Why Are You Silent When Something Does Not Suit You?

Table of contents:

Video: Why Are You Silent When Something Does Not Suit You?

Video: Why Are You Silent When Something Does Not Suit You?
Video: twenty one pilots: Car Radio [OFFICIAL VIDEO] 2024, March
Why Are You Silent When Something Does Not Suit You?
Why Are You Silent When Something Does Not Suit You?
Anonim

The skill to talk about unpleasant

My problem is that I am not spilling anything out. I don't know how to express anger; instead, I get cancer. Woody Allen

A flash mob with the hashtag #mayuvoskazatinі is currently taking place on social networks. People tell how, having said “no” to something, they came to what they say “yes”. These are charged inspirational lyrics, they motivate you to not endure what you don't like.

Why do we sometimes endure? One of the reasons is the inability to correctly express what does not suit you. In modern society, there is a learned skill set to compliment and reward what we like. When it comes to reporting criticisms and nasty things, we often don't know how to do it right.

For example, Katya

Katya owns an online vintage clothing store. Katya's friend Sonya is a public relations specialist who was recently laid off during another crisis. In order to help out her friend and establish her own business, Katya opened a vacancy for a marketing communications specialist and invited Sonya to her work. Her imagination drew lines of new clients and improved quality of office life. The reality turned out to be different. Despite the fact that the girls had a long-standing friendship, it quickly became clear to Katya that it was difficult for them to work together. Sonya was constantly late, did not perform tasks that did not inspire her, and joked about comments. Katya seriously thought about asking her to look for another job, but weeks passed, and she still did not dare. She was afraid to offend, did not want to hurt her friend. She was afraid to ruin the relationship. Therefore, Katya was silent and hoped that Sonya herself would understand and change, or that work would turn up more interesting for her. But in the meantime, irritation appeared over trifles, and the usual components of their friendship were steadily declining.

Is it safer to remain silent than to risk and talk?

Why do you think Katya found the tactic of silence safer? She chose the certainty of what was happening, even though she didn't like it, rather than the uncertainty about what would happen if she spoke out. Tolerance to uncertainty is a concept under discussion in psychology now. The higher it is, the freer a person feels, the easier it is for him to live in an unpredictable world. Katya could not imagine how Sonya would react. What if it hurts her enough to shake her faith in her competence, or if she doesn't want to be friends anymore, or if she doesn't take her seriously and finds Katya inadequate? Therefore, she was silent, fearing of offending her friend and ruining the friendship. What do you think this led to? Did the girls stay close?

Unfortunately no.

First, the emotional balance is disturbed and drains psychic energy from us, interfering with life around this conflict. Katya tied her own hands and suffered in silence, feeling helpless and hopeless. When we are emotionally drained and our resilience levels drop, we can explode. The moment came when Katya could no longer stand, she was overwhelmed with emotions, and she expressed the boiling point to her friend in a rude manner.

Secondly, Katya puts her friend's interests above her own and thereby causes an imbalance. She wants to be a good friend, but she is a friend to herself, frankly, not very much. But this is our main obligation - to be a good friend to ourselves, to support ourselves and to stand up for ourselves. This is precisely the prevention of addictive relationships and gives rise to a feeling of inner support and stability - a repeated experience that I do not abandon myself for myself and I do not.

Thirdly, the relationship with Sonya became more and more strained. Katya felt more and more irritated - and her body language began to send unfriendly signals, she took out the accumulated discontent in the form of sarcastic barbs, including in front of her friends. When there is no dialogue, people move away and, not knowing the true reasons, think out, come up with stories and reasons that are far from reality. Sooner or later it can turn out like in a joke:

- Last night I had everything according to Freud. I named my husband after my first boyfriend. It turned out awkward.

- The same thing happened to me. I wanted to tell my husband: "Please pass me the potatoes," but it burst out: "You scoundrel, you broke my whole life."

How to build a dialogue so that the other person hears us?

I use several schemes: the general rules of communication and understanding of emotions, Alfried Langle's scheme, the findings of Kerry Patterson and his co-authors.

General rules of communication and understanding of emotions

There are different approaches to how to form a dialogue, but in every conversation there are three components: facts, emotions, protection.

Dialogue does not work if we feel that we are being attacked - then we automatically become in a defensive position and attack in response. For the other to really hear us and see the situation with our eyes, we need to let him save face. Report a critical comment in such a way that the person retains self-respect and feels that he has not lost your respect either. Only then is he able to hear us and change something in his behavior.

