This paper discusses the foundations of Rogerian psychotherapy. Carl rogers who was a psychology professor at Ohio state university. In this paper I concluded that Rogerian psychotherapy and person-centered therapy was the same thing VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, A ROGERIAN ARGUMENT 5 T rated games have a wide range of potential content. While some parents may think that the game Batman: Arkham Asylum is too much for their child, they may think that Super Smash Brothers Brawl is a perfectly fine game. Both games in this instance are rated T for teen. The is a perfectly fine game. Both games in this instance are rated T for A Rogerian Argument is a special method of discussion through which the opponents express their points of view confidently and fully, without saving any part of it. Their goal, though, is not to convince the opponent, but rather to have the discussion in such a way as to stand nearer the truth, or nearer a common position
A Rogerian Argument On The Rogerian Psychotherapy - Free Essay Example | EduZaurus
Rogerian argument or Rogerian rhetoric is a rhetorical and conflict resolution technique based on empathizing with others, seeking common ground and mutual understanding and learningwhile avoiding the negative effects of extreme attitude polarization. Sincerhetoricians have applied the ideas of Rogers—with contributions by Anatol Rapoport —to rhetoric and argumentationproducing 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. Several scholars have criticized how Rogerian argument is taught.
Already in the s Rapoport had noted some of the limitations of Rogerian argument, and other scholars identified other limitations in the following decades. In the study and teaching of rhetoric and argumentation, the term Rogerian argument was popularized in the s and s [6] [7] by the textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change [8] by the University of Michigan professors Richard E.
Young, Alton L. Beckerand Kenneth L. Pikewho borrowed the term Rogerian a rogerian argument, and related ideas, from another professor who was working, and doing peace activism, at the same university: [9] the game theorist and polymath Anatol Rapoport. Young, Becker, and Pike's textbook Rhetoric: Discovery and Change followed Rapoport's book Fights, Games, and Debates [11] in describing three ways of changing people that could be applied in debates: the Pavlovian strategy, the Freudian strategy, and the Rogerian strategy.
The Pavlovian strategy represents people "as a bundle of habits that can be shaped and controlled" by punishments and rewards. The Freudian strategy represents people as consciously a rogerian argument beliefs that are produced by unconscious or hidden motives that are unknown to them; changing people's beliefs—and changing any behaviors that are caused by those beliefs—requires revealing the hidden motives.
The Rogerian strategy represents people as usually trying to protect themselves from what they perceive to be threatening. Rapoport noted that Freudian psychoanalysts often diagnose people's defenses against what is perceived to be threateningsince such defenses can a rogerian argument among the hidden motives that the Freudian strategy tries to uncover.
A work by Carl Rogers that was especially influential in the formulation of Rogerian argument was his paper "Communication: Its Blocking and Its Facilitation", [28] published in the same year as his book Client-Centered Therapy.
One idea that Rogers emphasized several times in his paper that is not mentioned in textbook treatments of Rogerian argument is third-party intervention. Rogerian argument is an application of Rogers' a rogerian argument about communication, taught by rhetoric teachers who were inspired by Rapoport, [6] [7] but Rogers' ideas about communication have also been applied somewhat differently by many others: for example, Marshall A rogerian argument created nonviolent communicationa process of conflict resolution and nonviolent living, after studying and working with Rogers, [37] and other writing teachers used some of Rogers' ideas in developing expressivist theories of writing.
There are different opinions about whether Rogerian rhetoric is like or unlike classical rhetoric from ancient Greece and Rome. Young, Becker, and Pike said that classical rhetoric and Rapoport's Pavlovian strategy and Freudian strategy all a rogerian argument the common goal of controlling or persuading someone else, a rogerian argument, but the Rogerian strategy has different assumptions about humanity and a different goal. English professor Andrea Lunsfordresponding to Young, Becker, and Pike in a article, argued that the three principles of Rogerian strategy that they borrowed from Rapoport could be a rogerian argument in various parts of Aristotle 's writings, and so were already in the classical tradition.
