About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Barry,

Loved this article! Very useful and I had no idea there was an official name and description of that tactic, though I have tried to use it when I was interested in the outcome of a discussion. *grin*

I'll be referring back to this often until I get it right! Thanks again for taking the time to write this up!!

Joy :)

Post 1

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 6:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Joy

Naming the principle is the first step to making it second nature. When you can name it, it's easier to remember it and to apply it.

I've been using the principle -- or something very close to it -- for years outside of the context of political discussion when brainstorming and evaluating ideas with colleagues. Sometimes a discussion goes off at a tangent as we try to pursue all the implications of a new idea. At some point one of us will realise that we've gone "too far" and we always ask ourselves at that point, "Why did we choose this?" That question taps into the objective/value we were trying to achieve, enabling us to trace our steps back to an earlier point from which we can choose an alternative strategy to try to reach the same objective.

Very similiar to the Ransberger Pivot, isn't it?

Barry

PS

Welcome back!

Post 2

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a VERY helpful tool!
So who is Ransberger?

Post 3

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 11:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hang on a second! This isn't right!

The Ransberger Pivot was something I tried with a pretty girl back in '87. As I remember, we both enjoyed it in the extremis. I do, however, recall feeling quite guilty post-pivot.

Post 4

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 5:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross,

Guilt!? Are you saying you didn't deliver on your end of the "trade"? Objectivists aren't supposed to feel guilt. You're going to have to surrender your "Objectivist in Good Standing" patch.

Oversight League on Objectivist Standards

Post 5

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting that you mention guilt, Ross. I think I learned the same trick from a Catholic girl who wasn't the least bit inhibitive... ah good memories.

Post 6

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barry, once again you are right on track. Living miles away from anyone remotely Objectivist, has forced me to use methods like the Ransberger Pivot to deal with people on specific issues. Sadly, I don't think there has been anyone who has been prompted to discover the world of Objectivism through my efforts.

Post 7

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

The more I think about the challenge of spreading Objectivist and Libertarian ideas, the more I am convinced that aiming outreach efforts at adults -- although essential to stem the tide of Statisim -- is inaequate. That's why I'm developing Freoland for children. Children are far more open to Objectivist / Libertarian ideas than adults.

Post 8

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Ransberger Pivot reminds me somewhat of the martial art aikido, where a person is supposed to use his opponent's force against him. Instead of force, however, use of the Pivot entails turning an opponent's ideas against him instead of physical force. I think I've used this a time or two myself, but never knew the tactic had a name. I'll have to use it more often; it's so much fun.

Post 9

Monday, December 23, 2002 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It has in fact been used for may years under the title of "mirrorism". You take the opponents stand, and then show it up for inadequacies.

Post 10

Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with the basic idea of the Ransberger Pivot. However I think the article, to which this discussion pertains, has a couple logical errors. I mean no disrespect, but I see fallacies like this in many philosophical discussions, and I am yet to be convinced of a certain view because of this. Allow me to critique the article in order of descending logical error. (And yes, I'm a college student with a lot of time on my hands.)

line 32:
You can not "know that a totally free and unregulated market in the provision of education will very quickly lead to fantastic progress in the general standard of education" because it has not been tried, to my knowledge. To know is to have experienced. Otherwise, it is merely an assumption.

line 39:
"You could also point out that throughout the world non-government schools virtually always provide better education than government schools." This is not such an infraction of logic as much as it is unreferenced. To make such a statement without reference is again, an assumption.

Yeah, I'm just making waves. It's what I do. :)

Post 11

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very good article.

I've used similar arguments in the past, but was unaware of it being a formal communication technique. I'll definitely be conscious of using this method in the future. Anytime you push a libertarian philosophy, you can almost guarantee an opponent will counter with a "What about the children?" type question.

Post 12

Friday, December 16, 2005 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew, you gotta watch that boy, he tends to come up with the goods:

The Ransberger Pivot reminds me somewhat of the martial art aikido, where a person is supposed to use his opponent's force against him. Instead of force, however, use of the Pivot entails turning an opponent's ideas against him instead of physical force. I think I've used this a time or two myself, but never knew the tactic had a name. I'll have to use it more often; it's so much fun.
 
