Greetings football fans (all codes inclusive),

Assuming I have interpreted what is being asked, I hope I may add
something constructive to this thread.

I believe, as a middled aged late bloomer, I have enough experience
in life to have some contribution that may lead to reflection on two
issues which have been with us, as far back as recorded history and
further, no doubt.

I have found that conflict usually arises when one allows their own
passions colour their perspective on an issue. One person sees one
viewpoint and the other, opposite. I, on the most part, am/was a
passive person and decisive, I think. Alas, I have been stubborn and
dogmatic - subsequently this only served to make me look foolish.
Understanding this, I have endevoured to alter my behaviour (no easy
task) and at least obtain some grasp of why, when I do this, I do it.

Here are my insights:
I am passionate about design (other things too)
I did have a positivistic, absolutist and ill informed view of knowledge,
a negative and dangerous view.
I was resistive to alternate ideas and different ways of viewing things, I
was always right - even when I was, which I usually am (snigger) ;-)

Although an assumption, I believe you can see where I am going. This
is not to say other people on this list have or have had similar patterns
of behaviour and view the world in such a limited way. But I have found
that by not letting my passions colour my view or interpretations I may
find a better and healthier way of creating a constructive discourse
with other people. The ways of achieving this, I have found, seem quite
obvious-although sometimes difficult to apply, see following list:
Always listen - in this case read - twice if necessary.

Try and be dispassionate in interpreting a dialogue, your interpretation
may not be the correct one, if necessary leave replying until you have
cooled off. You need to ensure you have the correct meaning.

If you are not sure of the meaning ask for clarification, no matter how
many times you need to. Meaning can be lost in words, your
interpretation can be entirely different from the intended meaning.

Always look for a compromise.

This being, primarily and academic discussion group, argument
would seem more the norm than the exception. Knowing this, one has
to accept there will be heated dialogue, BUT, as academics I believe
discussion should always be a critical discussion. Popper comes to
mind. We should always keep in mind the risk of misinterpreting
another's writing, particularly on list like this where there will be views
submitted from academics in other countries whose grasp of English
may not be as good as yours.

Here are my offerings for preventing any need for conflict resolution.
Maybe something like a statement of participation be place on the site
(like an agreement) so an understanding is made clear what
behaviour is expected of participants in this forum.

Listening - careful interpretation
Clarification of ideas and meaning
Being open to new ideas
Constructive criticism
Critical discussion
Self awareness of one's own weaknesses
Responding without passion - cool off 'man', consider alternate
meanings
Assertiveness
Consideration
Courtesy (Something we are seeing less and less of these
days-sadly)
Respect for the others position
Respect, respect, respect, we all want respect and desire affiliation
A need to be reflective
Thoughtful and a trust that another person is not deriding another. For
what purpose on a List?

Trust is another matter entirely. Putting my own thoughts into practice,
I am not entirely sure of the context in which you place the word trust.
Could you please clarify, for me Ken? (I am a bit vague in my
interpretation of your meaning, uncertain)

I hope this has proved useful, if not I apologise, I must have missed
the point. If so I will viciously go off, watch a game of rugby, have a
Cooper's Pale Ale and grimly refuse to enjoy it stubbornly. (Burp).

Kind regards to you all
Kirk Forder