7 Degrees
(Extracted from Aikido-L)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 08:21:35 -0700
From: Dave Liebreich
Subject: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
I heard this the other day . . .
If you face someone head-on, you are at 180 degrees.
For each 7 degrees you can reduce this angle (turn your body, reposition
your chair at the conference table, etc), communication effectiveness
increases by 13%
Since I often consider aikido as a conversation between uke and nage . . .
-Dave
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:09:04 -0700
From: David Monahan-Lesseps
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the more you are turned away
from directly facing someone, the more communication effectiveness
increases? If that is the case, I imagine that there is a limit to this
(back to back is not conducive to effective verbal communication.)
David M-L
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:18:45 -0400
From: Brian Kelley
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:07:34 +0200, Christian Reiniger wrote:
<snip>
>Not trying to be picky, but...
>Facing the same way is a 180 degree change from facing each other, and
>according to the above formula that would increase com effectiveness by
>~334%
>That *might* be fine e.g. when you're communicating with your girlfriend -
>communication while staring at each other over some table is certainly
>less "effective" than communication while cuddling. In this case. But I
>somehow can't see a similar effectiveness increase when trying that with
>your boss :)
>
>--
>Christian Reiniger
I don't think that the only alternative you have to a face-to-face meeting
with your boss is cuddling. :)
Instead of facing your boss across his/her desk, how about setting up a
situation where you can both be on the same side, facing the same
direction, looking at the same things?
Have lunch at a busy diner where you end up sitting next to each other at
the counter instead of across from each other at a table. Buy tickets to a
sporting event and spend some time sitting side by side rooting for the same
team. Go over to the office window and point out something outside to get
them to look out the window as well.
Getting people to share a common outlook or viewpoint, even a superficial
one, is the first step in reaching agreement on other things
In Conflict Mediation it is considered best to seat the two parties whose
conflict is being mediated on the same side of the table, rather than
seating them on opposite sides of the table. By putting them physically "on
the same side" rather than "opposing each other" it is easier to get them
there mentally as well. Communication is facilitated and the chances of
reaching an agreement are enhanced.
Tohei Sensei's 4th Principle of Aikido: Put yourself in the place of your
opponent.
One of the differences between Mediation and Aikido is that in Mediation
someone else (the Mediator) is putting you "in the place of your opponent"
rather than doing it yourself. But there really aren't that many differences
between the two. They are both methods of conflict resolution. The
principles are the same.
Brian Kelley
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:53:17 -0700
From: Janet Rosen
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
Brian Kelley wrote:
> In Conflict Mediation it is considered best to seat the two parties whose
> conflict is being mediated on the same side of the table, rather than
> seating them on opposite sides of the table. By putting them physically "on
> the same side" rather than "opposing each other" it is easier to get them
> there mentally as well. Communication is facilitated and the chances of
> reaching an agreement are enhanced.
What I find confusing in this is that it seems to contradict something
I'd read some years ago (I'm sorry I DON'T have a source) that said men
talking to men seem more comfortable sitting alongside, whereas women
talking to women feel more comfortable sitting face to face.
I know that I MUCH prefer face to face. I can SEE/READ body language
better that way. Sitting next to somebody is, for me, like being on the
phone.
janet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:07:56 -0400
From: Brian Kelley
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:53:17 -0700, Janet Rosen wrote:
>Brian Kelley wrote:
>> In Conflict Mediation it is considered best to seat the two parties whose
>> conflict is being mediated on the same side of the table, rather than
>> seating them on opposite sides of the table. By putting them physically
"on
>> the same side" rather than "opposing each other" it is easier to get them
>> there mentally as well. Communication is facilitated and the chances of
>> reaching an agreement are enhanced.
>
>What I find confusing in this is that it seems to contradict something
>I'd read some years ago (I'm sorry I DON'T have a source) that said men
>talking to men seem more comfortable sitting alongside, whereas women
>talking to women feel more comfortable sitting face to face.
>I know that I MUCH prefer face to face. I can SEE/READ body language
>better that way. Sitting next to somebody is, for me, like being on the
>phone.
>janet
You may be right. But, conflict resolution isn't necessarily about the
parties involved being comfortable or their individual preferences, but
about changing a conflict into an agreement.
After all, at least to some extent, it was their individual preferences and
comfort that got them to a point where they needed a Mediator in the first
place. A little discomfort may speed up the process. You know, just like a
properly applied nikkyo can show an attacker the error in her ways. :)
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:19:31 -0700
From: Janet Rosen
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
Hi, Brian. I quite see your point, and agree that in general patterns
that don't work may be part of finding the solution..... but it does not
address the question of a gender-based difference--if indeed continued
research has born out this finding--its not about "individual
preferences" and individuals getting past discomfort, but about 1/2 the
population finding communication enhanced in one mode/difficult in the
other mode and 1/2 the population in exactly the opposite situation.
We can take this offlist if you like--I'd be interested in any articles
you can point me towards.
cheers
janet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:40:51 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
> Brian Kelley wrote:
> > In Conflict Mediation it is considered best to seat the two
> parties... on the same side of the table... By putting them
> physically "on the same side" rather than "opposing each other"...
