Let's say you complain to a waiter: "The meat was not cooked enough. It should still be red" - the chef will probably not be wise to this criticism. The Audience Council recently wrote in the acid test of the "Media Club": "The Council would like to see more critical questions and suggests loosening the reins a little so that more discussions can arise among the guests." ( persoenlich.com reported ).
Strange. The opposite is being demanded: on the saudi arabia rcs data one hand, moderation with tight reins (critical questions) and at the same time the moderator should loosen the reins more? How can we make sense of this formulation? The demands contradict each other.
Communication processes involve a number of contradictions that need to be reconciled. I'm thinking of negotiations. The rule here is that the negotiator is tough on the issue and soft on the person. This is known as the "Harvard Principle": "I understand you, but I don't agree with what you're saying."