The initials and descriptions of people engaged in the Mineral Rights Conversation
P. G., journalist, 1/20/23, 10 am, office.
M. B., cousin, 1/21/23, 8 pm, living room.
The Value of the Conversation to Teamwork
Fierce conversations are essential for teamwork, allowing discussants to gain new and valuable knowledge. This type of dialogue is not necessary to conduct a dispute and identify a kind of winner in it, thereby devaluing another person’s opinions. In this case, expressing their views and listening to the interlocutor, jointly exploring the issue’s essence, is crucial. If the interlocutor does not allow the other person to answer the question alone, the discussion will be incomplete and will not contribute to self-education. Thus, fierce conversations focus on the question itself and its study rather than on the correctness or incorrect opinions of the opponent, and it helps people together to find the way to the truth.
Experience with the Conversations
My experience of asking questions was quite interesting, as the most challenging task was to become an interlocutor when trying to focus on a single opinion. Since the essence of fierce conversations is not an aggressive discussion but the achievement of self-knowledge and recognition of the question, it was necessary to regularly return to questions about Mineral Rights. For instance, when I was talking to the journalist, the situation was more straightforward, as his professional skills allowed him to concentrate and not engage in his opinions. During a conversation with my cousin in a pleasant home atmosphere, he found it difficult to contain his emotions, so he had to stop the monologue periodically. It is an essential task for a specialist to ask questions to create a whole dialogue with the interlocutor, and for me, it was an interesting experience.
I was interested in the personalities of both interlocutors in discussing the mining issue, and I had the opportunity to talk to two completely different people with different opinions. The journalist was attractive, as his profession is associated with constant conversations. Therefore, the experience of conducting negotiations with him was exciting and valuable from a professional point of view. However, when talking to a cousin, the dialogue was more relaxed, and the interviewer’s reaction to questions may have been varied, which helps analyze the psychology of human behavior during discussions. In this way, the two interviewees could create two different images in fierce conversations, which allowed additional control over the answers to questions about Mineral Rights. Both personalities are unique professionals in a particular field, so their opinions and characters are of interest as the discussion becomes more diverse.
As mentioned above, the participants of the discussion were different people, so they expressed their opinions and conducted the conversation specifically. For example, in the case of a journalist, more attention was paid to solving the problem and its essence. The opponent was really interested not only in expressing his opinion but also in broadening his horizons through reflection. He tried to take the opposite view and think better about Mineral Rights. In turn, the cousin was more expressive in his answers and often focused on the correctness of his statements. This allowed a better understanding of the interlocutor’s feelings about the issue but prevented discussion and the implementation of the various ideas for a solution. The excessive emotionality of the teenage cousin was a surprise during the conversation, as the person was quite emotional about the problem and could not concentrate on my questions. This experience was unusual, but it taught us to deal with different manifestations of human emotion and to direct the conversation in the right direction.