Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
Communication barriers are often encountered by everyone in their daily work or life. When talking, sometimes they feel that the other party is arrogant or even unreasonable. On the other hand, it is impossible for the other party to accurately understand your true thoughts.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
Undoubtedly, these situations will affect the effectiveness of our communication. The lighter ones make the conversation unsustainable, and the more severe ones make the other party misunderstand and deviate from the communication goal. No matter what kind of situation occurs, it is not what we want to see.
We often say that someone is good at eloquence and someone is good at communication, but more means that a person's communication is more persuasive than ordinary people, such a person can quickly grasp the key to the problem and accurately and accurately expressed.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
On the contrary, although some people have been talking incessantly, they are always regarded as rhetoric because they have nothing to say. In the eyes of onlookers, they can only use nonsense to deviate from the eloquent. vocabulary to describe.
We are not always able to maintain rational thinking. Many times we feel helpless about it, and we often think about it after the incident. When the real dialogue "master" encounters these problems, how will they deal with it?
In the past, there are many well-spoken celebrities who still stubbornly defend their fortresses when they lose a debate, so there are no shortage of disastrous failures.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
Small case
On October 6, 1976, President Ford of the United States and the Carter Institute participated in the first debate for the presidential election. At this debate, Ford spoke to the then "New York Daily" reporter Max Franken about Poland. The question posed by the question answered "Poland is not under the control of the former Soviet Union", and said that "the fact that the former Soviet power controlled Eastern Europe does not exist."
There were obvious mistakes in this statement, so it was immediately refuted by reporters. At the beginning of the rebuttal, Max Furlong's tone was still more euphemistic, which was intended to give President Ford a chance to make corrections.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
He said: "I'm deeply sorry to mention this, but do you mean to affirm that the former Soviet Union did not turn Eastern Europe into its vassal state? In other words, the former Soviet Union did not rely on its own military power to suppress Eastern European countries. !"
If Ford was very wise at the time, it was the best choice to admit his blunder and die. However, maybe he felt that as the president of a country, if he was the president of a country, it would not be a good idea to admit defeat in the face of a national TV audience. He continued to persevere, and then made mistakes again and again, and as a result, he paid a heavy price for the upcoming election.
Even when the debate was published, the media, including all the columns and editorials, made a series of reports about Ford's serious missteps. They wondered if Ford himself was a real fool, or just as stubborn as a donkey?
Of course, Carter also took the opportunity to raise this question again and again, causing the chaos to be turned upside down.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
If a sensible debater, when the opponent hits the nail on the head, will usually use a gentle applause or a nod and smile to ease the embarrassment caused by the question, then the audience and listeners will start to not understand what you are in. What kind of medicine are you selling?
Some people think that this is a good manner for them to obey the truth; some people think that this is a kind of open-mindedness that they disdain to justify. In the final analysis, whether they lost or not may only be described by an unknown mystery, which is the so-called unclear.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
In this way, debaters can speak more subtly even if they want to. They can laugh at each other and say, "You have a great talk!" getting worse.
Small case:
As we all know, in 2011, Da Vinci Company issued an open letter called "Communication Letter to Media Friends". In the letter, they insisted that the furniture sold by their company were all imported from Italy, and their company was determined. Those who would not accept the request for no-question return, emphasized that the premise of the media reports at that time were all "false", which inevitably caused more confusion and unnecessary worries for consumers, making it difficult for them to accept.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
The company's response to the public's doubts was just a press conference and a 62-page open letter, which was its attitude after the media revealed that Da Vinci's furniture was suspected of being counterfeit. As far as its overall content is concerned, its main purpose is nothing more than a defense and "calling out grievances", which is exactly the same as the defense of many other suspected counterfeiters.
"We have no intention to shirk responsibility, but we also draw media friends to pay more attention to whether our problems are common to the entire industry or just the individuality of our company? Our company has done relatively well in the entire industry. Or relatively bad?"
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
This is a paragraph written in that lengthy "communication letter". A sentence of sharp and high-pitched words is rather an accusation. DaVinci only knows that its problems have become a common problem in the industry, so generally he also claims to be the industry leader, and also uses this to accuse the media of injustice and prejudice.
The number of wrongdoers cannot be used as a reason for "calling grievances". Arrest me?" barbaric remarks. As long as the masses do a little analysis, it is easy to see that Da Vinci's rhetoric is clearly arrogant.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
Even if such a problem is common in the industry, Da Vinci is indeed a leader in the industry. Should the “leader” be forgiven after making a mistake? The rhetoric of shirk responsibility" is precisely to excuse itself.
Da Vinci's illogical argument is obviously taking advantage of the authority to deal with the vacancies, straightening its back and shouting to the public. However, the public is not a fool and will not be deceived. Therefore, it is best for the problem maker to listen carefully to the voices of consumers, and to have more sincerity in "change it if there is something, and encourage it if it doesn't", and be less arrogant and unreasonable. It will be more helpful to solve the problem.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
The so-called convincing people with reason means to grasp the logic, stress the truth, and base on the facts. Communication requires communication with "heart". Always be honest with the other party, put yourself on an equal level with the other party, and give the other party a sense of security. Since ancient times, facts speak louder than eloquence. !
Only in this way will you change from an absolute dialogue "low hand" to a full dialogue "master" and win the initiative in communication.
Always running into communication barriers? Just remember this, be eloquent but don't be rhetorical
One of the most striking characteristics of a person who is arrogant is that he is irrational and rational, and constantly makes a faultless defense for his own wrong actions. However, bluffing and arguing will only intensify the anger in the hearts of others; arguing between people will only dissolve harmony, breed ill-will, and worse, lead to violence.
If rhetoric arises from power organs, it will make ordinary people follow suit and become a kind of negative benchmark. As a result, the whole society will be affected by it.