There are principles that are known by many names. Personally, I find that cumbersome. Mathhew's aikido example is closer. It is not the essence of aikido, but he is in the pocket.

I know it more as a tool, you call it a pivot. No need to ascribe some guy to it, he surely ripped it from elsewhere. Who the fuck is Ransberger, and how much money did he make using the pivot? Probably a little bit, a little technique will get you a long way, sometimes.

Anyway, it is a pivot, or a redirect, or a cooling period. Aikido is very different than almost all martial arts because it is Tao, it is about absorbing, equalizing. Aikido is very difficult, because it hopes to take care of the situation without hurting the opponent (attacker). Ideally, aikido would not be necessary because no one would be attacking. But, given that they will, aikido works to dissipate the inbound energy, equalize it. Not that aikido cannot be deadly, but that is as far from its purpose as can be. A skilled aikido practioner can do, for instance, a very simple thing involving a joint lock that will turn peaceful dispersal into massive damage. Aikido is a way of being, it is a philosophy.

In perfection, a pivot would not be needed. In reality, it is often needed. I believe that pivots are mainly needed because of a lack of awareness.

There are a lot of ways to apply a pivot. There is the aggressive one. In sales, this is where you are about to close. Usually, there have been a few mistakes made on the other side. It is a rapid, elegant turn.

In terms of applying pivots, if you are going to use them at all, or find yourself not so artful that you can be without them, use them often, and lightly. They are little pullbacks, little checkbacks. Mostly, they are about moments when you realized you were too much in yourself, and you have lost your client. You have been a boobie, and are not paying attention.

rde




Post 13

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 12:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have been a boobie, and are not paying attention.
Sometimes people say things not worth paying attention to.

Post 14

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In a negotiation, I pay attention to everything they say and do. It's critical to learn how to listen completely, with full attention. If you have your tools internalized, it's easier because you don't have to pretend like you're listening when you're really listening to your internal talk which is usually about what you are going to do next.  People notice when that's going on, on one level or another, and the less it has to happen, the better.  It is does not serve our purposes well to do otherwise.

Post 15

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, I thought you were calling your audience, the readers of RoR, "boobies", because they were not paying attention to what you were saying.

Post 16

Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It was the figurative "you".

Nope, always point the gun away from myself when I pull the trigger. :)


Post 17

Saturday, October 26, 2013 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I question whether these articles are useful as intended.

This ties in well with the current article on "Argue Well by Losing" from a Haacked piece linked by Jeff Landauer. I also cited Getting to Yes several times. That book (and the Harvard "Negotiations" website) were recommended by a young numismatist who was then a lawyer working for Heritage Auctions. In this discussion, Rich Engle specifically said "negotiations." I agree 100% that in business talks, these are all important and useful. Arguing ideology is totally different - as is arguing during a divorce settlement.

You can pivot all you want, but a different discussion is really happening and agreement may never evolve, even if the discussion ends with both names on the dotted lines. So, too, in daily politics. You might "win" the argument with a successful pivot or clever loss, but as soon as you walk away, that other person will regress to their norm.

When negotiating in business, all parties (presumably) have at least basically the same goals and moreover actually know and understand the differences in those differing interests.

I just went through this with a headhunter. The game is that the first person who asks about money puts the other person at a disadvantage: call or raise. She asked how much I wanted. I said $38 per hour. She replied that the job offer is $32. It was fine with me, really; I just went for the high number. But I had to convince her that I would not balk later, that the offer of $32/hr really was fine. So, I asked about benefits. Yes, they have them. OK, that's like a dollar or two per hour. Do you have a referral program? Yes. OK... Look, if I get this job, can you take me out to lunch? She laughed and said she would. We left on good terms. But we had the same goal.

In religious or political arguments the last words might not be acrimonious, but lacking a true common goal, no agreement will ever be possible.

In politics, if the zoning board wants 100 feet and you want to give up 50, you might come to some kind of agreement about easements and condemnations and tax rates and rebates and all that, but you all agree that the city is going to take your land. If you want to argue the morality of eminent domain, no losing pivot will work a miracle for you.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.