Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: I-statements » gardenergirl

Posted by Larry Hoover on June 1, 2006, at 11:38:09

In reply to Re: I-statements » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on June 1, 2006, at 10:55:39

> What would be the harm in saying, "I prefer buttertarts with raisins" instead of saying, "Butter tarts are 'better' with raisins"? The former is inarguable. it's your preference, based on whatever criteria and evaluations of criteria you choose. No one can take that away from you. However, the latter is arguable and does include a judgment about what is "best" for butter tarts.

Although you have laid out the issue clearly, I retain my own disagreement with the your premise and your conclusion.

> Similarly, star-bellied sneetches are not necessarily the best on the beaches, and saying so could offend plain-bellied sneetches. However, my preference for plain-bellied sneetches is my own, and is what's right for me. Stating that I prefer plain-bellied sneetches does not include the notions that they are "the best on the beaches", are "what's best for the sneetches", or that anyone else should think so, too.
>
> The messages are different. Yes, rephrasing into an appropriate thought-owning "I" statement can change the original message. But isn't the original message as it reads, (i.e. plain-bellied sneetches are "best" of the sneetches) truly not civil given that there are non plain-bellied sneetches, too? Whereas the message of what I personally prefer regarding the belly appearance of sneetches is a single data point of what might be "best" and does not contain the message that what I prefer is globally "best".
>
> Regards,
> gg

The one is plainer than the other. As you say, what would be the harm? But that does not demonstrate the contrasting case, that there is harm.

Non-plain-bellied sneetches who feel judged are catching something that was not thrown. It's a projection. The feeling is not inherent in the words. A ranked or ordinal personal preference is a preference yet.

A religious soul might feel sympathy, empathy, disdain.....any number of things. No matter what that is, though, it arose from within.

Feeling is not perfectly correlated with civility. Having one does not demonstrate either the presence or the absence of the other.

If I, even gently, point out a mistake someone has made, is that uncivil? [Let's assume the correction was in the public interest.] I can almost guarantee you that some negative feelings arise, but.....I didn't put those feelings there. It's something each of us must work through, to publicly address making a public mistake.

I suggest to you that something analogous is at play here, too.

Lar

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Larry Hoover thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/651456.html