Update content for 'The point of dissent'

content/en/concepts/cognitive_biases.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ categories = [
     "learning"
 ]
 tags = [
-    "thinking", "psychology", "decision-making", "meta-cognition"
+    "thinking", "psychology", "decision-making", "meta-cognition", "critical thinking", "reflection"
 ]
 uuid="d0ce5702-9059-419c-abbf-0d3e501fbaf7"
 aliases=["d0ce5702-9059-419c-abbf-0d3e501fbaf7"]

content/en/practices/the_point_of_dissent.md

@@ -2,15 +2,20 @@
 title = "Find the source of dissent"
 author = "Stijn Dejongh"
 problem = "Someone disagrees with you, and you have difficulties understanding why"
-description = "Build up your argument one step at a time, and see where your opinions differ"
+description = "Employ a method for identifying the root cause of disagreements by breaking down arguments into premises and consequences, promoting understanding and constructive dialogue."
+summary = """
+Discover the root cause of disagreements by breaking down arguments step by step. 
+This pattern helps you understand differing perspectives, fostering better communication and more productive discussions.
+"""
 categories = [
     "communication",
 ]
 tags = [
-    "debate", "conflict"
+    "debate", "conflict resolution", "understanding", "disagreement", "bias", "constructive dialogue", "critical thinking"
 ]
 uuid="579ac780-4588-4896-9203-901e112f7498"
 aliases=["579ac780-4588-4896-9203-901e112f7498"]
+outputs = ['html', 'json']
 ammerse = [
   {name = "agile", delta = "0.5"},
   {name = "minimal", delta = "0"},
@@ -22,8 +27,13 @@ ammerse = [
 ]
 pubdate="2023-09-10"
 image = "practices/differences_of_opinion_cover.webp"
-related_concepts = ["7dfd0b45-b8e2-4ef9-90b4-e5316397f55b"]
+related_concepts = ["7dfd0b45-b8e2-4ef9-90b4-e5316397f55b", "d0ce5702-9059-419c-abbf-0d3e501fbaf7"]
 related_practices = ["843eb99c-3d89-4333-bb0f-d8efc4916b49"]
+further_exploration = [
+  { type="biblio", id="63d02dd1-135f-4e3e-af7b-b2e6f4dbb5e3"},
+  { type="biblio", id="628b3d06-4524-4ce1-9044-c595b2a492f1"},
+  { type="biblio", id="b6da416a-00a2-46dd-a211-fb4d4f0382e3"}
+]
 +++
 
 ## Context
@@ -40,6 +50,32 @@ You want to understand the point of view of your partner, and have them understa
 * Avoid damage to your relationship with your conversational partner.
 * Open up a stalled conversation, allowing both parties to alter their opinion.
 
+## Solution
+
+Consider your conversation as a series of distinct steps, where each party chains together arguments to come to a conclusion.
+The hope is that by forming a sensible story, you can convince the other party.   
+To simplify our reasoning, we will group most of the arguments that people make while discussing as either being:
+
+* **premises, submitting evidence:** You refer to something you consider a fact. This can be an article, a scientific journal, a series of events
+  that took place, a measurement, a statistic, or any other verifiable piece of information.
+* **identifying consequences:** Based on the facts, you state what is likely to happen. These can either be logical consequences, or intuitive ones.
+
+When disagreeing with someone, retrace your conversation step by step. You and your partner(s) check whether you are on the same page.
+Make sure you understand each other's meaning and intent fully, avoiding jargon if you can[^1]. At some point, you will discover a factoid or
+consequence that you do not both consider factual or relevant to the discussion.
+**You have now discovered the root of your dissent**.
+
+Rather than furthering your disagreement on your final conclusion, stick to discussing your opinions of the point where your reasoning diverges.  
+If you can not come to an agreement here, there is no sense in discussing things further down the conversational chain.
+You might still end up in disagreement, but at least you have an understanding of **why** you disagree.
+This proves to be invaluable in identifying alternatives or compromises.
+
+{{<image
+  src="/images/practices/example_differences_of_opinion.png"  
+  alt="Flowchart illustrating a difference of opinion"
+  caption="Flowchart illustrating differences of opinion"
+  size="40%">}}
+
 ## Contextual forces
 
 ### Enablers
@@ -60,46 +96,45 @@ The following factors prevent effective application of the practice:
 * Your partner(s) are not willing to understand your point of view.
 * You are not willing to understand the point of view of your partner(s).
 
