Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a rhetorical and conflict resolution technique based on empathizing with others, seeking common ground and mutual understanding and learning, while avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization. The term refers to the psychologist Carl Rogers, whose client-centered therapy has also been called Rogerian therapy. Since 1970, rhetoricians have applied the ideas of Rogers—with contributions by Anatol Rapoport—to rhetoric and argumentation, producing Rogerian argument. A key principle of Rogerian argument is that, instead of advocating one's own position and trying to refute the other's position, one tries to state the other's position with as much care as one would have stated one's own position, emphasizing what is strong or valid in the other's argument.  To this principle, Rapoport added other principles that are sometimes called "Rapoport's rules".  Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught. Already in the 1960s Rapoport had noted some of the limitations of Rogerian argument, and other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades.   Origin alt=Burton Tower, with Hill Auditorium (left) and the Rackham School of Graduate Studies (right), at the University of Michigan|The University of Michigan is where Rogerian argument was given its name by Anatol Rapoport and others. In the 1960s, Rapoport had helped put Michigan's Mental Health Research Institute at the center of the use of game theory in psychological research. Rapoport came to Michigan from a position at the University of Chicago, where Carl Rogers was also a professor. In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s by the 1970 textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change by the University of Michigan professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. They borrowed the term and related ideas from the polymath Anatol Rapoport, who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university. The University of Texas at Austin professor Maxine Hairston then spread Rogerian argument through publications such as her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoric,; ; ; ; . and other authors published book chapters and scholarly articles on the subject. Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's Pavlovian strategy and Freudian strategy all share the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, but the Rogerian strategy has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal. In Young, Becker, and Pike's view, the goal of Rogerian rhetoric is to remove the obstacles—especially the sense of threat—to cooperative communication, mutual understanding, and mutual intellectual growth. They considered this goal to be a new alternative to classical rhetoric.  In practice In oral communication , Rogerian argument must be flexible because others can interject and show that one has failed to state their position and situation adequately, and then one must modify one's previous statements before continuing, resulting in an unpredictable sequence of conversation that is guided by the general principles of Rogerian strategy.   alt=A man in a formal shirt and tie writes in a notebook| Written communication requires a different approach to Rogerian argument due to differences from oral communication such as lack of immediate feedback from the other person. In  written communication that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or audience analysis, to be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately. Since formal written communication lacks the immediate feedback from the other and the unpredictable sequence found in oral communication, and can use a more predictable approach, Young, Becker, and Pike proposed four phases that a writer could use to construct a written Rogerian argument: "An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood." "A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid." "A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid." "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."  In 1992, Rebecca Stephens built on Hairston's five " elements of the nonthreatening argument "  to create a set of 23  questions that she called a Rogerian-based heuristic for rhetorical invention, intended to help students think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments. For example, the first two of her 23 questions are "What is the nature of the issue, in general terms?" (and she recommended that the answer should itself be stated as a question) and "Whose lives are affected by the issue?" The last two questions are "What would have to happen to eliminate the disagreement among the opposing groups?" and "What are the chances that this will occur?" Limitations Scholars debating Rogerian argument often note limitations in regards to the validity of anger, as well as its usefulness in spaces, such as war or the Judiciary, where such emotions cannot be beneficially or fairly utilized. Spaces that advocate for marginalized communities, such as the Feminist movement, also acknowledge how neutralizing an argument is considered comparable to being silenced, stating that Rogerian rhetoric often denies the importance of feelings or morals inherent to certain arguments . The Vietnam War alt=Three U.S. Fairchild UC-123B aircraft spray Agent Orange as part of the overall herbicidal warfare operation in Vietnam called Trail Dust, circa 1962–1971|Rapoport pointed out that farmers couldn't