CarderPlanet
Professional
- Messages
- 2,552
- Reaction score
- 710
- Points
- 83
? Several principles that will help resolve conflicts and communicate without violating personal boundaries and concessions to someone else's opinion.
One incident from the life of Immanuel Kant can tell you something about how to communicate with other people without violating personal boundaries. The German philosopher, who almost never left the walls of his native Königsberg, adhered to such a strict daily routine that neighbors could check their watches. But one day, returning from his daily walk, Kant saw the carriage of a certain count near his house, who, on the occasion of good weather, invited the philosopher to ride with him in a convertible.
Out of politeness, Kant accepted the invitation, but soon regretted it - annoyed, he was able to return home only by 10 o'clock in the evening (a complete disaster!). Since then, one more thing has appeared in his set of rules, which he called maxims: never ride in a wheelchair that is not hired by him and not at his disposal, and never ride with anyone.
When someone oversteps our personal boundaries - for example, asks us to do something we don't want to do - we can respond in three ways.
First, you can give in. This is exactly what Kant did, succumbing to the persuasion of the count. Such a reaction often causes passive aggression: outwardly everything may look well, but in reality we are unhappy that we gave up our own desires.
The second way is to show aggression. Kant would have done this if he had accused the count of ruining his day and ruining all his plans. The second reaction differs from the first in that you show your real feelings, and do not hide them. But nothing good comes out of this: aggression can only cause reciprocal aggression or concession, which will further alienate you from the interlocutor.
Illustration by Laurent Moreau for the book "Professor Kant's Crazy Day"
There is a third way, which is called assertive communication (from the English assert - to insist on one's own, to defend one's rights). Assertiveness is independence from other people's judgments, the willingness to take responsibility for oneself and one's desires and defend them in the face of others. Here you are no longer a predator or a prey, but an independent person who follows the basic principle of Gestalt psychology:
Kant understood this well when he formulated his categorical imperative - the rule according to which people can be treated only as ends, but not means. The more popular wording of this rule is, "Treat other people the way you want them to treat you." The next time, in response to an invitation to ride in a wheelchair, he could simply refuse politely. But why did he give in to someone else's request the first time?
The fact is that passive and aggressive reactions are much simpler and more primitive - they are always at hand, even when we have not had time to think about anything yet. This is how the "fight or flight" system, described by physiologist Walter B. Kennon in the 1930s, works. These are reactions formed in us by billions of years of evolution. The reptile inside of us is ready to react in this way to any little thing. Sometimes this is useful, but more often it leads to unnecessary stress and ruins relationships with people close to us.
Assertive behavior is much more complex: it requires the ability to listen to yourself and respect the personal boundaries of the interlocutor. It's not just the ability to say “no” - perhaps with this “no” you are unknowingly trying to hurt another person. If this "no" sounds polite, sincere and understanding, it will not cause a negative reaction. Assertiveness is when you hear someone else's request, understand it and let the interlocutor know about it. You see, but not necessarily ready to satisfy her.
Detail, Courtship, George Cochran Lambdin, 1864-65
Our everyday communication is made up of many microcommunications, which we often do not even pay attention to. But our body does it. A colleague's sidelong glance, the slightest awkwardness and inattention on the other side can cause an instant stressful reaction: heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, hands begin to sweat slightly, and the ability to reason and soberly ponder what is happening is lost.
Anxiety is insidious precisely because we often choose not to notice it.
French clinical psychiatrist David Servan-Schreiber in the book “Antistress. How to beat stress, anxiety and depression without medication and psychoanalysis ”describes his conversation with the operator of the airline he called to confirm his ticket. When, after 20 minutes of waiting, the girl told him that she could not find a ticket, he nervously exclaimed: “What do you mean - you can't? Wow! Why are you even needed if you can't find anything?"
After a few seconds, he regretted what he had said, but it seemed to him too late to apologize. Fortunately, the girl responded like a true expert in assertive communication: "Monsieur, when you raise your voice, I find it difficult to concentrate to help you." She presented the interlocutor with a great opportunity to apologize without losing face. If she responded with aggression to aggression, the mood of both would be spoiled for a long time.
The four horsemen of the communicative apocalypse
Psychology professor John Gottman, best known for his work on family relationships, identifies four types of behavior that are guaranteed to lead to conflict and break even the strongest ties. He called them "the four horsemen of the Apocalypse." When you walk one of these four paths, it will be very difficult for your partner not to respond with aggression. But each of these paths has its own alternative.
Fight, Adrian Ostede, 1637
The first rider is criticism. We begin to blame the interlocutor and point out his negative traits: for example, when your friend is late for a meeting, you reproach him for being selfish. Instead of criticism, it is better to express regret that the situation has developed in this way, and ask him not to be late anymore. Regret speaks of your feelings, which are very difficult to dispute, while criticism can always be disagreed with.
The second rider is neglect. A sarcastic, condescending, or derisive reaction makes us feel worthless and powerless. An example is the dialogue between spouses that took place in Gottman's "The Love Lab":
Fred: Did you take my things from the dry cleaner?
