Comments on: The O’Brien Technique /the-obrien-technique/ More patient than death. Sat, 20 Jan 2018 03:48:40 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.2 By: XSAMPA /the-obrien-technique/#comment-68 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 03:48:40 +0000 /?p=160#comment-68 In reply to Ziz.

Thanks.

]]> By: Ziz /the-obrien-technique/#comment-67 Thu, 18 Jan 2018 04:47:06 +0000 /?p=160#comment-67 In reply to XSAMPA.

Pay attention to how people react to statements relating to politically/socially charged propositions.

Also, either courage or hanging out with groups of people less smart than yourself.

]]> By: XSAMPA /the-obrien-technique/#comment-66 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:57:40 +0000 /?p=160#comment-66 It’s my first time here, so here’s a question: What tool would you recommend for people who have difficulty observing social reality?

]]> By: EGG /the-obrien-technique/#comment-65 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:04:05 +0000 /?p=160#comment-65 Quick feedback: I feel the 2+2=4/5 placeholder makes the barrier of entry high, i.e. it lowers the incentive to actually try it out by requiring more transfer/imagination effort than some may be inclined to exert; so maybe you can think of a good social reality vs. reality example that most of your typical blog readers would definitely be tempted to agree with.

Also, how confident would you be in saying that via doing this exercise explicitly at least once, people will be able to catch this distinction a lot more often across many different similar situations with less effort? If you believe it was that effective in your own case, then a more concrete example (perhaps simply the one you used yourself) may definitely encourage people to actually try it out.

I for one find it surprisingly hard to come up with something decent but let’s try it: “Start with something you know is reality, contradicted by a social reality. I’ll use “2+2=4” as a placeholder for the part of reality, and “2+2=5” as a placeholder for the contradicting part of social reality.”

Reality reality: Communication is almost exclusively about status, negotiating or affirming the relationship and getting others to do things

Social reality: Communication is almost exclusively about the explicit information content

Short forms:
Communicating is mostly about status, relationships and appeals
Communicating is mostly about information

“Hold or bounce between two mutually negating verbal statements in your head, “2+2=4”, “2+2=5”, in a way that generates tension. Keep thinking up diverging expectations.”

I’m kind of stumbling right around here, I don’t feel any tension just by alternating these statements. Maybe because information is of course part of communication. Got anything better?

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model

]]>