| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2002 : 19:31:46
|
Gale, in fact, now that you mention it, someone did write such a book, and having read it (many times) I commend it to anyone.
The book is called I'm OK - You're OK and the author is Thomas A Harris, a reknown psychologist.
In short, the book says that each and every individual is confronted with four choices in the way we approach our relationships with others. Harris labels these the 4 life positions with 3 of them being negative positions and one being a positive position.
I'm OK - You're OK elaborates at length on how individuals arrive at these life positions (generally learned by age 3) and how they affect both the individual as well as describe how each of these 4 life positions affect the other person in any relationship.
Relationship does not necessarily mean family, or close friends, but can include any that we come into contact with or through any medium of contact.
The four life positions are:
I'm OK - You're OK Too (Positive Life Position)
I'm OK - You're Not OK (Negative Position)
I'm NOT OK - You're OK (Negative Position)
I'm NOT OK - You're NOT OK Either (Sociopath or criminal position)
Only the first life position 'I'm OK - You're OK Too' can ever lead to WIN - WIN negotiations and WIN - WIN Relationships.
It is a book worth reading, and I'm sure after reading it and thinking about it, you could easily define which category various posters to this thread fit, and how they view WIN - WIN transactions.
Before you suggest it, there are of course several books written as well about WIN-WIN negotiations, and again, there are various positions such as WIN-WIN, WIN-LOSE, LOSE-WIN and LOSE-LOSE.
The human mind is an incredibly complex and beautiful thing to observe and analyze in action isn't it Gale? |
Edited by - JimF on 12/04/2002 19:36:29 |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 19:35:25
|
| A woman asking for equal pay for equal work is not a Feminazi, she is only asking for what is fair, but a woman demanding to be let into an all male private club, such as Augusta National is a Feminazi. A person who advocates reduction of polution and would like to see public forests managed in a responsible way is not a tree hugger, he is a reasonable person, but a person who is a member of the Earth Liberation Front and burns down ski lodges and spikes trees and releases research animals is a tree hugger and many would say an eco-terrorist. There is a difference. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 21:36:13
|
Jim, you are a quick one. :) Yes those of us that post a lot tell a lot about ourselves.
Trying to keep a tread going beyond it peak is kind of like watching the last two couples left dancing to win that Yugo. They are going through the motion but have lost their form.
I have found this thread refreshing for the most part. After we remember we can not change the mind of another and any mind changing has to be done in the mind of the person that is changing we are less inclined to argue. It does seem that one seldom changes one's position on a subject unless something externally triggers one to start thinking on the subject of change. That is what selling is all about it seems. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 21:40:24
|
| If you listen to Rush the difference is VERY HARD to find. I am glad that you personally can see the difference. Although even in the area of forrest management there are many opinions, currently it seems to mean let's log and dam the torpedos. But is that opinion or fact? Or is that a matter of opinion? |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 21:42:42
|
| Gale perhaps what is being looked for is simple an admission that opinion is not fact, it is opinion, and in this wonderfull and varied world there are many opinions on the same subject. |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 21:58:25
|
| OTD, you may be correct. As the years slide pass it seems like many facts that I have learned along the way were in fact only opinions. :) |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 21:58:53
|
| Mark, how did this summer's fire season affect your opinion of our current forest management practices? |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 22:08:52
|
| Current? the fire season problem goes back many years, we made mistakes on not allowing nature to do her think, and then when we replanted we put in 10 times the number of trees. Again neither un bridled logging nor uneducated enviromentalism provide the answer. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2002 : 23:43:21
|
Rebuttal Time
Let's review a few things which Kile has posted within this thread verbatim: (Emphasis Is Mine)
(1) "Debating is about who has the FACTS and who's OPINIONS are BASED solely ON FEELINGS. The FACTS always WIN."
(2) "And yes, I don't believe calling Tom Daschle evil is name calling because I really BELIEVE that he is evil. That's one good thing about us CONSERVATIVES, we AREN'T WISHY WASH. WE CALL it LIKE it IS. There's good in this world and there is bad in this world. As the President said, you're either with us, or AGAINST us.
(3) "It is my OPINION that Gore, Daschle, the Clintons and Barbara Streisand are evil, but that opinion is based on the things they say and do, which are facts."
NOW.
Here is what Kile's great CONSERVATIVE President George Bush has to say about Senator Tom Daschle:
"Senator Daschle is a GOOD MAN, in the President's estimation, who has a very difficult job."
Ari Fleischer
Presidential Press Secretary for George Bush
Transcript: White House Daily Briefing, December 21, 2001
So, as we can see, if a man is considered a GOOD MAN by a conservative such as President Bush, it would be impossible by both definition and logic for a GOOD MAN to be an EVIL MAN.
President George Bush believes that Senator Tom Daschle is a GOOD MAN, hence Bush would also thus believe that Daschle is not an EVIL MAN.
An extensive search of resources did not uncover any quotes calling Tom Daschle an EVIL MAN by President George Bush, any Bush family members, any Bush cabinet members, nor any Republican Senators in the current congress.
(Note to Kile: If you can CITE a quote to the effect that Senator Daschle is an EVIL MAN from President Bush or Vice President Cheney, please post such quote and a CITATION here for us to examine).
Obviously, Kile's position is diametrically opposed to the position of President George Bush on the issue of whether Tom Daschle is evil, thus ("you're either with us or against us") Kile is against President Bush's position on Tom Daschle. Or, we could equally say that President Bush is opposed to Kile's position and opinion on this topic.
