The Person Is In Conflict. Understanding And Behavior

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Are you familiar with the state after conflicts, when you are not satisfied with either the unfolding situation or your own behavior? Or even just a vague dissatisfaction with yourself / partner / the world after a conflict and quarrel?

If familiar, let's figure it out. It will be about a conflict between two people (in a couple, at work, etc.).

In this article, I will describe three separate dimensions of conflict situations. On the one hand, to think about something at different levels, to somehow beat it in the psyche - immediately reduces confusion and the intensity of emotions, returning the opportunity to influence the situation. It is no longer the circumstances that decide, but you decide, taking into account the circumstances … On the other hand, the actions themselves are much more constructive. plan on the basis of understanding what dimension you are in and what "works" here … Actions (your influence, your choice) are more targeted, purposeful and therefore more effective, there is no need to waste energy where it cannot be processed by definition.

Terms

Let's start with a definition. What is conflict? Conflict is collision … Anything can collide: interests, values, desires (my one desire vs my other desire; my desire vs the desire of another), desires and opportunities (desire vs opportunity), positions (a partner speaks from a position of equal rights vs a partner speaks from a position authority), etc. Already from the enumeration it is clear that asymmetrical phenomena can be found at the poles of the conflict. The main thing, I repeat, is the following: a conflict is a collision. It’s not about the “thing-in-itself” and other subtle matters, but about real situations between two people … Schematically:

1. there is your psychological state;
2. there is a non-psychological state of yours;
3. there is something third about which, in fact, the dispute;
4. and there is the environment where the situation is placed.

Further, I will talk about a relatively simple option: an everyday conflict between two people (in a couple, at work, etc.), and call the characters "communication partners" or, for short, "partners". This option was chosen because of its clarity. (Internal conflicts are a separate interesting topic and will not be discussed now).

So there is a conflict situation. For the same clarity, you can imagine a similar kind of situation in which you once found yourself. How to approach him?

Expression form

The first dimension from which to begin the analysis is that of purely verbal form. Remember how the phrases that you and your partner utter in moments of quarrel sound? This can be, for example, “You don’t devote time to me!”, “You never have time to pass it on time”, “What, should I do it for you ??” and any others.

The phrases are often colored with intonation, which, of course, is also read by the partner, and a person can react not only and not so much to words as to emotional overtones … There are two important points here. First, the perception "from the other side" is always individual (as well as the intentions "from this side"). A person, for example, put one thing into words, and his partner heard something completely different. Any communication implies some uncertainty: you do not know how your words and actions will be perceived, and are not responsible for someone else's perception … But You are responsible for your words and actions. … And this is secondly: it happens that the speaker himself is not aware at the moment of the intonation with which he speaks, but is aware only of the sequence of words, or vice versa. Remember, have you ever had a situation when you wanted to say one thing, but another came out or colored with a different intonation? In this sense, your communication partner, who answers you with something like “I don’t care what you say, it’s important to me how you say. I do not hear the words, it just hurts me "is not always wrong: he proceeds from his truth, which in this example is at the level of feelings, and not logical constructions. Sometimes we ourselves understand what we said only when we hear the answer “from the other side” and think about it.

Thus, it is very helpful to be aware of the words you are speaking and which you are hearing. And it would be good to keep in mind that words are never in a vacuum: there is an emotional message and context, and there is another person's understanding of words and context. To make this dimension more clear, there are two main guidelines.

1) I-utterances … This refers to the opposition of I-statements and You-statements. Just compare such phrases: “You don’t help me at all” and “I have to cope myself (a), and I am wildly tired of it”. It has already been said about the "correction for perception" by another person; and even so, what is the likelihood that the first sentence will not be heard as an accusation? It's about shift of emphasis on "me" and "me" … Another trick is that speaking about your own feelings, sensations and states, you are a priori sincere, it has to do with you, this is yours, you experience it … BUT when you talk about other people's feelings or interpret someone else's behavior, you kind of climb into someone else's territory with your assessment … Your partner may not only rationally disagree (he has the right, after all, he knows better), but also feel this emotionally as an invasion, as an aggression, as an imposition, respectively, as the need to protect the boundaries that have been violated. Which is fraught with aggression in response.

