Violent communication is to solve a problem that can never actually be solved in a destructive way that does not solve the problem.
Editor’s note: This article is from the micro-channel public number “Bo Van Time” (ID: bofanstime), Author: Peter Van time.
Everyone has been taught from an early age to “speak” and “do things” because we live in a world made up of people, and in this world, everyone’s growth background, thoughts and ideas are very different. If you want to succeed, you must have a good discourse ability to harmonize different viewpoints and perspectives.
However, seemingly “simple” communication is not that simple. For one thing, often both sides have their own ideas. If the stalemate is not enough, the conversation will be inadvertently driven by emotions. Evolve into my high-level and low-level, I am right and you wrong, I am just and you are unjust attacks and quarrels. Such dialogue is very dangerous. In this scenario, we often forget the goal of communication itself. Not only did he get farther and farther from the goal, but he also pushed himself into a dangerous situation.
Communications in such non-intimate relationships between strangers, colleagues, and customers are often better because the purpose of this communication is clearer, and the rules, rights and responsibilities are clearer; but in intimate relationships where the rules are weakened, Particularly easy to cause quarrels, a small matter that is painless or itchy may trigger an emotional earthquake.
For example, my wife is tired from work recently and wants to communicate with her husband about the sharing of housework. But the expression may be very casual: I am too tired recently, you know that you will lie down when you go home every day, and you will wash the bowls in the future! The husband thought to himself: Am I not tired from work every day? Didn’t just mopping the floor last week, how could she say that I always lie at home? It is foreseeable that the two parties are likely to introduce the topic into the debate about who pays more and who pays less. Not only will they be inconsistent with the communication target, but they will often even move out some old accounts in order to combat the other party, and ultimately hurt this precious relationship.
In intimate relationships, we are often in a relaxed state. At this time, we often discuss issues around emotions and preferences, rather than reason. In addition, we subconsciously think that the other party’s contribution is due, and it is the other party’s fault if we do not do well. At this time, if there is no peaceful communication interface, it is extremely easy to introduce dialogue to the level of language violence.
This kind of violent communication is actually solving a problem that can never be solved in a way that does not solve the problem and is destructive. People always think that by fixing the troublemaker, the trouble will disappear. Can be violentIn the state of the game, this idea usually does not work, because the opponent often thinks the same way.
This kind of dialogue is very dangerous. Not only does the matter remain unresolved, it also hurts the feelings of both parties. It is worth noting that violent communication is not only a rigid argument, but also includes what psychologist Alfred Adler calls “water power”. Tears and silence are a manifestation of this violence. . For example, Lin Daiyu in “A Dream of Red Mansions”, when she encounters any problems or grievances, the only way to solve the problem is to click and shed tears. She did not choose to communicate with the other party, but forced the opponent to give in to herself through the cold and violent way of “shed tears”.
Whether it is rigid violence or water-based violence, they all have a common problem, that is, the focus of solving the problem is on the other party. This is actually tantamount to putting yourself in a very passive state. In this state, your next emotions, attitudes, and solutions will all depend on the response of the other party. In other words, you have lost the response. Initiative and control of the current environment.
In the famous personal management book “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, the first habit mentioned by Stephen Covey is “proactive”, that is, no matter what kind of things you face, don’t use emotions. Let the external environment influence and control, but be responsible for one’s own life, grasp the initiative, and let the development of the event be in my hands. Therefore, if we want to make the development of the incident better and better, we must first change the negative state of dealing with the problem to be proactive.
In addition, we can also learn from the other two habits mentioned in this book in our interpersonal interactions: “First things first” and “Win-win cooperation”. When communication is in a state of violence, people often forget what the purpose of their communication is. In fact, it is not hurting the other party, nor being hurt by the other party, but really solving the problem. Only by thinking about this can we actively change the course of communication, get out of the state of anger, and think about how to solve the problem at hand.
For the inconsistency of opinions, there are not only “you listen to me” and “I listen to you” schemes. Both parties can also explore a common path to achieve win-win cooperation. Win-win cooperation can not only help both parties advance things for the better, but also create new increments for both parties.
The understanding of this solution can even be traced back to the emergence of human civilization. Yi Zhongtian once preached in a speech that no matter which nation in the world, in the primitive