practice a Rogerian approach with the military pilot who was spraying Agent Orange and strafing them with bullets from the sky. Rogerian argument is ineffective with someone who is only functioning as a cog in an impersonal machine. In a 1968 paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the Vietnam War, he noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Earlier, Rapoport had suggested that an "ethical debate between liberalism and communism, to be conducted according to the rules of role reversal, along lines proposed earlier by Carl Rogers" could help resolve conflict between the United States and communist states. He had previously imagined that an earlier phase of the conflict was "largely a communication problem, one that could be attacked by 'men of good will' on both sides". But he concluded that the Rogerian approach does not apply to situations such as the Vietnam War when it is "impossible to communicate" in a Rogerian way with "the beast, ", a war-making state such as the Lyndon Johnson administration. Rapoport noted: "Just as every proposition has a circumscribed region of validity, so does every method." (Soon after, in opposition to , Rapoport relocated permanently to Canada from the United States,; . leaving behind research connections with the military that he had since the 1940s.) In Feminist Theory alt=A woman at a demonstration outdoors holds a sign that says Feminists Fight Back|Some feminists argued: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in." In a 1990 article that combined ideas from feminist theorists and testimonies from women college students in the 1980s, women's studies professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives. One of Lassner's students "hated" Rogerian argument because "women have a right to be angry" and "everyone needs to know how they feel". Lassner said that Rogers' psychology "is socially constructed on a foundation of cultural hegemony". For women who are marginalized and have been taught that they are not "worthy opponents", Lassner said, "Rogerian rhetoric can be just as inhibiting and constraining as any other form of argumentation." Some of Lassner's students doubted that their opponent (such as an anti-gay or anti-abortion advocate) could even recognize them or could conceal repugnance and rejection of them enough to make Rogerian empathy possible. Lassner and her students especially disapproved of Hairston's advice to use neutrally worded statements, and they said that Hairston's ideal of neutrality was too "self-effacing" and "replicates a history of suppression" of women's voices and of their "authentic feeling". In a 1991 article, English professor Catherine Lamb agreed with Lassner and added: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in."; Paul G. Bator reported a student's similar complaint in : "The writer can appear 'wimpy'—especially in issues that require a firm stance". Lamb  considered more recent negotiation theory such as Getting to Yes to be more complete than Rogers' earlier ideas about communication (although there was Rogerian influence on Getting to Yes) . Third party mediation Young noted in 1992 that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when mutual antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense.Richard E. Young, "Rogerian argument and the context of situation: taking a closer look", in . The way Rogerian argument had been taught in rhetoric textbooks may be effective for some situations, Young said, but is unlikely to work between two parties in the kind of situation when they need it most, when they are most intractably opposed. Young suggested that third-party mediation, suggested by Rogers himself in 1951, may be most promising in that kind of situation. Benefits Despite how scholars note that Rogerian argument can give power to oppressive viewpoints, and that its uses are often irrelevant such as is seen with the Vietnam War, according to Renea Frey, individuals such as Booth, Ratcliffe, Ong, CasaregeolaFrey, Renea (2017–2018). "Rhetorics of Reflection: Revisiting Listening Rhetoric through Mindfulness, Empathy, and Nonviolent Communication". The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning: JAEPL. 23: 92–104. ISSN 1085-4630. also claim that Rogerian rhetoric helps to build upon and support the "inherent human need to be heard, acknowledged, and understood." It is also noted by Frey that Rogerian argument, when practiced through Mindfulness, gives individuals the tools needed for reaching wider and more diverse audiences, even providing arguers with conscious ways of connecting with the audiences who are insistent on rejecting outside perspectives, whether that be through "ethics and compassion," or "mutually beneficial solutions."%DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% Frey's regard In multiple studies done with her students, Frey suggests the importance of listening rhetoric, a concept based on Rogers' teachings of empathy that is meant to highlight the benefits of widening one's viewpoint to extend to the opponent. She discusses how common intellectual thinking creates a divide between the arguer and their audience, and how "connecting empathetically" allows for a broader sense of awareness, therefore also promoting stronger assertions. She argues that through applying Rogerian tactics and mindful listening practices, when an individual has an understanding of what causes opponents to view ideas in different perspectives, they are better able to create arguments that not only benefit both sides, but reach wider and more diverse audiences. Enforcing arguments does little for mutually beneficial communication, whereas listening provides overwhelmingly positive results when compared to the "desire to master, outwit, or rebut," as well as fulfills our natural need for understanding.%DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% In the activities done with her students, Frey suggests that conflict between arguers, especially when their opinions oppose, often stems from misunderstanding, lack of education, or apathy, and should be recognized as a way to provide greater insight into how one can reach these obstacles. It is with this understanding that arguers can then strengthen their ideas, as well as listen to the other side, recognizing Brown's concept of how "acknowledging" is different from both "approving" and "agreeing," and creating an environment intended for success. Related research on role reversal Conflict researchers such as Morton Deutsch and David W. Johnson, citing the same publications by Rapoport and Rogers that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term to refer to the presentation by one person to another person of the other person's position and vice versa. Deutsch, Johnson, and others have done empirical research on this kind of role reversal (mostly in the late 1960s and 1970s), and the results suggested that the effectiveness of role reversal—in achieving desired outcomes such as better understanding of opponents' positions, change in opponents' positions, or negotiated agreement—depends on the issue and situation.  Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published.
Rogerian argument (or Rogerian rhetoric) is a rhetorical and conflict resolution strategy based on empathizing with others, seeking common ground and mutual understanding and learning, while avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization. The term refers to the psychologist Carl Rogers, whose client-centered therapy has also been called Rogerian therapy. Since 1970, rhetoricians have applied the ideas of Rogers—with contributions by Anatol Rapoport—to rhetoric and argumentation, producing Rogerian argument. A key principle of Rogerian argument is that, instead of advocating one's own position and trying to refute the other's position, one tries to state the other's position with as much care as one would have stated one's own position, emphasizing what is strong or valid in the other's argument. When two individuals or two groups do this for each other, it is called role reversal. To this principle, Rapoport added other principles that are sometimes called "Rapoport's rules". Rhetoricians have designed various methods for applying these Rogerian rhetorical principles in practice. Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught. Already in the 1960s Rapoport had noted some of the limitations of Rogerian argument, and other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades. For example, they concluded that Rogerian argument is less likely to be appropriate or effective when communicating with violent or discriminatory people or institutions, in situations of social exclusion or extreme power inequality, or in judicial settings that use formal adversarial procedures. Some empirical research has tested role reversal and found that its effectiveness depends on the issue and situation. Origin alt=Burton Tower, with Hill Auditorium (left) and the Rackham School of Graduate Studies (right), at the University of Michigan|The University of Michigan is where Rogerian argument was given its name by Anatol Rapoport and others. In the 1960s, Rapoport had helped put Michigan's Mental Health Research Institute at the center of the use of game theory in psychological research. Rapoport came to Michigan from a position at the University of Chicago, where Carl Rogers was also a professor. In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term was popularized in the 1970s and 1980s by the 1970 textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change by the University of Michigan professors Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. They borrowed the term and related ideas from the polymath Anatol Rapoport, who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university. The University of Texas at Austin professor Maxine Hairston then spread Rogerian argument through publications such as her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoric,; ; ; ; . and other authors published book chapters and scholarly articles on the subject. Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's Pavlovian strategy and Freudian strategy all share the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, but the Rogerian strategy has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal. In Young, Becker, and Pike's view, the goal of Rogerian rhetoric is to remove the obstacles—especially the sense of threat—to cooperative communication, mutual understanding, and mutual intellectual growth. They considered this goal to be a new alternative to classical rhetoric. They also said that classical rhetoric is used both in situations—when two parties are trying to understand and change each other—and in situations—when one party is responding to an opponent but is trying to influence a third party such as an arbitrator or jury or public opinion—but Rogerian rhetoric is specially intended for certain dyadic situations, not for