The Australian Geologist - Geological Society of Australia

etc, settings (Bok, 1978, 1982); the debate by
Sokal/Bricmont (1997) about the misuse of
science; the intractable archeological/
anthropological and pseudo-palaeo-religious
problems of the Da Vinci Code and the Opus
Dei Code; and so forth. Interpersonal
‘mis-/dis-communication’ can be quite
degenerative within companies or institutions
because of absence of good management
(I even have a couple of books on how
to handle difficult and obnoxious bosses!).
Not to forget the perhaps less important
local silly exchanges about Barry Jones’
‘spaghetti-like diagrams’ derogatively named
‘stupid’ when those more-intelligent society
members use such flow-diagrams in problem
solving. For how to argue philosophically in
science, see Ziman (2000).
Caveat. The book may well have been written
for those specialising in communication
skills, conflict resolution, interpersonal sociology,
psychology and psychiatry of aggression
and the likes, but scientists must be
aware of how to defend their ground against
unjust arguments – which are often merely
aggressive in the hope to cover up unreasonable,
illogical, manipulative positions. So, the
book is invaluable to a broader professional
sector: everyone must know how to argue
fairly, convincingly according to the classical
rhetoric rules. This means that I will ignore in
this review the questions of measuring and
quantifying (statistically, eg using factor
analysis) the authors’ results by using nearly
thirty new scales, among other purely ‘academic’
information. This is indeed a thoroughly
research book!
So, on to the book Argumentative and
Aggressive Communication!
The importance of personality trait typology
of all the ‘communicators’ involved in any
argument (pleasant or unpleasant, congenial
or aggressive) is repeatedly highlighted.
Social psychology research has revealed the
differences between argumentation and verbal
aggression. The former is positive, constructive,
beneficial, conducive to understanding;
is based on honest discussion,
advocacy, and refutation, independent-mindedness,
compliance-gaining, persuasive rhetoric,
and consequently is adoptive and flexible.
Argumentation is, thus, socially desirable
– in contrast to verbal aggression that is
unequivocally antisocial (definitely deleterious,
destructive, detrimental), furthering hostility,
revealing unsavory behavior, ie many
dysfunctional situations. Examples: fighting,
bickering, quarrelling, disdain, sarcasm, putdowns,
associated with stubbornness and
obstinateness. Concepts are offered to
understand many dark sides of relationships,
the first step to alleviating dysfunctional
environments.
Both positive and negative traits have been
identified which either result in conducive or
deleterious/destructive communication in
several social settings (eg subordinate/supervisor
setting: no verbal bullying or harassing
and physical handling allowed any longer!) as
reflected, for instance, in ten communicator
style variables.
The personality types (character traits) and
cognitive abilities both determine the styles
of communication, while the milieu of communication,
plus the mix of traits of people
involved, will influence emotions. Can one
speak of a reciprocal interplay of variables
Verbal aggression does not necessary result
in physical aggression, although the two are
often associated – the latter usually does not
occur without verbal bashing, bullying, and
intimidation.
The question as to whether the personality
traits or situational factors, or both in combination,
control the style and intensity of
communication has been thoroughly dealt
with. Genetic and biological factors are also
considered. Yet, more research is required
to change speculations into facts: many
conceptual proposals remain to be tested
and verified.
New concepts were developed, eg five
categories of traits argumentativeness; four
causes of aggression; personality predispositions
to arguing and aggression; seven beliefs
about arguing; six situational factors of individual’s
motivation to argue; independentmindedness;
new patterns of behavior; five
bases of teacher power; the importance of
communication skills in leadership and management,
decision-making, and assertiveness;
theory of achievement motivation; intensions
to argue; attitude-behavior consistency; and
conflict resolution, public speaking, listening
and empathy, among others, are suggested
as parts of both tacit and explicit communication
knowledge and soft and hard skills.
Training is absolutely required.
The psychological concepts of earlier
researchers are still accepted to a certain
degree (eg introversion, extraversion, psychoticism,
neuroticism). Two psychology
models are deliberated – the five-factor
model comprising openness, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
However, recently much more basic
data has been supplemented – but more psychological/social
enigmas of belief systems
require further investigation.
Communication studies require a holistic
(even cybernetic, systems analytical)
approach by combining the philosophies and
methodologies of several disciplines, such as
psychology (eg personality trait typology,
group dynamics, pathologies of aggression),
sociology, education, linguistics (nomenclature
and specialist-lingo analysis, precisedefinition
requirements, etc.), statistics, and
development of equations and scales, among
others.
Every book review ought to comment on the
style of presentation and thus cognitive
accessibility: (a) The language is always
clear; (b) the preface and chapter 1 offer a
good introduction; (c) every chapter has a
conclusion; (d) transitional and connective
statements are widely used to logically connect
thoughts; (e) cross-referencing of the
text’s information is good; (f) the contents
lists also the subtitles of subsections, so that
together with (g) the better-than-someother-book’s
wishy-washy index provides an
easy overview; and (h) many clearly phrased
definitions of terms and concepts are interspersed
throughout the text nullifying the
need for a glossary (usually a basic requirement).
In addition, (i) difficulties are pointed
out continually; (j) alternatives, contradictions,
pros and cons, and intractable situations
are often listed; (k) assumptions are
listed where appropriate; and (l) a broad
spectrum of social milieux of argumentation
44 | TAG December 2006