English professor Paul G. Bator argued in that Rogerian argument is more different from Aristotle's rhetoric than Lunsford had concluded. Professor of communication Douglas Brent said that Rogerian rhetoric is not the captatio benevolentiae securing of good will taught by Cicero and later by medieval a rogerian argument. By the end of the s, the term Rapoport debate [51] [52] was used to refer to what Anatol Rapoport called ethical debate[53] which is debate guided by Rapoport's Rogerian strategy.
Philosopher Daniel Dennettin his book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinkingcalled these principles Rapoport's rules of debate, [54] a term that other authors have since adopted. Rapoport proposed three main principles of ethical debate: [27] [57] [58] [59]. Daniel Dennett 's version of Rapoport's rules, which Dennett considered to be "somewhat more portable and versatile", a rogerian argument, is:.
Dennett's other advice, in his presentation of Rapoport's rules, had more of an adversarial outlook than a Rogerian one: he said that some people "don't deserve such respectful attention" and that he found it to "be sheer joy to skewer and roast" such people.
If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view—and then dump on them. In a summary of Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules, Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by modeling prosocial behavior : one party demonstrates respect and intellectual openness so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.
English professor Michael Austin, in his book We Must Not Be Enemiespointed out the connection between Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate, published inand Rapoport's tit-for-tat algorithm that won political scientist Robert Axelrod 's repeated prisoner's dilemma computer tournaments around In the s, R. Duncan Luce had introduced Rapoport to the prisoner's dilemma game, [76] a kind of non-zero-sum game. Rapoport proceeded to publish a landmark book of empirical psychological research using the game, a rogerian argument, followed by another book in on empirical research about seventy-eight 2 × 2 two-person non-zero-sum games.
Rapoport himself, in his discussion of the Rogerian strategy in Fights, Games, and Debatesa rogerian argument, connected the ethics of debate to non-zero-sum games.
Rapoport pointed out "that a rigorous examination of game-like conflict leads inevitably" to the examination of debates, because "strictly rigorous game theory when extrapolated to cover other than two-person zero-sum games" requires consideration of issues such as "communication theory, psychology, even ethics" that are beyond simple game-like rules. Austin said that the characteristics that Rapoport programmed into the tit-for-tat algorithm are similar to Rapoport's three principles of ethical a rogerian argument both tit-for-tat and Rapoport's rules of debate are guidelines for producing a beneficial outcome in certain "non-zero-sum" situations.
In oral communicationRogerian 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.
In written communication that addresses the reader, the use of Rogerian argument requires sufficient knowledge of the audience, through prior acquaintance or audience analysisto be able to present the reader's perspective accurately and respond to it appropriately. The first two of Young, Becker, and Pike's four phases of written Rogerian argument are based on the first a rogerian argument of Rapoport's three principles of ethical debate.
Maxine Hairston, in a section on "Rogerian or nonthreatening argument" in her textbook A Contemporary Rhetoricadvised that one "shouldn't start writing with a rogerian argument detailed plan in mind" but might start by making four lists: the other's concerns, one's own key points, anticipated problems, and points of agreement or common ground, a rogerian argument.
InRebecca 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 inventionintended to help students think in a Rogerian way while discovering ideas and a rogerian argument. Lisa Edea writing professor at Oregon State Universityargued in a article—referring especially to some of the ideas of Young, Becker, and Pike—that "Rogerian rhetoric is not Rogerian" but is instead a distortion of Carl Rogers' ideas.
Ede argued in that Young, Becker, a rogerian argument, and Pike's Rogerian rhetoric is weak compared to what she considered to be the "much more sophisticated" 20th-century rhetorics a rogerian argument in Kenneth Burke 's A Grammar of Motives and Chaïm Perelman 's The Realm of Rhetoric. Young responded to Ede that he didn't know of any previous treatment in rhetorical theory of the kind of situation that Rogerian argument tries to address, where the techniques of the classical rhetorical tradition are likely to create or intensify extreme opposition, a rogerian argument, and where a deeper communication—of the kind that Rogers taught—is needed between and within people.