triadic situations.; later, concluded: "Rogers' principles have been treated most persuasively when applied to argumentation in dyadic rather than triadic situations." In practice In informal oral communication In informal oral communication , Rogerian argument must be flexible because others can interject and show that one has failed to state their position and situation adequately, and then one must modify one's previous statements before continuing, resulting in an unpredictable sequence of conversation that is guided by the general principles of Rogerian strategy. Carl Rogers himself was primarily interested in spontaneous oral communication,: "He conceded that problems of transferring his principles from oral to written communication had 'never been a primary interest' of his." and Douglas Brent considered the "native" mode of Rogerian communication to be mutual exploration of an issue through face-to-face oral communication. Whenever Brent taught the Rogerian attitude, he recommended to his students that before trying to write in a Rogerian way, they should first "practice on real, present people in a context more like the original therapeutic situations for which Rogerian principles were originally designed". In formal written communication alt=A man in a formal shirt and tie writes in a notebook| Formal written communication requires a different approach to Rogerian argument due to differences from oral communication such as lack of immediate feedback from the other person. In formal written communication that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or audience analysis, to be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately. Since formal written communication lacks the immediate feedback from the other and the unpredictable sequence found in oral communication, and can use a more predictable approach, Young, Becker, and Pike proposed four phases that a writer could use to construct a written Rogerian argument: "An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood." "A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid." "A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid." "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." Robert Keith Miller's textbook The Informed Argument, first published in 1986, presented five phases adapted from an earlier textbook by Richard Coe. Miller's phases were: an introduction to the problem; a summary of views that oppose the writer's position; a statement of understanding of the region of validity of the opposing views; a statement of the writer's position; a statement of the situations in which the writer's position has merit; and a statement of the benefits of accepting the writer's position. In 1992, Rebecca Stephens built on the " vague and abstract " Rogerian principles of other rhetoricians to create a set of 23 "concrete and detailed" questions that she called a Rogerian-based heuristic for rhetorical invention, intended to help people think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and arguments. For example, the first two of her 23 questions are "What is the nature of the issue, in general terms?" (and she recommended that the answer should itself be stated as a question) and "Whose lives are affected by the issue?" The last two questions are "What would have to happen to eliminate the disagreement among the opposing groups?" and "What are the chances that this will occur?" Limitations Scholars debating Rogerian argument often noted limitations of the scope within which the Rogerian strategy is likely to be appropriate or effective . alt=Three U.S. Fairchild UC-123B aircraft spray Agent Orange as part of the overall herbicidal warfare operation in Vietnam called Trail Dust, circa 1962–1971|Rapoport pointed out that farmers couldn't practice a Rogerian approach with the military pilot who was spraying Agent Orange and strafing them with bullets from the sky. Rogerian argument is ineffective with someone who is only functioning as a cog in an impersonal machine. In a 1968 paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the Vietnam War, he noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Earlier, Rapoport had suggested that an "ethical debate between liberalism and communism, to be conducted according to the rules of role reversal, along lines proposed earlier by Carl Rogers" could help resolve conflict between the United States and communist states. He had previously imagined that an earlier phase of the conflict was "largely a communication problem, one that could be attacked by 'men of good will' on both sides". But he concluded that the Rogerian approach does not apply to situations such as the Vietnam War when it is "impossible to communicate" in a Rogerian way with "the beast, ", a war-making state such as the Lyndon Johnson administration. Rapoport noted: "Just as every proposition has a circumscribed region of validity, so does every method." (Soon after, in opposition to , Rapoport relocated permanently to Canada from the United States,; . leaving behind research connections with the military that he had since the 1940s.) Feminist perspectives alt=A woman at a demonstration outdoors holds a sign that says Feminists Fight Back|Some feminists argued: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in." In a 1990 article that combined ideas from feminist theorists and testimonies from women college students in the 1980s, women's studies professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives. One of