David
I really enjoyed your response to the issue - question raised by Doug.
>From where I sit, you are right on. I've been involved in teaching about
interpersonal communication for approximately 25 years, and in my study,
reflections, reading, thinking, teaching and practice, I have come to the
belief that communication is an evolutionary process. It evolves among
the people who are doing it. Thus, anything that gets said that meets
with rejection or alternative interpretations is just that. It doesn't
mean that the rejector is stupid, lazy, unmotivated, mean spirited, or
anything else. That person is just like the person advancing the
statement in that the paradigm of interpretation and conclusion is
different. This is the value of communication in the first place, that
is, to test different perspectives for relevancy and validity.
Thanks for your comments!
> Doug:
>
> You described a problem I've had for many years:
>
> "It is not uncommon for me to encounter a lot of resistance to
> distinctions when I use common words for making them (even with using them
> for explicit purposes) or when I introduce uncommon words or phrases
> (which are often seen as jargon)."
>
> This may rub some people the wrong way, but I'm just going to say it and
> then continue with responding to your message. I like the definition of
> intelligence as the ability to make distinctions. Your problem may be
> that you're dealing with people who are not as "intelligent" as you, or
> possess a different kind of intelligence.
[...quote of prev msg trimmed by your host...]
--- John P Wilson jpwilso@iastate.edu