miyueno's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
PAGS343 - Conflict Resolution
I liked his theory but won't surpass Winslade & Monk.
I liked his theory but won't surpass Winslade & Monk.
claradetierra's review against another edition
5.0
A fascinating and incredibly useful reflection on our current state of "high conflict" and polarization. Through telling stories about a diverse range of conflict types, Amanda Ripley finds similarities across the unproductive conflicts that consume us, and highlights tactics to interrupt high conflict cycles and build structures for healthy conflict. A digestible take on an important topic.
nkcrabtree's review against another edition
informative
3.75
This book is a great feel-good read about how to treat others like people instead of the groups to which they belong, but, like other reviewers, I find that this is largely an oversimplification of an extremely complex issue. It's a good start, but it won't actually solve anything, unfortunately.
For example, the author stresses how important it is to have a family unit to help an individual get out of high conflict and stay out. However, that assumes the privilege of having such a family - something that many of us do not have. Additionally, the author does not contemplate the intricacies and difficulties that come from high conflict within one's own family. She discusses, at length, how the 2016 election alienated people from family members, but does not offer her thoughts as to whether the proposed model could be effective in such a situation. Additionally, there are certain extremes that likely cannot be resolved with this method - such as individuals who believe that all members of a certain group should die, etc.
All in all, the author came at the issue of conflict from a fairly privileged viewpoint and this made it difficult to take the book at more than face value.
For example, the author stresses how important it is to have a family unit to help an individual get out of high conflict and stay out. However, that assumes the privilege of having such a family - something that many of us do not have. Additionally, the author does not contemplate the intricacies and difficulties that come from high conflict within one's own family. She discusses, at length, how the 2016 election alienated people from family members, but does not offer her thoughts as to whether the proposed model could be effective in such a situation. Additionally, there are certain extremes that likely cannot be resolved with this method - such as individuals who believe that all members of a certain group should die, etc.
All in all, the author came at the issue of conflict from a fairly privileged viewpoint and this made it difficult to take the book at more than face value.
rym201's review against another edition
4.75
Excellent, and timely, book. Well written, and well researched, this book should be a assigned to all Americans!
rick2's review against another edition
3.0
It’s good… I think it’s a really decent model for talking about conflict, but I don’t think it has enough nuance to really make an impact. Essentially drawing the line into positive conflict and negative conflict is a positive step into a better level of sophistication around conflict. But it’s way too simplified. I think this model is probably helpful for talking with other people about conflict to an extent.
But the huge but here is that I don’t see someone reading this book and fundamentally changing the way that they interact with conflict.
First, enough with the jargon, the author mentions the word “understory“ nearly every chapter. Fire bringer, and other such nonsense words are popular and annoying. Sprinkled in the book like rat turds that you can discover while reading. The jargon detracts from the book and essentially creates its own little world where the author can solve the problems related to that but they don’t seem too heavily tied to the world I live in.
Second, The author picks her examples in a really weird way. We end up spending a lot of time with this guy who is a lawyer and runs for city Council and does a terrible job. But when she’s talking about global or larger conflicts we seem to skim over the details. Pointing to a few notable similarities and ignoring the details.
I think at the core of this book is a plea to treat other people with more humanity. Listening to them, seeing them for the complex humans if they really are. However the book falls short of really helping one to bridge that gap beyond consistently telling you to listen better
But the huge but here is that I don’t see someone reading this book and fundamentally changing the way that they interact with conflict.
First, enough with the jargon, the author mentions the word “understory“ nearly every chapter. Fire bringer, and other such nonsense words are popular and annoying. Sprinkled in the book like rat turds that you can discover while reading. The jargon detracts from the book and essentially creates its own little world where the author can solve the problems related to that but they don’t seem too heavily tied to the world I live in.
Second, The author picks her examples in a really weird way. We end up spending a lot of time with this guy who is a lawyer and runs for city Council and does a terrible job. But when she’s talking about global or larger conflicts we seem to skim over the details. Pointing to a few notable similarities and ignoring the details.
I think at the core of this book is a plea to treat other people with more humanity. Listening to them, seeing them for the complex humans if they really are. However the book falls short of really helping one to bridge that gap beyond consistently telling you to listen better