Interpersonal negotiating

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:04 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Interpersonal negotiating

Post by Priest_of_Seitan » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:23 am

I did a lot of info stall communication at various events, i am a confrontative person, I like to start face to face conversations about veganism. I am always interested of the most effective way. I do not say I am exceptionally super awesome at it, but I had my tiny success stories. I started to summarize my experiences and I think it would be interesting if you can criticise my path of thinking.

I do know this uniform way of communication is not omnipotent, every discussion was different but I think it is good theoretical model for showing my attitudes and tools. Maybe these kind of things only work in my socio-economic environment, maybe it is hugely biased by my own personality.

-Style of speaking
I am constantly changing my style to my partner, and I am using different approach on a school event or a Punk Music Festival or in a tent of a Sustainability Show. But I think it is always important to keep a cool, calm, self controlled manner. Anger even if it is rational in certain situation, it is feeding the trolls, but more important it is triggering self-defence, creating a mind state which makes a the changes impossible. Even I use emotional arguing I do it calm even in a computed manner.

-It is ok not to know something
It is way much better to be factual and missing some stuffs out, rather then making it up. Do not invent numbers, percentages, titles, names, unless you can prove it on the spot. Admit if you do not know things but show some expertise in one topic If you are better at cooking, state is, if you learnt a lot about nutrition, so it so. Prepare your materials, and if you go somewhere without your vegan argument armoury, be sure where can be found your source of data.

Also, I am an atheist but I have to learnt about christian dogmas to defuse some arguments. When a person talk a lot about medical science or environmental issues they tend have knowledgeable on that field, but religious smug quite often baseless - as I experienced. So some hard biblical fact with source is extremely effective. If you are able only to name the book where some of your source is it is usually surprising.

-Every little helps
I am obsessed with body language, I am a keen observer and I always re-evaluating my approach and my style. I quite sometimes let them win in a side question or in insignificant topics. Petty wins could open up self defence. I try not to talk over the table, but I like to orient to the corner

-Do not expect success
I talked couple of hundreds of people so far, and once or twice experienced immediate change. And even in those cases I cannot be sure whether it was really happening. But I do know the interpersonal communication work. Rather than converting and wanting to be victorious I imagine myself as I cold-bloodedly push small infected needles under their skin. :D It is like a splinter after woodworking, it always hurts on the next day.

I don't use food shaming, I refuse to call eggs periods, I don't use alienating expressions (corpse instead of meat, rotten milk for cheese and so on). I do use positive synonyms tho, I reluctantly call the cow's milk as cow's mother milk, etc.

-Do not let yourself to burn out.
If you have enough take a break, change roles, if it is multiday event have a free day, and so on. Do not over-exhaust yourself, try to heal mid-combat. Do not criticise each other on the spot or when you are tired, but do have a feedback to each other in the day after.

-stage approach
I think there are certain way as people accepting new ideas and different stages calls for different tools. On the next image I collected ideas. In "" there is an according stage of grieve, as a good indicator of the client's mental state regarding the topic. Different people step in on different level, for example me never been at active resistance with veganism. I stepped in somewhere at the anger stage.

The progress is not one-way, during these interaction the problem was never my reasons but my arguments. With these tools usually I am able to step one step in an occasions. I barely ever tried to make two steps, it is too much.


Non-emotional on emotionally ambiguous people can be guided by logic, and I think the active resistance can be broke with emotions, meanwhile the reintegration needs a lot of sympathy.

i refer myself as an ethical vegan, but I have to admit the ethical reasoning only works when you have the chance for a rational debate. And for that mutual respect is the most important precondition. So the interdisciplinary reasoning I mean the environmental, health issues and I use them as an argument even when I don't think is too important. They are simply too effective not to use them. later on, you can debunk these.

Under social norming I mean the "you are not a monster" style of arguments.

Under challenging I mean the try outs, the Veganuary, the 30 days vegan programs, and so on.

Well this is it. I am eagerly waiting for your inputs.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests