Carl Rogers is unashamedly one of my heroes, both as a therapist and as a philosopher. He came up with this wacky idea amidst psychoanalytic and other (at the time) didactic and directive psychotherapy theories that if you actually listen to people and provide them with authenticity, warmth, and empathy, that these conditions will create a safe environment in which a person naturally unfolds himself and organically solves his own problems with his own resources.
You can see the man at work here, for example:
YouTube - ‪CARL ROGERS AND GLORIA COUNSELLING - PT 3‬‏
One thing that may stand out is that the client ends up directing her own train of thought, even though she initially projects onto Rogers what she thinks will be his responses (e.g., "I think you're going to ask why..."). Rogers clarifies, reflects, and ultimately enters into the world of the client, all wrapped in warmth and authenticity. What immediately stands out is how dialectically opposed he is in style to typically "tell you like it is" therapists. The theory of psychological reactance posits that people value their own freedom in such a way where they react in opposition to anyone who is perceived to threaten it. We all know this in day-to-day life. The spouse who tells the other what to do usually ends up getting rebelled against (whether subtly or sharply) for making it so clear that you (that is, your freedom) are the problem. Rogers works from the opposite end by reflecting, but not judging, the individual's inner world.
And that's what I think is the most important skill in attempting to convince others, aside from our ability to reason itself. People don't respond to arguments firmly directed against their beliefs. They respond to individuals who through accepting them and admitting the rationality of their viewpoints (for every viewpoint, insofar as it isn't illogical in the purest sense, has a type of rationality to it) present theirs as possible alternatives rather than didactic necessities. The ideal here involves a skillful use of questions, comparable to the Socratic spirit.
A friend of mine is pursuing his Master's in philosophy, and he told me the fascinating story of how he was on a jog and ran into an acquittance of his on the way and ended up stopping for half an hour to talk with him. Being the philosopher he was, the discussion drifted, quickly, to metaphysics. He said what was strange about the talk was that he presented no arguments of his own, but (nonchalantly, curiously, supportively) asked a string of questions that ultimately led the person to completely reconsider his views on the subject they were speaking about. My friend said it was clear that this person clearly hadn't considered them so analytically before, and all it took was a series of questions grafted in the fabric of good intentions.
Well, that's it, really. Kierkegaard has said that what the world needs isn't another Jesus but rather another Socrates. The thinking here is that we need someone who can skillfully use questions to help people reconsider their own philosophies. I think we need this Socratic skillfulness entwined with the warm, empathic spirit of Rogers. We need to enter the world of those we consider to be irrational in order to lead them to rationality, fully as accepting human beings rather than argument-spouters with no other goal than to give the other the truth we think will save them. That's the fuel that changes minds, whereas we've formerly focused so much on our clever argumentative roadmaps.
Because, you know, people aren't right unless they agree with us on everything.
You can see the man at work here, for example:
YouTube - ‪CARL ROGERS AND GLORIA COUNSELLING - PT 3‬‏
One thing that may stand out is that the client ends up directing her own train of thought, even though she initially projects onto Rogers what she thinks will be his responses (e.g., "I think you're going to ask why..."). Rogers clarifies, reflects, and ultimately enters into the world of the client, all wrapped in warmth and authenticity. What immediately stands out is how dialectically opposed he is in style to typically "tell you like it is" therapists. The theory of psychological reactance posits that people value their own freedom in such a way where they react in opposition to anyone who is perceived to threaten it. We all know this in day-to-day life. The spouse who tells the other what to do usually ends up getting rebelled against (whether subtly or sharply) for making it so clear that you (that is, your freedom) are the problem. Rogers works from the opposite end by reflecting, but not judging, the individual's inner world.
And that's what I think is the most important skill in attempting to convince others, aside from our ability to reason itself. People don't respond to arguments firmly directed against their beliefs. They respond to individuals who through accepting them and admitting the rationality of their viewpoints (for every viewpoint, insofar as it isn't illogical in the purest sense, has a type of rationality to it) present theirs as possible alternatives rather than didactic necessities. The ideal here involves a skillful use of questions, comparable to the Socratic spirit.
A friend of mine is pursuing his Master's in philosophy, and he told me the fascinating story of how he was on a jog and ran into an acquittance of his on the way and ended up stopping for half an hour to talk with him. Being the philosopher he was, the discussion drifted, quickly, to metaphysics. He said what was strange about the talk was that he presented no arguments of his own, but (nonchalantly, curiously, supportively) asked a string of questions that ultimately led the person to completely reconsider his views on the subject they were speaking about. My friend said it was clear that this person clearly hadn't considered them so analytically before, and all it took was a series of questions grafted in the fabric of good intentions.
Well, that's it, really. Kierkegaard has said that what the world needs isn't another Jesus but rather another Socrates. The thinking here is that we need someone who can skillfully use questions to help people reconsider their own philosophies. I think we need this Socratic skillfulness entwined with the warm, empathic spirit of Rogers. We need to enter the world of those we consider to be irrational in order to lead them to rationality, fully as accepting human beings rather than argument-spouters with no other goal than to give the other the truth we think will save them. That's the fuel that changes minds, whereas we've formerly focused so much on our clever argumentative roadmaps.
Because, you know, people aren't right unless they agree with us on everything.
