KMO,
I like the point of your contention. I want to take a stab at delivering the
essence of "Everybody's" Right." The entire object of the "view" is to place
one in a better position to debate. By accepting that the other
person/persons in the debate have the following:
1. right to hold the opinion
2. are invested in the held opinion
3. holding the opinion is mistaken reality<g>
4. can hold a different opinion with "new information"
5. that they are easier to move to a new opinion if we do not provoke every
known and felt defense mechanism
6. that jointly discovering "right" is a goal
7. not allowing emotion to trigger emotion
8. changing our approach to the "changing" process
9. de-escalating the emotional level of discourse so we don't get resistance
for resistance sake and
10. understanding that we are engaged in a form of manipulation
that we can
1. accomplish our goals without triggering emotional discharges of the highest
order and
2. reduce our level of emotional commitment which blocks logical thought
3. retain other synergies by acting in concert with the others and discover
4. new previously unknown paths which allow both to retain pertinent points
and
5. hold on to "high investment" pieces of themselves.
As to the myth that "everybody is right" we know that this is impossible,
because as you pointed out so clearly in your points made about models,
sometimes there is only one best way to allocate resources?
Sticking this inside an "oxmoronic shell" seems to have an interesting effect,
don't you think?
The shift comes from taking the view, not accepting the principle.
mike