Download Rogerian Argument

A Psychologist’s View




We feel threatened.
We are often unable to consider alternative points of
view.
We defend ourselves, rather than our argument.
We do not listen to each other


We become partners, not adversaries.
Communication should point toward solving
the problem—not attacking the person or
group.



Show sympathetic understanding of the opponent.
Recognize what is valid in the opposition’s
argument.
Recognize that the persons of the opposition are
persons of good will.


Is not adversarial, seeking to refute others’
views.
Does not see the listener as wrong, someone
who now must be overwhelmed by the
evidence.



Is nonconfrontational, collegial, and friendly.
Respects others’ views and allows plural
truths.
Seeks to achieve some degree of assent rather
than convince utterly.




State the problem
Give the opponent’s position
Grant whatever validity the writer finds in that
position
Attempt to show how the opposing position
would be improved if the writer’s own position
were accepted.

Show how the problem can best be solved by
adopting your position.

Warrant: “The whole task of psychotherapy is
the task of dealing with miscommunication.”
Neurosis occurs when communication between self
and others breaks down.
 The individual is then blocked , and thus distorts the
way he communicates himself to others.

 End result: suffering
 End result: poor interpersonal communication


Claim: “…psychotherapy is good
communication, within and between men.”
Claim: “…is always therapeutic.”


Is our “…natural tendency to judge, to
evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the
statement of the person, or the other group.”
“…although the tendency to make evaluations
is common…it is very much heightened in
those situations where feelings and emotions
are deeply involved.”

“So the stronger our feelings, the more likely it is
that there will be no mutual element in the
communication.”

“Real communication occurs, and this
evaluative tendency is avoided, when we listen
with understanding.”

“It means to see the expressed idea and attitude from
the other person’s point of view, to sense how it feels
for him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to
the thing he is talking about.”




If I listen to what he can tell me.
If I understand how it seems to him.
If I see its personal meaning to him.
If I sense the emotional flavor it has for him.

Then I will release the potent forces of change in
him.

“Each person can speak up for himself after he
has first restated the ideas and feelings of the
previous speaker, accurately, and to that
speaker’s satisfaction.”

Before presenting your point of view, it is then
necessary for you to achieve the other speaker’s
frame of reference….

1. It takes courage.


We are not naturally courageous, as we run the risk
of being changed.
Risk is involved.
 Risk of change is one of the most frightening prospects
most of us can face.

2. When emotions are at their strongest, that is
the time when it is most difficult to achieve the
frame of reference of the other person or group.

Yet this is the time when it is most needed.

3. What about trying to achieve understanding
between larger groups that are geographically
remote?
Classes and races
 Ethnic or religious groups
 Nations

 “We can understand the feelings of the person who
hates us much more readily when his attitudes are
accurately described to us by a neutral third party, than
we can when he is shaking his fist at us.”


“Our civilization does not yet have enough
faith in the social sciences to utilize these
findings.”
We need to apply the same kind of vigor to
solution of problems of communication as we
have done in the realms of physical and natural
science.




Avoid the evaluative tendency.
Think empathically.
Think non-judgmentally.
Earnestly seek the truth.







Stated the problem and indicated that dialogue is
possible?
Stated at least one other point of view in a way
that would satisfy the opponent?
Been courteous to the opposition?
Grant validity to some aspects of the opponent’s
position?
Stated my position and indicated the contexts in
which I believe it to be valid?
Pointed out the ground that we share?
Shown how other positions will be strengthened
by accepting some aspects of my position?