Lassner's students "hated" Rogerian argument because "women have a right to be angry" and "everyone needs to know how they feel". Lassner said that Rogers' psychology "is socially constructed on a foundation of cultural hegemony". For women who are marginalized and have been taught that they are not "worthy opponents", Lassner said, "Rogerian rhetoric can be just as inhibiting and constraining as any other form of argumentation." Some of Lassner's students doubted that their opponent (such as an anti-gay or anti-abortion advocate) could even recognize them or could conceal repugnance and rejection of them enough to make Rogerian empathy possible. Lassner and her students especially disapproved of Hairston's advice to use neutrally worded statements, and they said that Hairston's ideal of neutrality was too "self-effacing" and "replicates a history of suppression" of women's voices and of their "authentic feeling". In a 1991 article, English professor Catherine Lamb agreed with Lassner and added: "Rogerian argument has always felt too much like giving in."; Paul G. Bator reported a student's similar complaint in : "The writer can appear 'wimpy'—especially in issues that require a firm stance". Lamb said that women (and men) need to have a theory of power and use it to evaluate alternative ways of communicating. Lamb considered more recent negotiation theory such as Getting to Yes to be more complete than Rogers' earlier ideas about communication (although there was Rogerian influence on Getting to Yes) , and she used negotiation theory in her writing classes. In one of her class exercises, students worked in groups of three, role-playing three positions: two disputants in conflict and a third-party mediator. The disputants wrote memos to the mediator, the mediator wrote a memo to a supervisor, and then all three worked together to write a mediation agreement, which was discussed with the teacher. Subsequently a somewhat similar class exercise was included in later editions of Nancy Wood's textbook Perspectives on Argument, in a chapter on Rogerian argument. Young noted in 1992 that one potential problem with Rogerian argument is that people need it most when they may be least inclined to use it: when mutual antagonistic feelings between two people are most intense.Richard E. Young, "Rogerian argument and the context of situation: taking a closer look", in . The way Rogerian argument had been taught in rhetoric textbooks may be effective for some situations, Young said, but is unlikely to work between two parties in the kind of situation when they need it most, when they are most intractably opposed. Young suggested that third-party mediation, suggested by Rogers himself in 1951, may be most promising in that kind of situation. %DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% %DIFDELCMD < %DIFDELCMD < %%% Related research on role reversal Conflict researchers such as Morton Deutsch and David W. Johnson, citing the same publications by Rapoport and Rogers that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term to refer to the presentation by one person to another person of the other person's position and vice versa. Deutsch, Johnson, and others have done empirical research on this kind of role reversal (mostly in the late 1960s and 1970s), and the results suggested that the effectiveness of role reversal—in achieving desired outcomes such as better understanding of opponents' positions, change in opponents' positions, or negotiated agreement—depends on the issue and situation. Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published.
R
technique
strategy
A
When two individuals or two groups do this for each other, it is called role reversal.
A
Rhetoricians have designed various methods for applying these Rogerian rhetorical principles in practice.
A
For example, they concluded that Rogerian argument is less likely to be appropriate or effective when communicating with violent or discriminatory people or institutions, in situations of social exclusion or extreme power inequality, or in judicial settings that use formal adversarial procedures.
A
Some empirical research has tested role reversal and found that its effectiveness depends on the issue and situation.
A
They also said that classical rhetoric is used both in situations—when two parties are trying to understand and change each other—and in situations—when one party is responding to an opponent but is trying to influence a third party such as an arbitrator or jury or public opinion—but Rogerian rhetoric is specially intended for certain dyadic situations, not for triadic situations.; later, concluded: "Rogers' principles have been treated most persuasively when applied to argumentation in dyadic rather than triadic situations."
R
In oral communication
In informal oral communication In informal oral communication
A
Carl Rogers himself was primarily interested in spontaneous oral communication,: "He conceded that problems of transferring his principles from oral to written communication had 'never been a primary interest' of his." and Douglas Brent considered the "native" mode of Rogerian communication to be mutual exploration of an issue through face-to-face oral communication. Whenever Brent taught the Rogerian attitude, he recommended to his students that before trying to write in a Rogerian way, they should first "practice on real, present people in a context more like the original therapeutic situations for which Rogerian principles were originally designed".
