adoption, reunion, ref0Rm, reality**
Do you know there are academics who study how people fight. They study Argumentation Theory or Argumentation. They observe and analyze how humans reach conclusions through logical reasoning.
They study what are the goals of the argument.
They identify the premises on which conclusions are based.
They study who has the burden of proof. who made the initial claim and is therefore responsible for providing evidence as to why his/her position should carry the day and be accepted by the others involved. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
The opponent must try to identify faulty reasoning in the other’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.
Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following
- a set of assumptions or premises
- a method of reasoning or deduction and
- a conclusion or point.
An argument must have at least one premise and one conclusion.
In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other.
Other types of dialogue in addition to persuasion are eristic, information seeking, inquiry, negotiation, deliberation, and the dialectical method.
It’s that first one that worries me. Eristic.
An eristic dialog is the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This method is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests.
Eristic comes from the ancient Greek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife. It often refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.
The aim usually is to win the argument, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic.
Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution.
I think we in adoption are often involved in eristic arguments when what we really need is negotiation. We need to try and resolve not just engage.
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process.##
Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process.
Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise.
Some people say compromise means nobody gets what they want.
Some people say adoption is win, win, win.
** For new readers, I am working through the letters in these words as my writing prompts during NaBloPoMo 2011.
## I have borrowed heavily from Wikipedia in this post and just want to acknowledge it.