Keith Miller's textbook The Informed Argumentfirst published ina rogerian argument, [93] presented five phases adapted from an earlier textbook by Richard Coe.

InRebecca Stephens built on the "vague and abstract" Rogerian principles of other rhetoricians to create a set of 23 "concrete and detailed" questions that she called a Rogerian-based heuristic for rhetorical invention[95] intended a rogerian argument help people think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments. Lisa Edea writing professor at Oregon State Universityargued in a article—referring a rogerian argument to some of the ideas of Young, Becker, and Pike—that "Rogerian rhetoric is not Rogerian" but is instead a distortion of Carl Rogers' ideas, a rogerian argument.

Ede argued in that Young, Becker, a rogerian argument, and Pike's Rogerian rhetoric is weak compared to what she considered to be the "much more sophisticated" 20th-century rhetorics found in Kenneth Burke 's A Grammar of Motives and Chaïm Perelman 's The Realm of Rhetoric. Young responded to Ede that he didn't know of any previous treatment in rhetorical theory of the kind of situation that Rogerian argument tries to address, where the a rogerian argument of the classical rhetorical tradition are likely to create or intensify extreme opposition, and where a deeper communication—of the kind that Rogers taught—is needed between and within people, a rogerian argument.

A rogerian argument did not pay enough attention to the a rogerian argument variation in actual dyadic situations; and we did not see that both the use and the usefulness of Rogerian argument seem to vary as the situation varies, a rogerian argument.

The peculiarities of the particular situation affect, or should affect, the choices one makes in addressing it; not understanding this leads to inappropriate and ineffective choices. Scholars debating Rogerian argument often noted limitations of the scope a rogerian argument which the Rogerian strategy is likely to be appropriate or effective.

In a paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the Vietnam Warhe noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Young, Becker, and Pike pointed out in that Rogerian argument would be out of place in the typical mandated adversarial criminal procedures of the court system in the United States. Ede noted in that the rhetoric textbooks that a rogerian argument Rogerian argument dedicated only a few pages to it out of a total of hundreds of pages, so the Rogerian approach is only a small part of theories of rhetoric and argumentation, a rogerian argument.

In a article that combined ideas from feminist theorists and testimonies from a rogerian argument college students in the s, women's studies professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives, a rogerian argument. In a article, English professor Catherine Lamb agreed with Lassner and added: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in. Young noted in that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when a rogerian argument antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense.

Conflict researchers such as Morton Deutsch and David W. Johnsonciting the same publications by Rapoport and Rogers that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term role reversal to refer to the presentation by one person to another person a rogerian argument the other person's position and vice versa. Negotiation expert William Ury said in his book The Third Side that role reversal as a formal rule of argumentation has been used at least since the Middle Ages in the Western world : "Another rule dates back at least as far as the Middle Ages, when theologians at the University of Paris used it to facilitate mutual understanding: One can speak only after one has repeated what the other side has said to that person's satisfaction.

Some rhetoric and composition textbooks that have a section about Rogerian argument, listed by date of first edition:. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the ecogeographical principle, see Rapoport's rule. Argumentation theory § Types of dialogue Arne Næss § Recommendations for public debate Bohm Dialogue Civil discourse Cognitive bias modification Conflict continuum Conflict transformation Dialectical thinking Dialogue Dialogue mapping Epistemic humility Epistemic virtue Group dynamics Immunity to change Interpersonal communication Intergroup dialogue Peace psychology Perspective-taking Philosophy of dialogue Reciprocal altruism Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

For in this state of sympathetic understanding, we recognize both the multiplicity of world-views and our freedom to choose among them—either to retain our old or take a new. More recently, certain strands of feminist rhetoric have created new interest in cooperative approaches. In 'Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition,' for example, Catherine Lamb draws attention to negotiation theory as an important source of alternatives to competitive and confrontational rhetoric.

As Lamb explains: 'in both negotiation and mediation the goal has changed: it is no longer to win but to arrive at a solution in a just way that is acceptable to both sides' And Michael Gilbert has developed a related approach that he calls 'coalescent argumentation,' an approach that involves a 'joining together' of divergent claims through 'recognition and exploration of opposing positions forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options' This view is similar to the key idea in negotiation theory especially the version presented in Roger Fisher and William Ury 's Getting to Yes that lying beneath people's 'positions' on issues are concerns and interests that represent what they care about most deeply, a rogerian argument.

Positions are often intractable. But by shifting the conversation to underlying interests, a rogerian argument, it's often possible to find common concerns and shared values, on the basis of which there may be grounds for discussion and, ultimately, agreement.

Instead of promoting the adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer can a rogerian argument find common ground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that problem.

Rogerian argument is especially a rogerian argument on audience analysis because the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, and fairly. Young, Becker, and Pike were not the first to respond to this challenge.

In fact, they rely heavily in their discussion of Rogerian rhetoric on the work of Anatol Rapoport, who in Fights, a rogerian argument, Games, and Debatesa rogerian argument, which they also quote in their text, attempts to apply Rogers' theories. It is Rapoport, for instance, who establishes the 'three methods of modifying images,' the Pavlovian, Freudian, and Rogerian, which appear early in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change as 'Rhetorical strategies and images of man.

They came to Rogers through Anatol Rapoport's work in the area of conflict resolution. According to RapoportRogerian principles provided a means 'to convey to the opponent the assurance that he has been understood, so as to reduce his anxiety on that account and to induce him to listen' From this, Young et al.

developed a 'Rogerian strategy' of argument to apply especially 'in those dyadic situations that involve strong values and beliefs,' in which traditional argument 'tends to be ineffective. inwhere he was one of the first three faculty members of the Mental Health Research Institute MHRI in the Department of Psychiatry. At the University of Michigan, Rapoport shifted the focus of his research to war and peace, conflict, and conflict resolution.

He devoted himself to what he called the three a rogerian argument of the peace movement : peace researchpeace educationand peace activism. Rapoport made seminal contributions to game theory and published multiple books, including Fights, Games, and Debates Rapoport engaged not only in teaching and research, but also in peace activism Associated with the first trend are terms such as behaviorisma rogerian argument, objectiveexperimentalimpersonallogical-positivistica rogerian argument, operationallaboratory, a rogerian argument.

Associated with the second current are terms such as FreudianNeo-Freudianpsychoanalyticpsychology of the unconsciousinstinctualego-psychologyid-psychologydynamic psychology. Associated with the third are terms such as phenomenologicala rogerian argument, existentialself-theoryself-actualizationhealth-and-growth psychologybeing and becomingscience of inner experience. xiii, a rogerian argument, We have found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist.

This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready. It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, providing he can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the parties, a rogerian argument.

Making a Rogerian Argument

, time: 1:34

Rogerian argument - Wikipedia

using Rogerian argumentation is that the writer or speaker gains the attention of the audience and prevents them from immediately arguing in opposition. The effect is that you'll be more likely to persuade your listeners or readers. Here are some Rogerian argument ideas. Rogerian Argument Outline blogger.com Size: 9KB The Rogerian argument seeks to discuss both opposing and proposing sides of an argument, while the Rogerian classical argument aims to disprove the opposing views. A classical argument is one that the writer aims to persuade the reader and  · Rogerian argument is a negotiating strategy in which common goals are identified and opposing views are described as objectively as possible in an effort to establish common ground and reach an agreement. It is also known as Rogerian rhetoric, Rogerian argumentation, Rogerian persuasion, and empathic blogger.com by: