Repeat, agree, add

I want to share one of my favorite exercises: «Repeat, agree, complete» — an amazing way to discuss difficult issues together. We developed this exercise, this method, together with my wife, Marina Smirnova, and we often practice it. Firstly, we just love this exercise and often just play it when we walk: we take any difficult question, we start: “I heard you said …” — and go! Secondly, we make sure to use it when real, difficult disagreements arise between us. Without him — not a single question, because with him — more correctly. calmer, easier.

Limits of application — in dealing with wild and aggressive people, this approach is not suitable. Repeat, agree, add — a format for discussing controversial, difficult issues both in the family and between employees at work — in any case, to communicate with decent people who are interested in collaborative relations. I want to believe that such people surround you. In addition, this is one of the excellent Distance exercises that develops the ability to listen to the interlocutor.

Procedure

The first is to determine the subject of disagreement. To do this, the interlocutor must formulate his thesis somehow clearly so that it is one thesis and that it can be repeated. If you fully agree with this thesis, then smile and agree. If you don’t quite agree, then no, don’t mind! First, formulate your thesis that opposes the thesis of the interlocutor. It is not good and illiterate to start a discussion and object to the interlocutor without defining your own position, it usually only gives rise to bickering and does not lead to anything general and reasonable. So, formulate your thesis and determine the subject of disagreement.

Let’s practice. 1. If you say: “Orange is round”, and the interlocutor: “Pineapple is delicious”, do you have something to discuss? 2. If your thesis is: “The WE family is the family to which all families should strive,” and the interlocutor’s thesis is: “The family I + I is the consideration of two opinions and the division of areas of responsibility,” is the subject of disagreement clear? 3. And if you are sure that the family should have partnerships on an equal footing, and the interlocutor is for the fact that the family should have the head of the family — is there a subject of disagreement in this possible discussion? Answers at the end of the article.

Now that the subject of disagreement is defined, repeat the thesis of the interlocutor as verbatim as possible.

“I heard you say that parents raise their children, and first of all by their example.” (If the interlocutor believes that he did not mean this, he should repeat his thought more simply and clearly).

Agree with what you think is reasonable in this statement. Here it is better to speak not verbatim, but in your own words.

«I agree that the influence of parents on children can be very strong, and the example of parents is very important for children.» (In this statement, the position of the interlocutor is slightly reformulated, and if the interlocutor believes that this has distorted his opinion, he can and should say so)

Add, supplement what, in your opinion, is missing in this vision. Express your opinion, but not separately and in general, but in relation to what was said by the interlocutor, complementing his position and view.

“I would like to add that children are influenced not only by their parents. They are influenced, no less seriously, by their classmates at school, and their values ​​can be very different from the values ​​accepted in the family, children are also affected by the TV that children watch for several hours at a time. In this situation, relying only on the fact that the example of parents will do everything in raising children is wrong.

Now the interlocutor does the same.

Repeat the thesis of the interlocutor as verbatim as possible.

“I heard that children are strongly influenced not only by their parents by their example, but also by classmates and TV, and you think that in such a situation it’s not enough to act by your own example.”