This pyramid does present good advice, that diverting further away from the core of the argument not only makes your point less convincing, but encourages the other party to take it more personally.
However, this also relies on the assumption both parties are arguing in good faith, which on the internet at least, is becoming increasingly uncommon, with arguments becoming less of a discussion between two people and more a contest to be won at any cost.
Even I must admit I’ve been drawn into that competitive mindset before. Something about the way Reddit (and modern social media) works encourages people to be very volatile towards one another.
A more useful guideline would be something like: how to steer a conversation to be constructive for both parties.
I couldn’t get chatgpt to make this into a spectrum like in the pyramid but if you invert the order of the negative impact section and concatenate it after the positive liste you get the text for that pyramid. It does make sense though
Positive Impact:
Collaborative problem-solving
Active listening and empathy
Finding common ground
Constructive feedback
Open-ended questions
Positive tone and inclusive language
Clarifying and paraphrasing
“I” statements
Avoiding defensiveness and judgment
Seeking solutions together
Negative Impact:
Interrupting or talking over the other person
Dismissing or invalidating the other person’s perspective
Using aggressive or confrontational language
Making personal attacks or insults
Ignoring or belittling the other person’s feelings
Dominating the conversation and not allowing equal participation
Yeah I find myself often drawn into these arguments that in retrospect feel more like dick swinging contests than genuine arguments. It seems more difficult in the moment to realise when you’re too busy trying to craft the perfect retort
This pyramid does present good advice, that diverting further away from the core of the argument not only makes your point less convincing, but encourages the other party to take it more personally.
However, this also relies on the assumption both parties are arguing in good faith, which on the internet at least, is becoming increasingly uncommon, with arguments becoming less of a discussion between two people and more a contest to be won at any cost.
Even I must admit I’ve been drawn into that competitive mindset before. Something about the way Reddit (and modern social media) works encourages people to be very volatile towards one another.
A more useful guideline would be something like: how to steer a conversation to be constructive for both parties.
I couldn’t get chatgpt to make this into a spectrum like in the pyramid but if you invert the order of the negative impact section and concatenate it after the positive liste you get the text for that pyramid. It does make sense though
Positive Impact:
Negative Impact:
Yeah I find myself often drawn into these arguments that in retrospect feel more like dick swinging contests than genuine arguments. It seems more difficult in the moment to realise when you’re too busy trying to craft the perfect retort