Rogerian argument
Encyclopedia
Rogerian argument is a conflict solving technique based on finding common ground instead of polarizing debate.

Origin

American psychologist Carl R. Rogers described his "principles of communications," a form of discussion based on finding common ground. He proposed trying to understand our adversary's position, by listening to them, before adopting a point of view without considering those factors.

This form of reasoning is the opposite of Aristotelian argumentation
Modes of persuasion
The modes of persuasion are devices in rhetoric that classify the speaker's appeal to the audience. They are: ethos, pathos and logos.Aristotle's describes the modes of persuasion thus:-Ethos:...

, an adversarial form of debate relying upon logos
Logos
' is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason," it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus ' is an important term in...

, ethos
Ethos
Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology. The Greeks also used this word to refer to the power of music to influence its hearer's emotions, behaviors, and even morals. Early Greek stories of...

, and pathos
Pathos
Pathos represents an appeal to the audience's emotions. Pathos is a communication technique used most often in rhetoric , and in literature, film and other narrative art....

, because it attempts to find compromise between two sides.

In practice

This type of discussion is extremely useful in emotionally charged topics since it downplays emotional and highlights rational argument
Argument
In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, or give evidence or reasons for accepting a particular conclusion.Argument may also refer to:-Mathematics and computer science:...

s.

Young, Becker and Pike identified four stages:
  1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.
  2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.
  3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.
  4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what the other lacks, so much the better.

External links

The source of this article is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL.
 
x
OK