Young Hands
ossasepiaeuloratrilemaspykedtrinquetrilema-hanbotagriculturalsupremacyasciilifeform
1h 10m2h 2m2h 2m2h 2m5d 16h 13m2d 13h 55m8d 18h 43m2h 2m
Ossasepia



hanbot: whaack part of the reason i translated MP's piece on transactional analysis was to point you to it in re your request for help with negotiating skills.
ossabot: Logged on 2019-11-19 11:30:00 whaack: dorion: thanks. Per master diana_coman's advice I am going to just drop it all together - I've burnt enough hours with this specific deal. That said, my negotiating skills are abysmal. Maybe you have read something useful on the subj you could share with me.
whaack: hanbot: Thank you! I will give it a read. When I saw the title I was expecting to read about bitcoin privacy lol
hanbot: obviously TA isn't a complete resource for learning how to negotiate (as with most interpersonal things your best resource is going through the motions with people), but i thought it'd make a decent starting point.
hanbot: hahaha yeah, the name's quaintly broad
diana_coman: hanbot: re-reading that, it strikes me like a basic intro to...talking in general, apparently a sort of lost art in some parts of the world so thank you for translating it for those who need it.
whaack: hanbot: tyvm for translating that piece, I find 'biology explains behavior' articles interesting. I will give it a few rereads later. One question though..who is the person not parsing the other's messages in the example conversation? It seems almost like neither of the two are. "The one" is always finding an excuse / dodging the advice from "The other". But "The other" responds with some non sequiturs such as with the respons
whaack: e "You have to stop using the elevator" to "Yes, but I've have to wake up too early."
whaack: And if the "yes, but" is a "game" does that mean that "the one" is using "yes, but" responses to bait out information from "the other"? Perhaps it is "The other" that needs to stop using the elevator.
hanbot: whaack they're not non-sequitirs, "the other" is merely going back up a node. the one should work to get money so as to join the gym if he wants to get rid of his belly, but he complains he can't because he'd have to get up too early. so the other attacks it somewhere else, stop using the elevator (so as to lose the belly). the point is that no matter the solution is presented, the one will find a reason why they can't, as a means to not h
hanbot: ave to. and indeed, people do this all the time, professing a desire to do or solve something you know they never ever will, because they're also full of excuses about it.
hanbot: diana_coman pretty much, yeah!
whaack: hanbot: Okay I understand how "the other" is going back up a node. That said, it doesn't seem like "the one" is incapable of parsing the advice, since he always comes up with an excuse that shows an understanding of what was said.
whaack: hanbot: My understanding of the article is that people come up with responses that do not incorporate what was said to them because their brain is incapable of parsing the meaning of messages in the time required to have a back-and-forth. "The one" though does show comprehension of what was said, his problem seems to be a separate issue: an unwillingness to follow the advice given.
BingoBoingo: whaack: Plenty of people based on my experience in Uruguay seem to short circuit when they have to process utterances that break from the forms they are accustomed to.
hanbot: "since he always comes up with an excuse that shows an understanding of what was said"; incorporate!=understand/consider, whaack. if you ask me something about hklosiewfses i can tell you i don't care for them, especially because i don't ike the letter h. i've incorporated what you've said but we both know i haven't actually considered what you've said.
hanbot: "the one" isn't really having a conversation with "the other", he's merely listing ways in which the universe is against him. any relation between what he's hearing and what he's saying is at best superficial.
hanbot: and as BingoBoingo suggests, the *form* of speech often takes the place of the *content*, so people end up playing a sort of mad-libs rather than actually saying anything meaningful.
BingoBoingo: hanbot: I've had to abuse this to my advantage at just about every desk I've been attended to here. "No you can't play TodoBien madlibs, digest my problem and its solution so I can get the damned stamp"
whaack: hanbot: When I first read the article I was considering situations where people have full parse errors / are not paying attention and their responses are "uh-huh", "i see", "nice", "cool!", "interesting", etc. I looked for an example of that in the conversation, but there's none to be found because the article is describing a different situation. "The one" has received the message, but only processed it enough to produce a s
whaack: poof response may leak some information.
whaack: s/response may/response that may

Random(trilema-hanbot) | Download daily DB snapshot | Get Source Code