Ingrid: "You took my things!" Would you like to pick it up yourself? What am I, a housekeeper?
Fred: Of course not. If you were a housekeeper, the house would be clean ...
According to Gottman's research, neglect is the most important factor in divorce. It not only destroys healthy relationships, but also weakens the immune system: spouses who treat each other with disdain are an order of magnitude more likely to suffer from diseases that are transmitted by an infectious route.
The third horseman is defense. We all tend to defend ourselves against reproaches that seem unfair to us. But this reaction makes the boyfriend think his feelings are not being taken seriously. It may seem to the interlocutor that the blame for what happened is on him. Rather than being defensive right away, let your partner know that you care about their feelings - even if you don't feel guilty or regretful about it. If it seems to you that the interlocutor is making an elephant out of a fly, think about why he is doing it.
Photo by Matrin Parr
The fourth horseman is ignorance. You are trying to show that the conflict is sucked from the finger and not pay attention to it - calmly sip coffee or read the newspaper while you are being challenged. But the problem will go nowhere from this: most likely, the partner will try to convey his feelings to you by shouting or resorting to open aggression.
Even if the cause of the conflict is really minor, it is better to let your partner know that you have listened to him, rather than just brush it off. Ignoring will not make his feelings less real and painful - most likely, they will only intensify.
The same is true for your own feelings. It is better not to swallow the offense, but to express it openly. If you do this delicately enough, the problem may be resolved. If you remain silent, everything will remain in place.
Fragment of the painting "Pilgrim", Rene Magritte, 1966
The principles of meaningful communication are extremely simple and intuitive. We all know what attitude towards ourselves causes our sympathy and appreciation. But we find it very difficult to comply with Kant's categorical imperative and treat others the way we would like others to treat us. Often we behave passively, losing independence, or trying to manipulate others for our own benefit.
According to the teachings of Kant, the morality of any deed is its quality, not the result.
Our behavior is moral when we are able to defend our personal boundaries and respect the boundaries of others. Writers on popular psychology often reduce communication skills to manipulating others - for example, “winning friends and influencing people” by making the right impression on them. But full-fledged communication is not limited to the ability to please.
To truly understand each other, you need to learn to recognize your own feelings and convey them to the other person. The converse is also true: we must respect the feelings of others and recognize their importance, even if we disagree with them.
These are all skills that our emotional intelligence possesses, and they are much more important than purely intellectual skills. After all, our everyday well-being is much more dependent on the ability to deal with our emotions and desires than on the ability to correctly solve logical problems.
One incident from the life of Immanuel Kant can tell you something about how to communicate with other people without violating personal boundaries. The German philosopher, who almost never left the walls of his native Königsberg, adhered to such a strict daily routine that neighbors could check their watches. But one day, returning from his daily walk, Kant saw the carriage of a certain count near his house, who, on the occasion of good weather, invited the philosopher to ride with him in a convertible.
Out of politeness, Kant accepted the invitation, but soon regretted it - annoyed, he was able to return home only by 10 o'clock in the evening (a complete disaster!). Since then, one more thing has appeared in his set of rules, which he called maxims: never ride in a wheelchair that is not hired by him and not at his disposal, and never ride with anyone.
When someone oversteps our personal boundaries - for example, asks us to do something we don't want to do - we can respond in three ways.
First, you can give in. This is exactly what Kant did, succumbing to the persuasion of the count. Such a reaction often causes passive aggression: outwardly everything may look well, but in reality we are unhappy that we gave up our own desires.
The second way is to show aggression. Kant would have done this if he had accused the count of ruining his day and ruining all his plans. The second reaction differs from the first in that you show your real feelings, and do not hide them. But nothing good comes out of this: aggression can only cause reciprocal aggression or concession, which will further alienate you from the interlocutor.
Illustration by Laurent Moreau for the book "Professor Kant's Crazy Day"
There is a third way, which is called assertive communication (from the English assert - to insist on one's own, to defend one's rights). Assertiveness is independence from other people's judgments, the willingness to take responsibility for oneself and one's desires and defend them in the face of others. Here you are no longer a predator or a prey, but an independent person who follows the basic principle of Gestalt psychology:
Kant understood this well when he formulated his categorical imperative - the rule according to which people can be treated only as ends, but not means. The more popular wording of this rule is, "Treat other people the way you want them to treat you." The next time, in response to an invitation to ride in a wheelchair, he could simply refuse politely. But why did he give in to someone else's request the first time?
The fact is that passive and aggressive reactions are much simpler and more primitive - they are always at hand, even when we have not had time to think about anything yet. This is how the "fight or flight" system, described by physiologist Walter B. Kennon in the 1930s, works. These are reactions formed in us by billions of years of evolution. The reptile inside of us is ready to react in this way to any little thing. Sometimes this is useful, but more often it leads to unnecessary stress and ruins relationships with people close to us.
