I was watching a movie a while back, and while in one scene one of the characters was freaking out and talking rapidly, while the other wanted to tell them something important. The second character then started to flail around and make loud sounds. This got the attention of the first character. It was made clear later by the second character that they had used a technique called "Positive Roadblocking", because in the movie, their mum had ADHD. It was a form of regaining their mum's attention without getting frustrated, and exacerbating the situation.
It was such a cool concept, and it also prompted me to think.
I've noticed things like, when people are really asking you for something they'll trail off in their sentence, for example "oh man, it'd be really cool if I could come out this weekend, but I've just got nowhere to stay..." giving you a social queue to then say "oh, well you can crash at mine if you want."
I can't really think of any other examples right now, but I was wondering if anyone had a good list of reading material that illustrated the mechanics of conversation, and if possible listed any techniques one could use to make a social interaction more positive - I already know of techniques like not standing with arms folded or side on but front-facing, also the "yes, and" not "no, but" technique from high school drama classes when discussing creative ideas or just joking around with mates. People in Business might have more to say on this.
Finally, if anyone knows of any ways to properly debate ideas, as well as (perhaps more importantly) diffuse arguements, that woul b great. Just things like what to look for when someone is transitioning from debate into arguement... things I already assume would be a repetition of their original idea and not accepting new information, louder and slightly more frantic pitches used when speaking, etc. Just to discuss this even would be great.
Thanks guys :)
When I want to know more about something, I go to the most relevant wikipedia page I can find and start scroll-clicking relevant links. From there, the "See also"s branch out infinitely and I end up with hundreds of wikipedia tabs open ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In my experience, debates turn into arguments when they are/become too personal. It's helpful to consciously remeber the goal or catalyst of a debate when modelling sentenses, otherwise I end up accidently implying things people might find offensive through my wording, especially if I 'discover' the catalyst while speaking
"I think X wouldn't go wrong if Chad didn't Y" my intentions start out well, looking for a problem and solution, and all of a sudden I'm pointing fingers. In non-personal problems, that's okay because "I think the ball would go in more often if it were smaller" doesn't offend anyone.
I don't know of any terms for that, but I found some good reading material looking for one.
I think some people might interpret your example as dishonest, but I think it's just a way of asking something without too much pressure.