kill fire
Enormous Midget
For those of you who have never heard of E-Prime, or don't know much about it, it's essentially a form of the English language that does not use the verb "to be." Wikipedia has an article on it here if you want to learn more about it.
I think it can greatly reduce conflict and help with understanding other peoples arguments.
For example, I remember two having a conversation about the first Lord of the Rings movie a while ago. One of them said "Lord of the Rings was the greatest movie ever." The other responded "Nuh-uh Lord of the Rings sucked." It resulted in a long argument and both walked away angry with each other. I think that if they had instead said "I enjoyed the first Lord of the Rings movie" and "I didn't care for it myself" the whole conflict could have been avoided, as it stops being an argument for which statement is true, and becomes instead a simple statement of opinions.
I think that using E-Prime, or at least using the verb "to be" less , would benefit people in off-topic. I often see people simply asserting that their ideas are the truth. For example, I commonly observe people saying "so and so is morally acceptable." Then, someone with an opposing view will say "No, so and so is not morally acceptable." I think this causes conflict, because first of all, it seems to imply that one of them knows for a fact that their argument is true, and the other as well knows for a fact that their argument is true, when neither person can empirically prove their point. If they could, I would think that neither person would need to argue.
Secondly, I think that it makes it difficult for people to see the other person's point of view. After all, if your argument is true, then that means the other person either cannot understand the truth (they are stupid), cannot accept the truth (they are crazy), or they know the truth but spread lies (they are evil). I think that this makes it very difficult to understand other people's ideas, because if you present your arguments as truth, then to me at least it logically follows that the other person must be wrong or lying. I think that if we instead present our ideas as opinions, it will be much easier to think of them as opinions.
I think that if we speak in E-Prime, conversations might become an exchange of ideas and opinions instead being a battle over which person is "right" and which person is "wrong." I also think our discussions will be more productive and more civil if we just say "I disagree with so and so" or "I agree with so and so" instead of "so and so is right" or "so and so is wrong."
Well, I suppose I've rambled on long enough, just as an experiment, try to present things in E-Prime for one day and note the differences in conversation.
I think it can greatly reduce conflict and help with understanding other peoples arguments.
For example, I remember two having a conversation about the first Lord of the Rings movie a while ago. One of them said "Lord of the Rings was the greatest movie ever." The other responded "Nuh-uh Lord of the Rings sucked." It resulted in a long argument and both walked away angry with each other. I think that if they had instead said "I enjoyed the first Lord of the Rings movie" and "I didn't care for it myself" the whole conflict could have been avoided, as it stops being an argument for which statement is true, and becomes instead a simple statement of opinions.
I think that using E-Prime, or at least using the verb "to be" less , would benefit people in off-topic. I often see people simply asserting that their ideas are the truth. For example, I commonly observe people saying "so and so is morally acceptable." Then, someone with an opposing view will say "No, so and so is not morally acceptable." I think this causes conflict, because first of all, it seems to imply that one of them knows for a fact that their argument is true, and the other as well knows for a fact that their argument is true, when neither person can empirically prove their point. If they could, I would think that neither person would need to argue.
Secondly, I think that it makes it difficult for people to see the other person's point of view. After all, if your argument is true, then that means the other person either cannot understand the truth (they are stupid), cannot accept the truth (they are crazy), or they know the truth but spread lies (they are evil). I think that this makes it very difficult to understand other people's ideas, because if you present your arguments as truth, then to me at least it logically follows that the other person must be wrong or lying. I think that if we instead present our ideas as opinions, it will be much easier to think of them as opinions.
I think that if we speak in E-Prime, conversations might become an exchange of ideas and opinions instead being a battle over which person is "right" and which person is "wrong." I also think our discussions will be more productive and more civil if we just say "I disagree with so and so" or "I agree with so and so" instead of "so and so is right" or "so and so is wrong."
Well, I suppose I've rambled on long enough, just as an experiment, try to present things in E-Prime for one day and note the differences in conversation.