Since President Bush as figure head of the Republic Party represents the conservative position, wouldn't Kile's oppositional position make Kile a LIBERAL?
Obviously either the President of the United States is right and Kile is wrong about Senator Daschle, OR the President of the United States is WRONG and only Kile is right.
(What do you think folks? Which one has it right: The President of the United States or our Kile?)
Further, I think we can all agree, that the opinion of President George Bush would be recognized by most of us here, as well as by most Americans as being more informed (after all President Bush knows Tom Daschle personally and Kile doesn't), authoritative and credible than Kile's opinion, would not it not follow that Kile's comments about Tom Daschle being EVIL were in fact, OPINIONS which were based on FEELINGS (which he accused Liberals of having exclusive monopoly over)?
Kile your response is welcome.
I have some other even more interesting rebuttals to follow which deal more precisely with some of the FACTS which you presented, which rebuttal will prove, really were your OPINION and unfortunately, as odds with the real VERIFIABLE FACTS (which will be provided and cited). And as you have informed us previously, "the FACTS ALWAYS WIN." :>)
Stay tuned.
|
Edited by - JimF on 12/05/2002 09:28:22 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 01:50:31
|
Wow, Jim, you really have nothing to do. I noticed that you attributed a quote by Ari Fleicher to the President. You don't know what the President said or what he thinks of Daschle, all you know is what his press secretary said in a news conference over a year ago. I'm sure the President has had some pretty harsh words about the senior senator from South Dakota, but the president wouldn't say what he really thinks about the opposition party leader if that thought were negative, especially when he is trying to get something passed in the Senate. Remember it was Daschle that demanded an apology from the President for something the President didn't even say.
And I'll say once again, please don't mix the terms conservative and republican because they are not the same thing. GW may be head of the Republican party but he is not the spokesman of all conservatives.
I also stated that my opinions are based on facts. I didn't say my opinions were facts. As a reasonable person I look at the facts before forming an opinion and quite naturally I consider my opinions to be superior to those of people with oposing opinions. Why would I choose the inferior opinion?
I notice you make several inductive leaps in your arguments that simply do not make any sense at all. You don't have to totally agree with everything the president says or does to be with him. Just as you don't have to treat every country exactly the same to have a consistent foreign policy. Your way of thinking seems to be overly simplistic and rigid. I hope you are simply trying to be witty or possibly you are trying to make some point that no one is grasping.
I don't know why you are trying so hard, because after all, in your estimation, I'm an idiot. |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 07:19:39
|
JimF:
Are we going to get any work up your way? We all need a good old fashion Carolina ice storm x-mas. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 08:59:12
|
| Wow to protect their postition a conservative has more moves then a hula dancer dashboard doll on the Pennsylvania turnpike. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 09:27:18
|
Memo to Alan J:
Alan, it is a little too early to tell how many claims for property will come out of this storm. There was a lot of snow and then sleet, but not as much falling rain/ice as expected, which reduces falling tree and tree limb damages.
There should be lots of work for the auto liability and auto appraisal guys.
But as you know, there was a lot of power outage (and still is) so there will be some pipe rupture, accidental (candle) fires, and probably some 'puff back' claims.
The longer the power outage lasts, the more claims. I'll pass along what I hear. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 09:28:52
|
I don't want to get in the way of the 2nd half of round 2, or the 3rd round - whatever it is - but something stands out that I thought I would ask about.
Kile, in reading your late night / early morning reply to Jim, there is something I wonder about.
You said, ".... quite naturally I consider my opinions to be superior to those people with opposing opinions. Why would I choose the inferior opinion?".
Is that statement a bit of humor, joustful bravdo, or just applicable to your political beliefs, or carved in stone for all your day to day activities?
Maybe I am an odd exception, or 20 more years in life have contributed to it, but in many discussions we each have each day with a wide variety of people, where inevitably a considerable portion of what we have to say and hear is "opinion"; often we engage in those discussions to acquire alternative opinion so we can further develop our understanding and grasp of an issue. Have you not ever learned or broadened your understanding of a concept or ideal based on some other person's opinion, while at that same time having some form of your own opinion on the issue? How do we "learn" the many basics of lifes' trials and "lessons", or the fundamentals of how to do things in our personal and business lives, if we do not subscribe to a number of "opinions" from the many that pass before us over our lifetime?
Also, maybe it's just the way my particular "logic" process works, but I did grasp the "point" Jim made with his rebuttal post.
Your views on "opinions", that I have questioned, tend to portray and reflect yourself as an "I'm okay - your not okay" type of character. Riding that platform through life is not an easy sail, as foul winds from the rear will tend to erode your path. |
Edited by - CCarr on 12/05/2002 09:34:33 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2002 : 09:30:36
|
Memo to Kile:
MY thinking is RIGID (your quote)?
You gotta be kidding right.
Now isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black?
Or as Mark (OTD) would say, doesn't that comment make the cat spit in the dog food. :>)
Perhaps once again you need to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'rigid', go back and review some of the statements which you have posted to this thread, and then go take a good long look in the mirror.
Heck, in the dictionaries I consulted, they even have your picture under the definition of 'rigid' as an example.
The rest of us 'get it' even if you don't.
|
Edited by - JimF on 12/05/2002 11:49:30 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Partisan Politics
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
