Nope, haven’t veered too far off topic. I think what I’d like to do, though, is consolidate your points into a question and share it with the team, if you don’t mind. Perhaps we can publish in a forthcoming Q&A. I think the topic deserves a wider audience and is one our readers will find illuminating.

huh! i didn’t get a message about it being stalled, so thanks for letting me know

I agree with your points for the most part (i believe in a fundamental respect for another’s autonomy and want to go around in the wolrd responsible for how my behaviors reach my goals), but you and I (an anyone else here who agress) are in the same silo; i wonder how to deal with (situations where lacal leaders who have enouhg power to set the culture. (leaving is not an option in some cases, and in many other cases it’s the culture itself ,i.e. high-turnover environments) let’s take tribespeople in a not-too-remote african village being recruited for civil wars; leaving is not an option, and fighting is all that remains in some (hopefully rarer and rare) cases. Too extreme? we could apply it to high-turnover environments we know and/or care more about: academia, finance, other cuthroat competitions where power rules by popularity.

i hope to make it apaarent that the skills we practice presume a level of privilege not afforded to many, i.e. in general,i think you can bet crucial skills will work best when you’re the one already in power…
(i just realized … i guess i always saw the foundational ideologies here to be more deomcratic than that! but i don’t know that they have to be… open to your –and others’– input. wasn’t the crucial skills system developed for situations like these? my sense of burden reminds me of that quote: “is it better to fix the world or appreciate it?”)

if we’ve veered too far off-topic…, then maybe you could hire me for your philosophy/ethics program! haha
thanks for engaging

huh! i didn’t get a message about it being stalled, so thanks for letting me know

I agree with your points for the most part (i believe in a fundamental respect for another’s autonomy and want to go around in the wolrd responsible for how my behaviors reach my goals), but you and I (an anyone else here who agress) are in the same silo; i wonder how to deal with (situations where lacal leaders who have enouhg power to set the culture. (leaving is not an option in some cases, and in many other cases it’s the culture itself ,i.e. high-turnover environments) let’s take tribespeople in a not-too-remote african village being recruited for civil wars; leaving is not an option, and fighting is all that remains in some (hopefully rarer and rare) cases. Too extreme? we could apply it to high-turnover environments we know and/or care more about: academia, finance, other cuthroat competitions where power rules by popularity.

i hope to make it apaarent that the skills we practice presume a level of privilege not afforded to many, i.e. in general,i think you can bet crucial skills will work best when you’re the one already in power…
(i just realized … i guess i always saw the foundational ideologies here to be more deomcratic than that! but i don’t know that they have to be… open to your –and others’– input. wasn’t the crucial skills system developed for situations like these? my sense of burden reminds me of that quote: “is it better to fix the world or appreciate it?”)

if we’ve veered too far off-topic…, then maybe you could hire me for your philosophy/ethics program! haha
thanks for engaging

Hey Bean, for some reason your other comment was held up by WordPress and had to be manually approved. It’s up now.

And thanks for raising the points. If I understand you correctly, I agree that Crucial Conversations skills do not guarantee a resolution. They greatly improve your odds of resolving disagreement, but you may find occasions where they don’t.

What should you do then? I come back to what’s suggested in the post above and in the principles generally: treat others with respect, and act responsibly. If you can’t resolve differences or disagreement, how might you end the conversation (or the relationship) respectfully? And, if you exit a Crucial Conversation without resolving the disagreement, how might you then address the challenge responsibly?

In my view, the root of Crucial Conversations is this: a deep respect for where my personhood ends and another’s begins. If I can’t achieve mutually favorable results through dialogue, I must respect the autonomy of the other person and take responsibility for the situation I wish to change. Sometimes that may mean letting go or taking a different course of action altogether.

Applying the Crucial Conversations skills is not always straightforward. The fact that you’re questioning them and testing their application makes you a true practitioner and scientist in my view. Thank you.

A crucial conversation may not reach a resolution and for either party to feel psychologically safe the best option may be as you suggested to end the conversation. In this teaching the crucial skills are to be respectful in the crucial conversation. You are not responsible if the person feels or does not feel respected. Trying to rescue them to avoid a disconnect puts you back in the victim mode. As Steven Thomas pointed out it is your own social self responsibility to deal with winning or losing, be it a game or a disagreement. At least you had the crucial conversation.

my reply didn’t actually reply! burn!

ok, thanks.

i started a convo above trying to come to terms with how the skills fail sometimes… in this case, i’m trying to highlight the implicit dichotomy between the crucially skilled student (who is expected to not only defend their own safety personally but make it safe for the other by being extra cognizant of their approach in order to make it the least offensive) and the other interlocutor (who hasn’t necessarily practiced these skills but will hopefully benefit from them). Even when it doesnt come off patronizing, there’s an emotional burden being assumed by the students here for the greater good (and hopefully a personal benefit too). it’s clearly a valuable approach, but the lop-sidedness of it makes it easy to waste resources unless one is already in a position of leadership. Not only that, the sense of disconnection engendered by having to have enough “relationship” (i.e. R from CPR) conversations can take a major emotional toll. I had to cut off a bunch of relationships after many extra years in a program trying to exercise these skills the best i could. i don’t know that i’m worse off for it, but crucial skills are pretty mum on what happense next…

thanks for listening

ah! that wasn’t the message i intended to get across…I’m open to your input on what i said that made it sound like i didn’t want to have a crucial conversation or that social consciosness was more than just considering the other person in the conversation…maybe emotionally conscious would’ve been more apt?. let’s see if we can make it safe for consumption.

my point about abusive framing was in general that such a thing can happen, not particular to this interaction (between you/me or you/questioner). no, the bigger point i was trying to make is that when crucial skills require another to defend their own safety (i.e. without input from anyone else, esp those who aren’t considering each other’s safety, i.e. not “socially/emotionally conscious”), then the failure rate is higher. for example, when i talk to most people outside this community, i find it helpful to warn them that i intend to use these skills because without warning them i have evidence that i come off creepily calculating about their emotional safety.

anyway i was not trying to take a side in this particular disagreement, just calling attention to the fact that even two crucially skilled students (who presumably pick up on the very “social/emotional consciousness” being taught here) can use the skills and still not reach a resolution (other than to stop the conversation)… i think it’s bound to happen, and i struggle with what comes after such a disconnection…

open to your input, and thanks for considering!

Jacqueline
Nice use of the message. Often we all take on the position of just going for what we want and not seeing the others point of view without becoming a victim over not getting our own way. All the way up to something as contentions as abortion or COVID vaccine. The hard part is when you ask these hard questions how do we also help people understand it is their responsibility to make their own lives feel safe even if “society” “family” or “employer” do not agree with our opinion. The change over the last 50 years from win-lose in childhood games to participation is the whole game has not helped. Instead of learning to deal with losing and winning with emotional safety, we do not. I believe this has been a disservice to our social self safety responsibility. Now so few have to re-teach generations of Americans, including me, before this lack of self responsibility permanently damages our society.