Assertive behavior is much more complex: it requires the ability to listen to yourself and respect the personal boundaries of the interlocutor. It's not just the ability to say “no” - perhaps with this “no” you are unknowingly trying to hurt another person. If this "no" sounds polite, sincere and understanding, it will not cause a negative reaction. Assertiveness is when you hear someone else's request, understand it and let the interlocutor know about it. You see, but not necessarily ready to satisfy her.
Detail, Courtship, George Cochran Lambdin, 1864-65
Our everyday communication is made up of many microcommunications, which we often do not even pay attention to. But our body does it. A colleague's sidelong glance, the slightest awkwardness and inattention on the other side can cause an instant stressful reaction: heart rate increases, blood pressure rises, hands begin to sweat slightly, and the ability to reason and soberly ponder what is happening is lost.
Anxiety is insidious precisely because we often choose not to notice it.
French clinical psychiatrist David Servan-Schreiber in the book “Antistress. How to beat stress, anxiety and depression without medication and psychoanalysis ”describes his conversation with the operator of the airline he called to confirm his ticket. When, after 20 minutes of waiting, the girl told him that she could not find a ticket, he nervously exclaimed: “What do you mean - you can't? Wow! Why are you even needed if you can't find anything?"
After a few seconds, he regretted what he had said, but it seemed to him too late to apologize. Fortunately, the girl responded like a true expert in assertive communication: "Monsieur, when you raise your voice, I find it difficult to concentrate to help you." She presented the interlocutor with a great opportunity to apologize without losing face. If she responded with aggression to aggression, the mood of both would be spoiled for a long time.
The four horsemen of the communicative apocalypse
Psychology professor John Gottman, best known for his work on family relationships, identifies four types of behavior that are guaranteed to lead to conflict and break even the strongest ties. He called them "the four horsemen of the Apocalypse." When you walk one of these four paths, it will be very difficult for your partner not to respond with aggression. But each of these paths has its own alternative.
Fight, Adrian Ostede, 1637
The first rider is criticism. We begin to blame the interlocutor and point out his negative traits: for example, when your friend is late for a meeting, you reproach him for being selfish. Instead of criticism, it is better to express regret that the situation has developed in this way, and ask him not to be late anymore. Regret speaks of your feelings, which are very difficult to dispute, while criticism can always be disagreed with.
The second rider is neglect. A sarcastic, condescending, or derisive reaction makes us feel worthless and powerless. An example is the dialogue between spouses that took place in Gottman's "The Love Lab":
Fred: Did you take my things from the dry cleaner?
Ingrid: "You took my things!" Would you like to pick it up yourself? What am I, a housekeeper?
Fred: Of course not. If you were a housekeeper, the house would be clean ...
According to Gottman's research, neglect is the most important factor in divorce. It not only destroys healthy relationships, but also weakens the immune system: spouses who treat each other with disdain are an order of magnitude more likely to suffer from diseases that are transmitted by an infectious route.
The third horseman is defense. We all tend to defend ourselves against reproaches that seem unfair to us. But this reaction makes the boyfriend think his feelings are not being taken seriously. It may seem to the interlocutor that the blame for what happened is on him. Rather than being defensive right away, let your partner know that you care about their feelings - even if you don't feel guilty or regretful about it. If it seems to you that the interlocutor is making an elephant out of a fly, think about why he is doing it.
Photo by Matrin Parr
The fourth horseman is ignorance. You are trying to show that the conflict is sucked from the finger and not pay attention to it - calmly sip coffee or read the newspaper while you are being challenged. But the problem will go nowhere from this: most likely, the partner will try to convey his feelings to you by shouting or resorting to open aggression.
Even if the cause of the conflict is really minor, it is better to let your partner know that you have listened to him, rather than just brush it off. Ignoring will not make his feelings less real and painful - most likely, they will only intensify.
The same is true for your own feelings. It is better not to swallow the offense, but to express it openly. If you do this delicately enough, the problem may be resolved. If you remain silent, everything will remain in place.
Fragment of the painting "Pilgrim", Rene Magritte, 1966
The principles of meaningful communication are extremely simple and intuitive. We all know what attitude towards ourselves causes our sympathy and appreciation. But we find it very difficult to comply with Kant's categorical imperative and treat others the way we would like others to treat us. Often we behave passively, losing independence, or trying to manipulate others for our own benefit.
According to the teachings of Kant, the morality of any deed is its quality, not the result.
Our behavior is moral when we are able to defend our personal boundaries and respect the boundaries of others. Writers on popular psychology often reduce communication skills to manipulating others - for example, “winning friends and influencing people” by making the right impression on them. But full-fledged communication is not limited to the ability to please.
To truly understand each other, you need to learn to recognize your own feelings and convey them to the other person. The converse is also true: we must respect the feelings of others and recognize their importance, even if we disagree with them.
These are all skills that our emotional intelligence possesses, and they are much more important than purely intellectual skills. After all, our everyday well-being is much more dependent on the ability to deal with our emotions and desires than on the ability to correctly solve logical problems.
