Do we communicate with each other correctly.

Gold Refining Forum

Help Support Gold Refining Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

justinhcase

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,751
Location
Exeter ,Devon ,U.K.
Do you think we communicate with each other correctly.
I very much enjoy my time on this site but i have noticed quite a lot of friction and miscommunication due to a lack of understanding on both party's part.
This is costly on a personal level but that must pail into insignificance when dealing with client's.
I have noticed with in the entire industry there is a Vail of mistrust and belligerent attitudes that put the back's up of most client's.
All of my businesses have been geared around providing specialist services to a very small number of client's.They have seen fit to fund my need's because they feel I am open, truthful and have there best interest's at heart.
It is no gimmick but people will give there custom to the person they feel most at home with.
There are a lot of good people on this site but they insulate them self so well that no one will ever know.
Would a basic guide to interaction and conflict resolution be of use?I would have to plagiarizer a good deal of text from better sources of information than my self.
But I do hold licenses form the S.I.A. and the institute of conflict resolution.
I think a little of there training and guide lines might help some of the less communicative individuals come out and convince some of the louder people to attenuate there volume and angel of attack.
 
Smack said:
That's the internet though, people interact differently in person.
People always have the ability to act in different way's,but I do think that the same guide line's ring true at a distance as in person.
If any thing the interaction need's to be even more formal as the distance stop's people picking up on nonverbal cues such as body language and flutter response.
How efficient an interface would you like to deal with?under normal circumstance I just bypass the faulty individual and carry on.
But we are here to make contact with like minded individuals and disseminate knowledge which is an admirable undertaking.
A framework that get's good results has been developed why not us it to good effect.
 
I understand what your saying but you really can't get mad at someone for being an ass on the internet. You can hold your friends and family to a higher standard but the internet should be considered a place where people can and do say anything that comes to mind. It is up to you whether you are offended or not. You can be offended without fear of reprisal from those that offend you. You also have to understand that the offender also has the right to express their opinion within the boundaries of the forum rules. If the offense is serious enough to make you feel uneasy, contact a mod or report the post. That way you are satisfied that you have done your part and now it up to the mods to decide. It could also mean the the offended should have a little thicker skin considering the information is free.
 
I completely agree getting angry with some one or about some thing can be very counterproductive.
I am actually very grateful to belligerent individuals who have problems with there communication,they have convinced quite a lot client's to employ me in order to deal with them.
The study of conflict resolution has changed the way I interact with others in a very profound way,I find to my advantage in most situation's.
We are a very conflicted species to say the least,knowing a spattering of techniques and being self informed enough to side step known pit fall's and escalation point's can be very beneficial.
At least they have been for me.
Particularity when you are dealing with the trust and security situations that come up when dealing with and handling property of value like precious metal's.
 
Can you provide a link(?), I have no clue, what you my friends are talking about. And if I feel that way, 20 others might feel the same way without asking.
 
That would be Dale Carnegie, Zig Ziglar, also a personal favorite writes "See you at the top "
 
Which is ironic, when you read the Bible / Shakespeare lesson in Carnegie's book.

In 1926 said:
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure of their accuracy.

Errors that are wrong and potentially dangerous need to be pointed out immediately. Chemical misinformation and the like.
But sometimes errors don't matter. These can be dealt with by a "heads-up" private message, giving the poster a chance to correct their mistake and save face.
 
solar_plasma said:
Can you provide a link(?), I have no clue, what you my friends are talking about. And if I feel that way, 20 others might feel the same way without asking.
Whenever we are confronted by a conflict, we have three sets of needs to be negotiated:
Substantive needs have to do with the "stuff" of the conflict… often the problem that we feel needs to be solved.
Procedural needs relate to the process of addressing these substantive needs. Ground rules, for example, are a process step that can help ensure that all stakeholders feel included in a meaningful way.
Psychological needs relate to a fostering a safe environment, one in which people are willing to take the risks involved in honestly communicating their differences, concerns and potential similarities to one another.
In any dispute, all three types of needs are present and must be addressed. . If we are going to really try to build a meaningful agreement, we will need to understand how these various needs are present for each person in the situation.
Consequences of Not Resolving the Conflict
Thinking about what will happen if we do not resolve the situation helps clarify our needs-- "What are my boundaries in this situation?" Rather than constraining our creativity and flexibility, this analysis actually illuminates our priorities and, as a result, gives us a greater willingness to explore possible solutions.
Alternatives to negotiating are commonly divided into three categories:
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - what is the best I can expect if we don't come to a negotiated agreement?

Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (WATNA) - what is the worst I can expect if we don't come to a negotiated agreement?

Most Likely Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement - (MLATNA) - what is the most likely alternative if we don't come to a negotiated agreement?

By thinking these through, we can understand how a negotiated solution can meet our needs better than the alternatives and can clarify our desired outcomes.

Focus
We cannot negotiate solutions to all of our problems in one session, or even in one series of meetings. Therefore, we need to clarify our desired outcomes from this process, and focus our energies on two or three priority issues among the dozen that we feel are important. By doing so, we are more likely to negotiate agreements that are meaningful to us, and less likely to get sidetracked with tangential or petty issues.
 
:lol:

The GRF nor any forum / website will ever operate in a "Utopian" manner because people are interacting
with people and from the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks (or types in this case). In the almost
seven years that I have been learning and interacting on the forum I can say that for the most part forum
members are a good meaning group from many parts of the world and as the thread states: we may not
communicate correctly with each other. Sadly, we probably never will for the need to be right and to have
the last word can pervade every thread where "conflict" arises.

My Utopic hope is entrenched in the belief that one day the lion will lay down with the lamb in peace
and harmony. Until then, may we learn to treat each other with respect in the understanding that
we are all different. May the Golden Rule be seen here more and more:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

May it start with me and may we all learn to at least attempt to give the Golden Rule a try. Just
as we use stannous chloride to test our solutions for the presence of gold, may we all test our words
for the presence of the Golden Rule before we hit the "Submit" button on our next post. 8)
 
Communication is quite an interesting topic. Many models about it.

One model I appreciate is the following four sides model:

communication takes place through 4 channels, which I will show by an example:

example: mother says: "Did you clean your room?"

♦the matter layer - the obvious content, a simple question, if the room is cleaned up
♦the self-revealing or self-disclosure - what mum thinks and tells about herself, she feels a need for organization and structure
♦the relationship-layer - what relationship does the sender have related to the recipient "I am your mother, you have to respect my orders/I know how to organize and you have to learned it"
♦the appeal - "Clean up your $%%$§$&%$ mess!!!"

Probably she wanted only to use one of the channels, but we listen on four ears and maybe focus on only one. Then their are 4 possible messages to read:
♦Maybe mum only wanted to know, if the room is clean now.
♦Or she maybe knows very well, it is still messed up and she wanted to say "If I am not after you all the time, you wouldn't ever clean your room"
♦Or she doesn't mind if the room is cleaned up, but wants to follow up her role-model as a mum "I have an eye on, that you do your duties"
♦Or she is angry, since she asked for cleaning up the room five times before and nothing happened "Your insubordination is getting me mad!"

Now, only the matter layer is obvious, all the other three needs to get interpreted. It is non-verbal, voice, body, facial expression. The conflict is programmed, if we understand any of the non-verbal incorrect.

Just imagine, she is talking to you on the appeal-layer and you look into the room, turning around, bored and unconcerned answering, as if she was on the matter-layer: "Uhmm....nope."

*Bammm* :mrgreen:

The solution is meta communication = to communicate about our communication = I tell what I meant by saying so and so and how I understood what has been said to me.

Friedemann Schulz von Thun, Four Sides Model
 
solar_plasma said:
Communication is quite an interesting topic. Many models about it.

One model I appreciate is the following four sides model:

communication takes place through 4 channels, which I will show by an example:

example: mother says: "Did you clean your room?"

♦the matter layer - the obvious content, a simple question, if the room is cleaned up
♦the self-revealing or self-disclosure - what mum thinks and tells about herself, she feels a need for organization and structure
♦the relationship-layer - what relationship does the sender have related to the recipient "I am your mother, you have to respect my orders/I know how to organize and you have to learned it"
♦the appeal - "Clean up your $%%$§$&%$ mess!!!"

Probably she wanted only to use one of the channels, but we listen on four ears and maybe focus on only one. Then their are 4 possible messages to read:
♦Maybe mum only wanted to know, if the room is clean now.
♦Or she maybe knows very well, it is still messed up and she wanted to say "If I am not after you all the time, you wouldn't ever clean your room"
♦Or she doesn't mind if the room is cleaned up, but wants to follow up her role-model as a mum "I have an eye on, that you do your duties"
♦Or she is angry, since she asked for cleaning up the room five times before and nothing happened "Your insubordination is getting me mad!"