-## Solution
+## Rationale
 
-Consider your conversation as a series of distinct steps, where each party chains together arguments to come to a conclusion.
-The hope is that by forming a sensible story, you can convince the other party.   
-To simplify our reasoning, we will group most of the arguments that people make while discussing as either being:
+* When in a discussion, it is more constructive to leave tempers outside.
+* Calmly going through your arguments step-by-step helps avoid personal biases or egos come into play.
 
-* **premises, submitting evidence:** You refer to something you consider a fact. This can be an article, a scientific journal, a series of events
-  that took place, a measurement, a statistic, or any other verifiable piece of information.
-* **identifying consequences:** Based on the facts, you state what is likely to happen. These can either be logical consequences, or intuitive ones.
+## Application
 
-{{<image
-src="/images/practices/example_differences_of_opinion.png"  
-alt="Flowchart illustrating a difference of opinion"
-caption="Flowchart illustrating differences of opinion" >}}
+### Consequences
 
-When disagreeing with someone, retrace your conversation step by step. You and your partner(s) check whether you are on the same page.
-Make sure you understand each other's meaning and intent fully, avoiding jargon if you can[^1]. At some point, you will discover a factoid or 
-consequence that you do not both consider factual or relevant to the discussion.
-**You have now discovered the root of your dissent**.
+Applying this pattern can significantly improve the quality of discussions and reduce the likelihood of conflict escalation. By focusing on the root
+cause of a disagreement rather than debating the conclusions, participants can better understand each other's perspectives. This often leads to more
+constructive conversations and a higher likelihood of finding common ground or reaching a compromise.
+However, there are some potential downsides:
 
-Rather than furthering your disagreement on your final conclusion, stick to discussing your opinions of the point where your reasoning diverges.  
-If you can not come to an agreement here, there is no sense in discussing things further down the conversational chain.
-You might still end up in disagreement, but at least you have an understanding of **why** you disagree.
-This proves to be invaluable in identifying alternatives or compromises.
+* **Time-Consuming:** Breaking down arguments step by step can be time-consuming, especially in complex discussions. This might frustrate
+  individuals who prefer quick resolutions or have limited patience for in-depth analysis.
+* **Overemphasis on Logic:** The approach relies heavily on logical reasoning and factual evidence. In situations where emotions, values, or
+  subjective experiences are the primary drivers of disagreement, this method may not fully address the underlying issues.
+* **Potential for Stalemate:** If both parties are deeply entrenched in their views and unwilling to budge on the identified point of
+  divergence, the conversation could reach a stalemate, leading to frustration without resolution.
+* **Perceived Rigidity:** Some people might perceive the step-by-step analysis as overly rigid or pedantic, particularly if they are not
+  accustomed to structured argumentation. This could lead to resistance or disengagement from the conversation.
 
-## Rationale
+### Mitigation strategies
 
-* When in a discussion, it is more constructive to leave tempers outside.
-* Calmly going through your arguments step-by-step helps avoid personal biases or egos come into play.
+To mitigate the potential negative consequences of this approach, consider the following strategies:
 
-## Further Exploration
+* **Balance Structure with Flexibility:** While it’s important to follow the steps to identify the root of disagreement, be mindful of the
+  conversation's flow. If one party feels overwhelmed or frustrated by the process, allow for more flexibility and encourage them to express their
+  concerns openly.
+* **Acknowledge Emotional Factors:** Recognize that not all disagreements are purely logical. If emotions, values, or personal experiences
+  are at play, make space for these factors in the discussion. Acknowledging and validating these aspects can help maintain a balanced conversation.
+* **Set Expectations:** Before diving into the step-by-step analysis, set expectations with your conversational partner(s) about the process.
+  Explain the benefits of this method and ensure they are on board with the approach. This can help prevent resistance or misunderstandings.
+* **Know When to Pause:** If the conversation reaches a stalemate or becomes too heated, it might be best to pause and revisit the discussion
+  later. This allows all parties to reflect on the conversation and return with a clearer mind.
 
-* {{<reference author="Squirrel, D. & Fredrick, J."
-  year="2022"
-  title="Agile Conversations: Transform Your Conversations, Transform Your Culture"
-  isbn="1942788975"
-  publisher="IT Revolution Press"
-  link="https://agileconversations.com" >}}
+By applying these mitigation strategies, you can maximize the benefits of this pattern while minimizing potential drawbacks, leading to more productive and meaningful discussions.
 
----
 
-[^1]: In my experiences, a lot of disagreements are semantic in nature. This means that you are in agreement of what happened, and what is to be
+[^1]: In my experience, a lot of disagreements are semantic in nature. This means that you are in agreement of what happened, and what is to be
 done, but you are fighting over the meaning of a word.