We did not pay enough attention to the considerable variation in actual dyadic situations; and we did not see that both the use and the usefulness of Rogerian argument seem to vary as the situation varies. The peculiarities of the particular situation affect, or should affect, the choices one makes in addressing it; not understanding this leads to inappropriate and ineffective choices.
In a paper that Anatol Rapoport wrote during, and in response to, the Vietnam Warhe noted that the Rogerian approach was mostly irrelevant to the task of opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War.
Young, Becker, and Pike pointed out in that Rogerian argument would be out of place in the typical mandated adversarial criminal procedures of the court system in the United States. Ede noted in that the rhetoric textbooks that discussed Rogerian argument dedicated only a few pages to it out of a total of hundreds of pages, so the Rogerian approach is only a small part of theories of rhetoric and argumentation. In a article that combined ideas from feminist theorists and testimonies from women college students in the s, women's studies professor Phyllis Lassner identified some limitations of Rogerian argument from women's perspectives.
Young noted in 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 a rogerian argument are most intense.
Conflict researchers such as Morton Deutsch and David W. Johnsonciting the same publications by Rapoport and A rogerian argument that inspired Rogerian rhetoric, used the term role reversal to refer to the presentation by one person to another person of the other person's position and vice versa. Negotiation expert William Ury said in his book The Third Side that role reversal as a formal rule of argumentation has been used at least since the Middle Ages in the Western world : "Another rule dates back at least as far as the Middle Ages, a rogerian argument, when theologians at the University of Paris used it to facilitate mutual understanding: One can speak only after one has repeated what the other side has said to that person's satisfaction.
Some rhetoric and composition textbooks that have a section about Rogerian argument, listed by date of first edition:. From Wikipedia, a rogerian argument free encyclopedia. For the ecogeographical principle, see Rapoport's rule. Argumentation theory § Types of dialogue Bohm Dialogue Cognitive bias modification Conflict continuum Conflict transformation Dialectical thinking Dialogue Dialogue mapping Epistemic humility Epistemic virtue Group dynamics Immunity to change Interpersonal communication Intergroup dialogue Peace psychology Philosophy of dialogue Reciprocal altruism Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, a rogerian argument.
For in this state of sympathetic understanding, we recognize both the multiplicity of world-views and our freedom to choose among them—either to retain our old or take a rogerian argument new. More recently, certain strands of feminist rhetoric have created new interest in cooperative approaches.
In 'Beyond Argument in Feminist Composition,' for example, Catherine Lamb draws attention to negotiation theory as an important source of alternatives to competitive and confrontational rhetoric.
As Lamb explains: 'in both negotiation and mediation the goal has changed: it is no longer to win but to arrive at a solution in a just way that is acceptable to both sides' And Michael Gilbert has developed a related approach that he calls 'coalescent argumentation,' an approach that involves a 'joining together' of divergent claims through 'recognition and exploration of opposing positions forming the basis for a mutual investigation of non-conflictual options' This view is similar to the key idea in negotiation theory especially the version presented in Roger Fisher and William Ury 's A rogerian argument to Yes that lying beneath people's 'positions' on issues are concerns and interests that represent what they care about most deeply.
Positions are often intractable. But by shifting the conversation to underlying interests, it's often possible to find common concerns and shared values, on the basis of which there may be a rogerian argument for discussion and, ultimately, agreement.
Instead of promoting a rogerian argument adversarial relationship that traditional or classical argument typically sets up between reader and writer, Rogerian argument assumes that if reader and writer can both find common ground about a problem, they are more likely to find a solution to that problem.
Rogerian argument is especially dependent on a rogerian argument analysis because the writer must present the reader's perspective clearly, accurately, a rogerian argument, and fairly.
Young, Becker, and Pike were not the first to respond to this challenge. In fact, they rely heavily in a rogerian argument discussion of Rogerian rhetoric on the work of Anatol Rapoport, who in Fights, Games, and Debateswhich they also quote in their text, attempts to apply Rogers' theories.
