Let's Discuss Effective Communication

Atticus wrote: Awesome, I never knew there was a name for this. Cheers, mate. Certainly, this practice can have its place in specific circumstances, as you point out; clarifying statements in context and answering sequential questions are a couple more examples I could think of. But I'm betting we all know someone for whom this is the default refutation mode, and I'm doubling down that seeing it over and over informs your view of that person's intent.

Interesting, I also never knew the name for it Jinham. I tend to try and pare down quotes and address things point by point, so hopefully I don't come across as argumentative.

JLSpinner wrote: I try to repeat back in my own words what I have received from them

This paired with "fisking" is either a good way to clarify things... or apparently come off aggressively. If I ever get "fisky" and it comes across sour, please pm me and let me know, and I'll try to fix/clarify things.

I guess all of this hinges on

Senan wrote: both sender and receiver have to have a similar goal

If you don't have that common goal, it's easy to misread motive. Don't post angry or provoke angry posting.

Also don't name call, take/make things personal, or speak for someone else
Instead, respect privacy, be patient, and at worst just don't post

Lol, now see I think your post is an appropriate way to get fisky. I'm against it mostly when it's point by point rebuttal, like it's highlighting "here are sixteen ways you're frakking wrong."

What would we suggest happen in the case that Person A expresses an idea that Person B did not understand correctly (interpreted incorrectly), but are convinced of themselves that they do understand it, and reply accordingly under that misinterpretation?

In a discussion that has the potential to heat up, and we don't feel that we have misunderstood anything, how can we make sure that we don't jump to assumptions about another's replies?

Proteus wrote: In a discussion that has the potential to heat up, and we don't feel that we have misunderstood anything, how can we make sure that we don't jump to assumptions about another's replies?

Some variation of Hanlon's Razor (my favorite aphorism) would apply: "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance."

Habit 5: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. ~Steven Covey

Good (written) communication hinges on understanding the difference between implying and inferring.

When we read someone else's thoughts we infer their meaning; correctly or incorrectly. Conflict arises when we imply that what we inferred was what they implied, when they never implied any such thing.
Confused yet?

I always try to assume that if words can be interpreted in two ways and I find one of those ways rude, offensive, or just plain ignorant, that the writer meant the other.