The basic rule of criticism contains the metaphor of a sandwich: say something nice first, give a critical comment in the middle, and cover with something nice again. It is very important to speak sincerely, giving compliments from the bottom of your heart. To do this, you need to prepare for the conversation by doing some preliminary inner work.

It is also important to speak only the facts and how you feel about those facts. It is advisable to use "I" sentences. In addition to the fact that we do not hurt a person in this way, it is impossible to argue with facts and our feelings, unlike opinions. If Katya tells Sonya “you are not working well and are incompetent,” then Sonya, having taken a defensive position, may well challenge this, showing her diploma and arguing that ten other people think differently. But if Katya says “I sent you an assignment last week and have not received an answer yet, and it makes me angry” (fact + feeling in relation to fact), then it is impossible to argue with this.

Someone thinks that following a given frame of a conversation means being insincere. This is not entirely true. Our emotions move according to certain laws. When we are attacked, we defend ourselves. If you are well-disposed towards us, we open up. In everyday life we say “hello” and “thank you”, we give each other gifts - this is also a frame. It is important to sincerely put your personal feelings into it.

Alfried Langle's nasty remarks communication scheme

The best framework for serious conversation I have come across was developed by the founder of existential analysis, Alfried Langle. Langle points out a very cool thing: Truly personal appeal cannot hurt. If we are silent about something, we hide important things from another person, then we are not personal, we exclude him from the dialogue and this aggravates the situation. If we speak openly, finding a form that does not hurt, then we take into account both our interests and the interests of the other person, and improve relations, preserving the boundaries, without sacrificing ourselves and not attacking the personal space of another.

In practice, this will work if we are not talking about another, but about ourselves, leaving the other free space without violating its boundaries. Instead of "it is unhygienic when you leave dirt on the dishes" - "I am very afraid of germs." Instead of "you are hysterical, it is impossible to talk to you" - "I am overwhelmed with emotions when my voice is raised, and I cannot continue to communicate." Instead of "go faster, otherwise you will be late" - "the store closes at exactly six."

According to this scheme, we want to formulate not the problem of this person, but our own problem, to invite the other to glance at us so that the other can see how we feel in his presence, personally. This requires inner courage, because, attacking another, we feel in a position of superiority and are emotionally protected. And voicing our own problem (for example, saying, “Every time you ignore my orders, I get angry and I don’t know what to do”), we become vulnerable and vulnerable.

How is this done in practice? Let's take a look at Alfried Langele's frame using Katya as an example.

Step 1. Please take time to talk. Already in this - respect and personal treatment

Katya's example: "Sorry, could you give me two minutes?"

“If not now - when is it convenient for you? Tomorrow what time?"

Step 2. A listing of the good that connects. We find points of contact. Compliments. We say nice words. We praise. It happens that a conflict makes you forget the good that connects with a person - it is worth reminding yourself of this. This will give the conversation the right tone for allies, not enemies, and avoid rejection. In this way, we propose to develop relationships.

It is worth going into this conversation only when we really feel the personal value of a person - we see not only his lack, but also the positive aspects.

Katya's example: “We have been friends with you for seven years already, we have experienced many bright moments. Remember that trip to Sardinia? Unforgettably. You are a magic fairy and I love you very much. You are reliable and fun, smart and have great taste. It's so cool that we were found, you are my soul mate."

Step 3. Regret that there is a reason for an unpleasant conversation.

A warning that we are preparing for something unpleasant.

We leave this assumption open - we do not undertake to approve for another person confidently, we only assume, prepare.

Katya's example: “What I say may not be very pleasant, I didn’t make up my mind right away, and I myself am not very pleased.”

Step 4. Maintaining a person's self-esteem - it is important to say something that will allow him to save face.

Katya's example: "Perhaps you don't pay much attention to this."

Step 5. Enumeration of facts. Facts must be facts. There may be witnesses. In any case, the named facts should not be in doubt, both participants in the conversation should understand in the same way.

Katya's example: “Last week you came to the office at two or three in the afternoon, and when I made a remark to you, you joked and the next day you came again at two. On Thursday, I contacted you about the mailing list, and you told me these words … (as a fact, no assessment)

Step 6. Communicating your feelings in connection with these facts. Talk about yourself.

Katya's example: "During this week I approached you three times about the results of promotions for new acquisitions and did not receive an answer, and it makes me terribly angry, I feel angry and at the same time confused."