2) Consistency and specificity … Means no double messages when one part of the phrase contradicts another, and ambiguity, which can be interpreted as broadly as you like. It is clear that the second is unattainable in principle, and the charm of communication, including in the understatement; nevertheless, in relation to a very specific situation of conflict between two people, it makes sense to consider this. Examples of double messages: "Do what you want, just do not make noise", "Be bright and do not stick out", etc. As for the ambiguity, the phrase "Everything is possible" can be understood as "you can … and … and …" - what is important for a person; and the speaker in this "everything" put, for example, very specific and completely different things, or put a limitation, but "everything except …" did not say. On the Internet, there is such a picture with a dialogue: “Parent: I want all your dreams and desires to come true. Child: Can I have some ice cream? Parent: No."

I am not suggesting that general phrases or abstract concepts should be excluded. In no case - otherwise we will lose a huge layer of culture. I only want to emphasize that situations of conflict are often caused by careless use of words, and understanding this, it is possible to influence situations … How exactly - it is up to each person to decide for himself. Clarification, reformulation, question to the other side what was heard in the words, etc.

How can attention to the verbal form, especially what you say yourself, help in a real conflict? At least, if the problem is located in this dimension, then it can be solved in the same dimension. There is a huge number of materials, including on the Internet: articles, books, podcasts, videos, trainings, exercise books, etc., which help, firstly, highlight verbal constructions in speech and secondly, formulate them the way you need in a specific situation … For example, rewrite You-statement into I-statement, or build a phrase without double binds, or learn to ask for feedback about your statement. This is a purely instrumental moment. This can be learned. Another thing is that in order to even just be puzzled by the search for materials, you first need to think about this dimension of the conflict - the measurement of the verbal form of statements - as something separate, as something plastic, as a question to which one can find mine answer.

So, the technical side of speaking can be learned, even for free and relatively quickly. Sometimes that's enough. In other cases, no. If technology were to exhaust the problem, then there would be no conflicts left in the world. This is obviously not the case. This means that there are other dimensions of the conflict, inattention to which leaves the conflict unresolved.

When to speak

An important dimension of conflict is when to speak up? There is an unambiguous recommendation: to speak when they are able to listen, and not in a state of affective intensity. Those. “Forging the iron while it’s hot” is not the most appropriate setting if you want to resolve the conflict constructively. Do you know when you (or your partner) said something "in the heat of the moment" and then regret it? This is the case. Therefore: in case of conflict, forge iron when it's cold.

Obviously, in the midst of emotions in any way "get rid" of them or suppress them will not work. How else to deal with emotions? Here the question is more individual, because it goes beyond purely instrumental skills. Each person chooses a strategy that suits him, moreover, periodically changing them.

Some are helped by meditation and mindfulness. Someone tries to shout without words like "Aaaaa!" Sometimes you just need to allow yourself to be released. Sometimes you just need to allow yourself to feel what you feel. The main thing is that it be Your decision, your invention, something that personally returns you security, a sense of yourself, your boundaries and your desires.

Once I observed a very funny situation. At the table were adults and children, and in one corner of the table people began to argue, tension was built up. At a certain moment, a boy about 5 years old banged his fist on the table and shouted “Meow!” Indignantly. This attracted attention. But not only. The invention of the child had the result that people who were about to enter into an argument and were already raising their voices laughed (release) and continued the conversation in a calm tone.

Examples of the strategy of “allowing oneself to live what is being lived” are the now popular mindfulness (the simplest meditation: focus on what is and experience it: bodily sensations, emotions and feelings, thoughts) and the so-called “paradoxical intention”, which is recommended with anxiety, insomnia, etc. (this is a slightly provocative method: focus on the activity or thought that "interferes", bring it to its apotheosis and logical end. In case of psychological insomnia, do not try to fall asleep, but carefully try not to sleep). If desired, these techniques can also be mastered: there are materials in the public domain, there are specialists who help to advance, for example, in mindfulness and meditation.

With regard to this dimension of conflict, it is also important to note the following. Reducing affective intensity is not an end in itself, but a necessary stage … Here you need to find your own way. Sometimes books and introspection are enough; in other cases, work with a psychologist is required. It is important that emotions did not arise out of the blue, they arose and manifested themselves in connection with a conflict situation. And although emotions subsided a little, the conflict did not end there.

When you and your partner are calm and ready to switch to the rational, this is where it is possible dialog … And here the skills that were mentioned regarding verbal formulas are important. The points:

• Express exactly what you want to express (of course, having previously formulated for yourself, having achieved clarity, first of all, for yourself).
• Also - to hear what is said to you.
• Take care of a purely physical environment: so that they do not interrupt and do not rush. So that an important conversation does not happen "in between times."

Once again, it's not about feeling bad, but speaking well. Of course not. It's just that these are phenomena of a different order, and everything has its time and place. It is very difficult (and without practice it is impossible) to simultaneously feel and be aware of your feelings, and talk about your feelings. … We are all smart and perceptive "in hindsight", scolding ourselves will definitely not help in the situation. But choosing the right moment is a kind of art.

What we have? A person is aware of when he gets hot and has found his own way to “cool down” (which, I repeat, is not equal to suppressing or denying emotions), and also knows how to forge moderately graceful verbal formulas in an environment when both partners have cooled down and are in the mood for dialogue. Does this have a constructive chance? Has, and large. But is it always enough? Not always. Let's move on.

Internal position

Another dimension of conflict opens up, even more individual and generally not related to skills and abilities. The third dimension is the measurement of the speaker's position. In other words: "Who am I in my statement?", "From what position am I speaking?", "Who am I, talking with my partner?"

The answer will be very personal and perhaps not obvious. Examples: "I am the one who owes everyone", "I know that I am guilty in advance", "I am always right", "In fact, I have already decided everything for both of us." Most often, the position, even if it pops up in speech and may even be obvious to others, is not realized by the speaker himself. … It takes another (and often a psychoanalyst) for a person to hear himself … Sometimes the "self" that a person has heard is so different from the ideas about himself that this gap is felt as very painful - and then, of course, the analysis acts as a kind of "safety cushion". However, sometimes even ordinary self-observation, without any others, unfolds a person's interest in himself.

Whether a person realizes his position or not, but it manifests itself in behavior. And this is read completely unconsciously … With regard to conflicts: for example, a person says out loud “Let's decide what we are going to do now?”; in words, the question is open. If, unconsciously, the decision has already been made, then he in advance "knows", what to do, and he is satisfied with only this option and no other. How then will he react to the partner's suggestions? Each sentence either falls into a predetermined grid of coordinates, and then it is accepted, or does not get there and is discarded. We get a whole bunch of additional circumstances: the second partner feels that the openness of the question is insincere, he can even say about it out loud, but since the first partner does not realize the difference in the messages at the level of words and at the level of position, he can brush it off and consider the words of the second partner nit-picking and claims; the conflict spills over into "who is right and who offended whom," and in general it only gets hot.

Another example. A person with a very clear, but unconscious, conviction "I should be calm like a boa constrictor and not show emotions at all" - how will he behave in a situation that involves the expression of feelings? He may deliberately want to express and even just acknowledge feelings, but the internal critical instance dictates “don't you dare!” will take it personally), say that he does not feel anything - he will run into external criticism of communication partners. Such states can bring the most real suffering. But until beliefs, attitudes and attitudes are recognized, they cannot be recognized as the cause of suffering, it seems to be causeless and thus there is no access to it: it is impossible to change something that is not recognized as such, which takes place.

Sometimes even the recognition of the very fact of contradictions makes it easier for a person: the problem is called a problem, it can already be somehow dealt with.

As for the internal position of a person, here you want it or not, but you enter the territory of internal conflicts. Returning to the topic of the article, that is, to conflicts between people, I just want to emphasize once again: the position from which a person speaks colors his speech and affects his relationship with other people. You may or may not be aware of it. But at least it is appropriate to mention this as another effective factor in behavior in the conflict.

Practical conclusions

The highlighted three dimensions are not a hierarchy, but rather influencing dimensions at the same time. These are three areas in which you can advance in understanding the situations that bother you.

The described concept is subjective - based on observation, from life and practice, and is inevitably schematic and limited. It does not describe all facets of reality. However, it can be useful from a practical point of view. If you think in 3 dimensions (and not one common amorphous mass), then you can track which of them the problem is - and not necessarily only in one. Respectively, You can find tools to solve this and similar situations, and possibly to prevent such conflicts..

For example, it may happen that you have decided on your position and speak unambiguously, but at the wrong moment, and they simply don’t hear you, or rather, they don’t even have a chance to hear, due to being flooded with affect. Or there are phrases, there is a moment, but you do not trust yourself internally, you are not sure that you have the right to say what you say (position) - and as a result, the conflict is not resolved, and the aftertaste remains extremely unpleasant. It can be different.

As long as you have the motivation to understand what is happening with you and live, truly live your life, the situation will not be hopeless. Thinking about your experience is only one of the stages. As well as inventing solutions, trying, getting feedback, selecting what is suitable from what has been tried and cutting off what is unnecessary. In this context thinking about your experience means discovering the opportunity to choose.