Opposites attract; except they don't. Sociology's look into friendships and relationships has found that the vast majority of people bond with those who are similar to themselves. This preference can extend from the superficial, such as appearance and wealth, to core similarities in values and perspective. We like people who are like us, or who we see as better than us, because they portray what we value.
But conflict inevitably arises. There is nobody out there who thinks exactly like you do, and such differences can be detrimental if carelessly dismissed. The ability to handle a disagreement in a calm, understanding manner can not only prevent damage to relationships, but perhaps allow you to find friends in places you never expected. This entry is about differing views, though; the art of telling someone they are misinformed on matters of solid fact, or coping with stubbornness, are not addressed here.
Reacting
People are self-conscious. If they have a mindset you disagree with, an improper first reaction can do a world of damage. It can be as simple as repeating their statement in the form of a question(e.g. "You think [philosophical social platform] is a good idea?"). Your initial reaction can tell another person all they need to know about your feelings on their opinion, and that can lead to a spectrum of reactions on their part. They might become hostile, defensive, or abandon their opinion entirely.
The ability to face conflicting views with interest instead of incredulity is paramount if you want to get anywhere.
Questions & Statements
If you want to get any level of understanding on someone else's point of view, the most important thing to keep in mind is that they are the spokesperson of their mindset, not you. As such, it's usually better to ask questions than make statements. If you object with an aspect of their views, ask them why it's important, instead of dismissing it as uncouth or uninformed.
Though, if you want to voice your disagreement, remember to speak for yourself. "I don't feel that this solution treats everyone fairly" is preferable to "That's stupid." Personal words and terms like "I feel," "I think," and so on, are you letting them know your side of things; typically, the only time you should be saying "You think," is when you're asking if you understand them correctly.
Emotional Heat
In a best case scenario, both parties may have gained understanding and empathy for the other's view. They may agree to disagree, or perhaps one side may even find validity in the other(That includes you).
Regrettably, the desire to be right is a powerful one. You invested in your perspective, and so did they, and adapting that can be a painful process. It's easy for hostility to ignite, and it's difficult to put out.
Preventing a conversation from becoming an argument, and stopping an argument, are conversational arts I am no expert in. Though, myself, if I notice things heating up, or offensive words start being included, I try my best to immediately extract myself. I've found that "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you," and excusing myself from the subject can keep both me and the other party from doing some serious damage.
I just feel like there are hardly any differences of opinion that are worth losing a friend over.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Talking To VS Talking At
I loathe smalltalk. It's rarely a means of learning about other people, and more of a defense mechanism against awkward silences, for fear of the other party judging us should they have a moment to think. This is why I'm terrible at parties, because to me they seem to be nothing more than a poorly-orchestrated series of short, empty interactions.
My complaints aside, I often find myself attracted to meaningful, purposeful communication. A conversation that can have a positive effect on my point of view, or keep me thinking for hours afterwards, can be hugely rewarding; conversely, an hour of relaying facts and superficial opinions can be downright draining.
Talking At
In a "Talking at" situation, the idea is that you could readily replace the other person with somebody else who is as equally informed as them, and the conversation would more or less be able to continue normally. At their worst, conversations like this can be torture, at best, they're the equivalent of social junk food; while there is nothing done that really strengthens the relationship, it can still be a rather pleasant distraction.
What's terrible, though, is when people actually form romantic relationships based on having had mostly "Talking at" communication, thinking that their common interests signify a deeper connection.
Talking To
Language is a very limited thing. We are only ever able to talk about things. We talk about our situations, our views, and the information we know. As a result, it makes concepts very difficult to define. People have written books about empathy, but the feeling, and the experience, are beyond the grasp of language. The same goes for people; no amount of information about them can substitute the experience.
When you talk to someone, you are actually seeing parts of who they are. The experience can be very revealing, even though what's revealed may not have been discussed at all. An example is that someone may confess something to you, but the circumstances around it, such as them doing it out of anger or fear, help you understand how they think. The sad thing is, this sort of perception seems to happen more notably in arguments than elsewhere.
Healthy communication like this brings a relationship depth, compassion, and understanding; yet I've noticed that it rarely occurs naturally. To really talk to someone, you ultimately have to truly want to understand just who they are, no matter the cost.
Moderation
Of course I'm not saying ALL conversations should be incredibly in-depth views into another person's very essence; I'm not even saying MOST should. Once you have a good impression of someone, there's nothing wrong with being able to just enjoy their company. But in having that understanding of the person you talk to, even the simplest of conversations can still be personal.
My complaints aside, I often find myself attracted to meaningful, purposeful communication. A conversation that can have a positive effect on my point of view, or keep me thinking for hours afterwards, can be hugely rewarding; conversely, an hour of relaying facts and superficial opinions can be downright draining.
Talking At
In a "Talking at" situation, the idea is that you could readily replace the other person with somebody else who is as equally informed as them, and the conversation would more or less be able to continue normally. At their worst, conversations like this can be torture, at best, they're the equivalent of social junk food; while there is nothing done that really strengthens the relationship, it can still be a rather pleasant distraction.
What's terrible, though, is when people actually form romantic relationships based on having had mostly "Talking at" communication, thinking that their common interests signify a deeper connection.
Talking To
Language is a very limited thing. We are only ever able to talk about things. We talk about our situations, our views, and the information we know. As a result, it makes concepts very difficult to define. People have written books about empathy, but the feeling, and the experience, are beyond the grasp of language. The same goes for people; no amount of information about them can substitute the experience.
When you talk to someone, you are actually seeing parts of who they are. The experience can be very revealing, even though what's revealed may not have been discussed at all. An example is that someone may confess something to you, but the circumstances around it, such as them doing it out of anger or fear, help you understand how they think. The sad thing is, this sort of perception seems to happen more notably in arguments than elsewhere.
Healthy communication like this brings a relationship depth, compassion, and understanding; yet I've noticed that it rarely occurs naturally. To really talk to someone, you ultimately have to truly want to understand just who they are, no matter the cost.
Moderation
Of course I'm not saying ALL conversations should be incredibly in-depth views into another person's very essence; I'm not even saying MOST should. Once you have a good impression of someone, there's nothing wrong with being able to just enjoy their company. But in having that understanding of the person you talk to, even the simplest of conversations can still be personal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)