It is Rapoport, for instance, who establishes the 'three methods of modifying images,' the Pavlovian, a rogerian argument, Freudian, and Rogerian, a rogerian argument, which appear early in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change as 'Rhetorical strategies and images of man.
They came to Rogers through Anatol Rapoport's work in the area of conflict resolution. According to RapoportRogerian principles provided a means 'to convey to the opponent the assurance that he has been understood, so as to reduce his anxiety on that account and to induce him to listen' From this, a rogerian argument, Young et al.
developed a 'Rogerian strategy' of argument to apply especially 'in those a rogerian argument situations that involve strong values and beliefs,' in which traditional argument 'tends to be ineffective. inwhere he was one of the first three faculty members of the Mental Health Research Institute MHRI in the Department of Psychiatry. At the University of Michigan, Rapoport shifted the focus of his research to war and peace, conflict, and conflict resolution.
He a rogerian argument himself to what he called the three arms of the peace movement : peace a rogerian argumentpeace educationand peace activism. Rapoport made seminal contributions to game theory and published multiple books, including Fights, Games, and Debates Rapoport engaged not only in teaching and research, but also in peace activism Associated with the first a rogerian argument are terms such as behaviorismobjectiveexperimentalimpersonallogical-positivisticoperationallaboratory.
Associated with the second current are terms such as FreudianNeo-Freudianpsychoanalyticpsychology of the unconsciousinstinctualego-psychologyid-psychologydynamic psychology. Associated with the third are terms such as phenomenologicalexistentiala rogerian argument, self-theoryself-actualizationhealth-and-growth psychologybeing and becomingscience of inner experience.
xiii, We have found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. This procedure has important characteristics. It can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready, a rogerian argument.
It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, a rogerian argument, providing he can gain a minimum of cooperation from one of the parties. Baumlin and Tita French Baumlin, "Rogerian and Platonic dialogue in—and beyond—the writing classroom", in Teichpp. please recall again the Hovland experiments, and also the rather large number of other experiments that bring out, in one way or another, the desirability of discovering common ground if conflict is to be resolved.
For instance, a rogerian argument, there are the experiments of Blake and Mouton on how each side in a controversy ordinarily underestimates the amount of common ground that actually exists between its own position and that of its adversary, a rogerian argument.
There is all the research on the non-zero-sum game, and the need to keep the players on both sides from treating a non -zero-sum game, in which the adversaries actually share some common interests, a rogerian argument, as if it were a zero-sum game in which loss for one side always means gain for the other.
There is the so-called Rapoport Debate actually originated by Carl Rogers, apparentlyin a rogerian argument neither side is permitted to argue for its position until it has stated, to the a rogerian argument side's satisfaction, what the other side is trying to establish.
One conceivable test of this ability, a rogerian argument, and yet a difficult test, applies 'the Rapoport debate' after its inventor, Anatol Rapoport, a rogerian argument, This procedure requires disputants to repeat accurately their opponents' arguments before they present their own counter-arguments.
Intro to Rogerian Argument
, time: 9:1125 Good Rogerian Argument Topic Ideas - Penlighten
· Rogerian argument is an argument where the both sides win because of the careful approach and persuasion. It is mainly useful in psychological arguments, rather than in logical or scientific arguments. Such an argument is supposed to lead to an appropriate solution by listening to and considering both the sides · In other words, the Rogerian argument looks at the idea from different sides and does not categorically deny any of them. There is always a golden middle or common ground for different beliefs. Rogerian rhetoric is a problem-solving technique based on seeking common ground instead of conflicting. Every essay writing dilemma VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, A ROGERIAN ARGUMENT 5 T rated games have a wide range of potential content. While some parents may think that the game Batman: Arkham Asylum is too much for their child, they may think that Super Smash Brothers Brawl is a perfectly fine game. Both games in this instance are rated T for teen. The is a perfectly fine game. Both games in this instance are rated T for
No comments:
Post a Comment