Now, only the matter layer is obvious, all the other three needs to get interpreted. It is non-verbal, voice, body, facial expression. The conflict is programmed, if we understand any of the non-verbal incorrect.

Just imagine, she is talking to you on the appeal-layer and you look into the room, turning around, bored and unconcerned answering, as if she was on the matter-layer: "Uhmm....nope."

*Bammm* :mrgreen:

The solution is meta communication = to communicate about our communication = I tell what I meant by saying so and so and how I understood what has been said to me.

Friedemann Schulz von Thun, Four Sides Model
Very good open and transparent communication avoided miscommunication and prompt's an understanding in both party's.
Expecting some one to understand your point of view with out explaining it properly is at the root of most problem's .
If some one has not understood your point of view may be you have not explained yours self in an effective way.
Nice one I like it!
 
Though I see the resposibility on both sides. Sometimes you have to fight a wall of prejudices based pre-knowledge based on former experiences, that you can't come through.

An example are those smart youtube watching "I am a student of chemistry"-guys (="I have seen some chemicals before"). Hard to tell them anything. They will always tend to pull any actual advice down to the self-revealing layer and the relationship layer, feel offended and leave.

I really like to help, but I do not need to. If they think, they know better, things get entertaining, then annoying and at last just boring.
 
Visual clues are not present on the forum and also missing is tone of voice. The written statement lacks these two essential communication skills. So it leaves annotation and punctuation to take it's place. Some people are lacking in the skill to determine whether a sentence is a statement or question, whether it is supportive or sarcastic. Some people, such as myself, do not possess the written skills to convey their exact meaning. Then you have the language barrier and the pitiful translators which make inflections even more difficult. The tone of the statement is less important as the actual substance of the statement. If I ask a question about a process that I am considering trying and someone replies "you can't do it that way because it forms a poison you big dummy". The only part of the statement I pay attention to is "it forms a poison". Some will focus on "you big dummy". This is where personal feelings get in the way. Things like personal attacks, derogatory words, insulting words do not effect me and will not make me change the way I feel about someone in the least. It is like water rolling off a ducks back. It may just be me. In my military days, I was never effected by drill instructors yelling in my face. I have always been overweight but I was always the first to take off my clothes to go "skinny dipping". I have never been ashamed and have never been shamed by someone else. I can understand someone being insecure but it was never me. Is that called arrogant?
 
solar_plasma said:
Though I see the resposibility on both sides. Sometimes you have fight a wall of prejudices based pre-knowledge based on former experiences, that you can't come through.

An example are those smart youtube watching "I am a student of chemistry"-guys (="I have seen some chemicals before"). Hard to tell them anything. They will always tend to pull any actual advice down to the self-revealing layer and the relationship layer, feel offended and leave.

I really like to help, but I do not need to. If they think, they know better, things get entertaining, then annoying and at last just boring.
That much like dear old mum is what is know as a manipulation technique.
When you leave a door open so a second party's position can influence the out come of event's this courtesy can be misused.
Only a clear and unemotional analysis of the situation will help work out if some one has a genuine need to address or is trying to affect the balance of negotiation.
Having a universally agreed upon format to build on help's level the playing field so every one feel's there problems have been addressed fairly.
People who are still not happy or wish to escalate the situation can then be shown for what they are.
In meany situations the loudest voice is not the vulnerable party who most need accommodation.
 
solar_plasma said:
drill instructors yelling in my face.

When it comes to really important matters (life, safety), this is not always the worst way to learn.
I have always felt that beasting was more of a distillation method rather than actually achieving any real educational purpose.
It is very effective in rattling the bolt's to see which are loos.
This can be a useful technique when assessing new individuals if undertake within appropriate levels,but is not effective for proper negotiation if you want to interact in a fair way.
Since the second world war trust based systems of management have been proven much more powerful than fear based systems.
I believe that the world as a hole is still recovering form the trauma of that conflict which has been passed down generation to generation by fear based conflict resolution.
It was what I was taught at home and it took a lot of observation to see just how destructive and counterproductive these learned reaction's where.
Just because it is how most of us where taught and we turned out sort of OK douse not mean it was correct.
Learning to resolve problems properly is partly a selfish act,it represents the least point of resistance between two position's which saves you a lot of time and energy in the long run.
If you deal with the public in a front line capacity it may well save your life by avoiding escalating a situation needlessly.
 
Back
Top