> Communication is facilitated...
In other words, tenkan.
Janet Rosen added:
> What I find confusing in this is that it seems to contradict something
> I'd read some years ago (I'm sorry I DON'T have a source) that said men
> talking to men seem more comfortable sitting alongside, whereas women
> talking to women feel more comfortable sitting face to face.
> I know that I MUCH prefer face to face. I can SEE/READ body language
> better that way. Sitting next to somebody is, for me, like being on the
> phone.
Pure examples of socialization:
Joining-the-pack for men.
Dealing with potential competition for women.
Another comment on this: often by sitting next to someone, your
peripheral vision picks up twitches and subtle body shifts that
you wouldn't notice face-to-face. Police use this technique a
lot with two-man interrogation teams: one person sits next to the
suspect, and the other sits across from the suspect. That covers
all bases.
You could try both in conflict resolution if you were trying to
solve disputes amongst a menage a trois! LOL
Al
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:37:59 -0400
From: Brian Kelley
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:19:31 -0700, Janet Rosen wrote:
>Hi, Brian. I quite see your point, and agree that in general patterns
>that don't work may be part of finding the solution..... but it does not
>address the question of a gender-based difference--if indeed continued
>research has born out this finding--its not about "individual
>preferences" and individuals getting past discomfort, but about 1/2 the
>population finding communication enhanced in one mode/difficult in the
>other mode and 1/2 the population in exactly the opposite situation.
Hi Janet,
I see your point. I don't know that there is any recognition of possible
gender based differences in general Mediation practice.
One reason could be that by the time two parties have gotten to the point
that they are in Mediation they would likely be uncomfortable sitting next
to the other person regardless of their gender or the other persons gender.
Also, regardless of gender, there is still the Mediator sitting across the
table that they can communicate with. Both men and women are going to find
themselves dealing with someone on their side of the table and someone on
the other side.
The thing that really needs to be avoided is the appearance that the
Mediator is on one persons side, so you really can't have the Mediator and
one person sitting on one side of the table and the other person sitting on
the other side of the table.
Of course there are other ways to approach it, one would be to use a round
table with the participants equally spaced around it.
>We can take this offlist if you like--I'd be interested in any articles
>you can point me towards.
Other than the Mediation course that I took, I haven't done much research
into this subject, so I'm not sure that I can help you there. I don't know
of any literature on the gender based differences that you are referring to.
As far as off-list or on, I think that it's VERY relevant to Aikido. When I
took the course, it seemed that Mediation principles were Aikido principles
re-phrased and re-packaged and applied to non-physical confrontations. In
fact, one of the books that was recomended reading was Tom Crum's "The Magic
of Conflict", a book about conflict resolution written by an Aikidoka.
For anyone that is interested in being better able to use their Aikido
off-the-mat, especially in non-physical encounters, a course in Mediation is
well worth the price of admission.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:17:25 -0700
From: Janet Rosen
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
Brian Kelley wrote:
> A J Garcia wrote:
> >Pure examples of socialization:
> >Joining-the-pack for men.
> >Dealing with potential competition for women.
>
> Sounds good, but I don't think it's that simple. Men compete with each
> other, too. And women work together to reach common goals.
I think there are many ways to interpret it; mine was dead opposite AJs: that
women by and large are more likely to have friendships where they openly
discuss what's in their hearts and minds, over a cup of coffee sitting
at a table, looking into each other's faces.
I have never seen face-to-face interaction as a competition or threat,
whereas the sideways thing makes me nervous.... Maybe I'm just dumb....
NO! I just realized as I typed that---ok maybe I AM dumb, but I'm also
from Brooklyn, and the last thing you wanted was somebody next to you
where they could slide a weapon up to you; much better to walk up to and
past each other seeing face and arm and hands (and yes turn around if
necessary afterwards...). SO when somebody asks for the time or a match
you keep turning your head FACING them as you walk past, keeping a good
distance and a good speed, and don't EVER let them get alongside you
facing the same way.
janet
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:01:03 -0500
From: "Bosman, Paul J"
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
To flip AJ's argument on its head, men do openly compete (this generally
harmless male, his Mountain Dew in jeopardy...,) so standing side by side is a
way to disarm conflict in a charged situation. Having done door-to-door
fundraising, eye contact was the number one skill, until you went door to door
in rural Minnesota, where you stood side by side and mostly looked at the
horizon. If I had to extend my theory to the female of the species, (and my
wife will tell you that all my theories regarding women are wrong,) I would say
that Janet may be typical in that she doesn't see face-to-face interaction as a
threat, and therefore communicates better in face-to-face position.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:28:22 -0400
From: Carol Shifflett
Subject: Re: 7 degrees (not of freedom)
Message text written by Aikido List
>To flip AJ's argument on its head, men do openly compete (this generally
harmless male, his Mountain Dew in jeopardy...,) so standing side by side
is a way to disarm conflict in a charged situation. Having done
door-to-door fundraising, eye contact was the number one skill, until you
went door to door in rural Minnesota, where you stood side by side and
mostly looked at the horizon.
[ * Moderator : Excluded * ]
Cheers!
Carol
------------------------------
Last updated on 13 Sep 2002