“Time passes, I spend part of my life on this project. I put a lot of my efforts and soul into this store and would very much like to achieve a result, but I have problems because I do not see the results of your work, and when I contact you, you laugh it off."

Step 7. Justification why we say it, why we have the right to say it.

We do not evaluate it or judge it.

We formulate not the problem of this person, but our own problem.

We invite the other to take a look at ourselves, so that he sees how we feel in his presence, personally.

Katya's example: “The way things are going now, very emotionally exhausting me. And I suffer from it. And this is a problem for me. It is important for me to keep you as a friend, and I am afraid that if we continue to work together further, this may destroy our friendship."

Step 8. Completion.

Katya's example: “Please don't be offended. I would not want you to feel bad. Do not get me wrong."

“How is it for you? I really would not want you to feel bad after this conversation."

Kerry Patterson et al. Diagram

Kerry Patterson is the author of four New York Times bestsellers and numerous articles on difficult conversations, educator, and curriculum author. I like the scheme of working on yourself before a serious conversation, which Patterson and co-authors suggest in the book “Serious Talk about Responsibility. What to do with disappointed expectations, broken promises and inappropriate behavior. This scheme of inner workings has two components:

  1. Understand what problem to discuss. So, according to this scheme, Katya needs to discuss not Sonya's tardiness, but to find the root of what worries her. For example, in the course of reflection, Katya realized that she was annoyed, that Sonya was using their relationship, that in the past Sonya had helped her out more than once and now does not fulfill her work duties, because she knows that Katya will not punish her, because they are friends. Then it is about this disappointed expectation that the question needs to be raised.
  2. Before you open your mouth, turn on your mind. It's important to be in the right frame of mind, and it's not always easy, especially if your opponent has let you down. Chances are good that you will lash out at him with accusations. Immediately after seeing and hearing what the other person has done, and just before experiencing the associated emotions, we tell ourselves a story. We make assumptions about which motive guided the person's behavior, and we bring our judgment, positive or negative assessment into the story. And then our body responds to our thoughts and stories with emotions. The second stage of self-improvement is devoted to the skill to control emotions by analyzing the events that caused them. Trying to present facts, stories, and emotions in a way that makes the other person a decent person, not an earthworm.

The trick of talented parents

If you are not yet ready to enter into an open dialogue and declare what does not suit you, you do not need to rape yourself. You can use a catch from the Incredible years parenting competency program, which has been around the world for over thirty years.

“When your child does not sit quietly for a minute, makes noise, throws everything around, you should become a real detective and patiently look for, wait for the moment when the child sits calmly. After catching these ten seconds, without delay, immediately praise your child. Tell me how proud you are of him and what a fine fellow he is that he was able to behave quietly."

Not only children, but also adults want to be liked, this is inherent in us at the level of survival mechanisms. When we are praised, the brain decides that it is good for group survival, and the neurons of the reward system release dopamine - the person is happy and experiences intense feelings of pleasure. However, they do not give rise to a feeling of lasting satisfaction, and after the release of dopamine, there is usually a need for another such release, and after it - for another. By rewarding behaviors we like, we create pleasure in both children and adults, and encourage them to repeat the behavior over and over again. Praising yourself works too!

We are often silent because we don’t know how to say it. We don’t want to offend, to anger, we are afraid that they will not take us seriously and say “what are you making up, who cares at all”? But if we are worried, this is already a sufficient reason for conversation. If we tolerate and keep silent, with our silence we allow us to violate our borders. It is our responsibility to say that something does not suit us, that our borders are being violated. Waiting for the other to guess by himself is a childish position. Effective conversation is not about tug-of-war over who is right and who is fool, but rather the ability to create a common platform and space for the feelings and aspirations of all involved.

Read about it:

Alfried Langle, Guyon Condro, Lisolette Tucci, Karl Ruhl, Hubertus Tellenbach "Emotions and Existence"

Kerry Patterson, David Maxfield, Joseph Granny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzer"Serious conversation about responsibility [Dealing with disappointed expectations, broken promises and inappropriate behavior]"

Kerry Patterson, Al Switzler, Joseph Granny and Ron Macmillan "Difficult dialogues [What and how to say when the stakes are high]"

Alberti R. E., Emmons M. L. "Know how to stand up for yourself"

Text: Evgeniya Chernega, practicing psychologist, specialist in cognitive-behavioral therapy, existential analysis and schema-therapy

You can sign up for a consultation with Evgenia on her personal website: trueself [dot] com [dot] ua

Recommended: