Transcript rogerian_argument

80/20 rule
•
•
Generally, about 80% of your paper should be
your own words, beliefs, opinions, etc. About
20% should come from outside sources.
These sources are used for you to argue
against (like in the last essay) or more often to
back up your points.
Already talked about the
traditional argument
Rogerian Argument
•
Named after American Psychologists Carl
Rogers
How it differs from a traditional
argument
•
•
•
•
Based more on negotiation than confrontation
Realizes there are many situations in which a
less confrontational and less adversarial
approach to argument is more effective
Reduces conflict
Especially effective for arguments that are
highly charged emotionally
How it differs continued . . .
•
•
Uses logic and evidence, but the primary goal
is not to win. It is to open up lines of
communication.
As Rogers says, “This procedure gradually
achieves a mutual communication. Mutual
communication tends to be pointed toward
solving a problem rather than attacking a
person or group.”
Cont . . .
•
Rather than working toward a change in one
position, it works toward a change in both
positions.
The Basics
•
•
Avoids a confrontational stance.
The idea here is that threat hinders
communication, so we try to avoid it.
Character
•
•
Present yourself as someone who can
understand and empathize with the
opposition.
You can show this by restating the opposing
position accurately. (Same as a traditional
argument). You can also show where and in
what circumstances the opposition’s point of
view is valid.
Establish Common Ground
•
You indicate the beliefs and values you share
with the opposition.
Fair statement of you own position
•
•
State your position convincingly, but maintain
an image of being fair-minded.
The goal is to get the opposition to
understand your position as well as you have
proven to understand theirs.
Be willing to change views
•
Show where your position is not reasonable
and could be modified as well as where the
opposition’s position could be modified.
Compromise
In other words . . .
•
Your goal is to find a compromise that works
for both parties.
In the real world . . .
•
•
You’ll probably find that this type of argument
works best in many situations. Especially work
situations where you have to come to a
decision on something as a group.
It’s okay to compromise, but to try to give up
less than the opposition.