A
In formal written communication
R
Written
Formal written
A
formal
A
Robert Keith Miller's textbook The Informed Argument, first published in 1986, presented five phases adapted from an earlier textbook by Richard Coe. Miller's phases were: an introduction to the problem; a summary of views that oppose the writer's position; a statement of understanding of the region of validity of the opposing views; a statement of the writer's position; a statement of the situations in which the writer's position has merit; and a statement of the benefits of accepting the writer's position.
R
Hairston's five
the
R
elements of the nonthreatening argument
vague and abstract
A
Rogerian principles of other rhetoricians
A
"concrete and detailed"
R
students
people
R
note limitations in regards to the validity of anger, as well as its usefulness in spaces, such as war or the Judiciary, where such emotions cannot be beneficially or fairly utilized. Spaces that advocate for marginalized communities, such as the Feminist movement, also acknowledge how neutralizing an argument is considered comparable to being silenced, stating that Rogerian rhetoric often denies the importance of feelings or morals inherent to certain arguments
noted limitations of the scope within which the Rogerian strategy is likely to be appropriate or effective
D
The Vietnam War
R
In Feminist Theory
Feminist perspectives
A
said that women (and men) need to have a theory of power and use it to evaluate alternative ways of communicating. Lamb
R
.
, and she used negotiation theory in her writing classes. In one of her class exercises, students worked in groups of three, role-playing three positions: two disputants in conflict and a third-party mediator. The disputants wrote memos to the mediator, the mediator wrote a memo to a supervisor, and then all three worked together to write a mediation agreement, which was discussed with the teacher. Subsequently a somewhat similar class exercise was included in later editions of Nancy Wood's textbook Perspectives on Argument, in a chapter on Rogerian argument.
D
Third party mediation
D
Benefits Despite how scholars note that Rogerian argument can give power to oppressive viewpoints, and that its uses are often irrelevant such as is seen with the Vietnam War, according to Renea Frey, individuals such as Booth, Ratcliffe, Ong, CasaregeolaFrey, Renea (2017–2018). "Rhetorics of Reflection: Revisiting Listening Rhetoric through Mindfulness, Empathy, and Nonviolent Communication". The Journal of the Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning: JAEPL. 23: 92–104. ISSN 1085-4630. also claim that Rogerian rhetoric helps to build upon and support the "inherent human need to be heard, acknowledged, and understood."
D
It is also noted by Frey that Rogerian argument, when practiced through Mindfulness, gives individuals the tools needed for reaching wider and more diverse audiences, even providing arguers with conscious ways of connecting with the audiences who are insistent on rejecting outside perspectives, whether that be through "ethics and compassion," or "mutually beneficial solutions."
D
Frey's regard In multiple studies done with her students, Frey suggests the importance of listening rhetoric, a concept based on Rogers' teachings of empathy that is meant to highlight the benefits of widening one's viewpoint to extend to the opponent. She discusses how common intellectual thinking creates a divide between the arguer and their audience, and how "connecting empathetically" allows for a broader sense of awareness, therefore also promoting stronger assertions.
D
She argues that through applying Rogerian tactics and mindful listening practices, when an individual has an understanding of what causes opponents to view ideas in different perspectives, they are better able to create arguments that not only benefit both sides, but reach wider and more diverse audiences. Enforcing arguments does little for mutually beneficial communication, whereas listening provides overwhelmingly positive results when compared to the "desire to master, outwit, or rebut," as well as fulfills our natural need for understanding.
D
In the activities done with her students, Frey suggests that conflict between arguers, especially when their opinions oppose, often stems from misunderstanding, lack of education, or apathy, and should be recognized as a way to provide greater insight into how one can reach these obstacles. It is with this understanding that arguers can then strengthen their ideas, as well as listen to the other side, recognizing Brown's concept of how "acknowledging" is different from both "approving" and "agreeing," and creating an environment intended for success.
A
Several later editions of this textbook were published. Several later editions of this textbook were published.