But I know why you said that and what you’re thinking…

The concept that interested me this week is one that hits close to home. The authors of our book wrote, “While people develop reliable tacit knowledge about the other, they generally fail as mind readers.”

My husband and I have been married for many years. I think I know him quite well. I find myself thinking I know why he says what he does, and that I know what he is thinking without him telling me. Perhaps sometimes I do; however, am I really valuing him as a person when I assume I know him well enough to speak for him? In all honesty, no.

The authors refer back to this idea later in the chapter when they write about a misassumption that “seduces us into depersonalized communication.” This misassumption they’re writing about is that we think others don’t change much and that we can predict their behavior.

I can guess what my husband means by what he says and I can guess at what he’s thinking, but just the same as I do, my husband can change over time and grow as a person, so I really do need to stop assuming that I automatically know what he’s thinking and what his side of a conversation actually means.

I hear, but I don’t listen

I can readily admit that although I may be good at figuring out if a conflict is worth pursuing or not, while I'm in the middle of a conflict, I’m not good at giving the other person my full attention and listening to what he or she is saying. Instead, I am busy figuring out what I’m going to say to make the person see my side of the conflict. What little I do hear of what is being said, I’m already busy working on how I’m going to respond to it.

I’d like to think I could write down most of what the other person has said, but in all honesty, what I would be able to write down would be what I heard without really listening. It would be my interpretation of what was said, and my interpretation would definitely be slanted toward highlighting my own self interest. So I am doing a major injustice to both myself and to the person with whom I’m in conflict because I am not giving that person my full attention and I am putting my own self interests ahead of working toward a mutually acceptable solution.

“Is this conflict worth it?”

In the heat of the moment in a conflict, I have found it hard to stop a conflict, and sometimes still do. I believe this is because my emotional state makes it hard for me to think clearly. Many years of experiencing conflicts have led to better handling of conflicts. The advice I would give others who have trouble stopping a conflict is the same advice I would give people on how to take a “time out.”  I would suggest that they try doing as I try to do. I ask myself, “Is this conflict worth it?”

Until I read Chapter 4 of our textbook, I didn’t know that after many years of experiencing conflicts, I was using the “S-TLC” (stop, think, listen, communicate) method of managing conflicts. Asking myself, “Is this conflict worth it?” makes me stop and think if continuing the conflict will be beneficial in the long run. Once I decide that it is worth pursuing, I’m usually calmed down enough to decide if I need to walk away from the situation for awhile before pursuing the conflict, or if I’m ready for the conflict.

If I decide to walk away, I will say something to the person I’m in conflict with such as, “I’m too upset right now to talk. When I’m calmed down, I’ll come back.”  

If I’m ready to continue the conflict, since I’m no longer in the heat of the moment because I’ve already stopped to think if the conflict is worth pursuing, I’m able to think, as the book writes, about my “goals, wants, and needs an those of (my) partner.” Stopping to think also makes it easier for me to stop to listen to what is being said by the person with whom I’m in conflict. Finally, since I’ve stopped to think and listen, I’m much more likely to take the time to figure out how best to communicate to effectively manage the conflict.

Learning how to be a mediator would have made me a much more effective parent!

As I was reading Chapter 11, I kept thinking, “This chapter should be required reading for parents prior to starting a family.”

Looking back, I far more often told my kids how they should resolve their differences than taught them how to do it themselves. The easier and quicker way for me was to hear each child out and then tell them what they needed to do to solve their differences. In addition, very often what I told them to do resulted from a judgment call of mine as to which child I considered had the better case. If I had more often taken the role of mediator and facilitated communication between the children who had a conflict, they would have learned a lot earlier how to solve their conflicts themselves, which would have taught them life skills and would have saved me a lot of time over the years!

Fractionation, framing, reframing and common ground

The techniques of fractionation, framing, reframing and common ground are helpful in solving interpersonal conflicts, but can also be helpful in solving problems that don’t require interpersonal conflicts.

Fractionation, or breaking down a problem into small pieces that can be dealt with makes sense in any problem. When looked at as a whole, a problem can often seem unsolvable and people can be too discouraged to even try. World hunger is one such situation. But when the root causes of hunger are sought, people can begin breaking down a root cause into smaller pieces in order to work to correct it and therefore make some progress toward solving world hunger.

Framing, or summarizing and asking neutral questions without blaming or judging can also be useful in situations other than interpersonal conflicts. For example, currently people may blame university leaders for increases in tuition. Asking neutral questions such as where has money come from previously for university funding may lead people to understand that the State of California is no longer putting a priority on funding education, which could lead to lobbying government officials for more funds instead of just blaming university leaders.

Reframing, or restating negative statements or positions in a way that helps people to look at things differently can also be helpful in more ways than just in interpersonal conflicts. Very often people blame other people for being homeless, saying that the homeless has caused their own problem by their lifestyles of boozing, drug use, mismanagement of finances, etc. Asking the question, “How many paychecks are you away from homelessness?” can make a person take another look at the way they view people without homes.

Common ground, or, as the authors of our book wrote, discovering the “attitudes, values, behaviors, expectations, and goals the parties share,” can be tremendously useful in other ways than just in interpersonal conflicts. Once a person discovers how similar someone else or a group is to him- or herself, a person is more apt to take another look and reevaluate personal concepts and beliefs. When a person is raised to believe that his or her faith is the only way to be a good person gets to know a person of another faith and talks with that person and attends the other person’s religious services, he or she tends to realize that there are many different ways to lead a life as a good person.

Communication majors, lawyers and psychotherapists

Communication majors should make good mediators, while lawyers and psychotherapists might find it difficult to effectively play the role of mediator. Communication majors are trained to be competent in communication, which is a critical component of the mediation process. Without taking sides, a mediator must work to get the two conflicting people communicating with each other so that they can work out their conflict and come to an agreement that is acceptable to both of them. After having studied theories of communication and applied them in practical situations, communication majors should be able to competently use their acquired knowledge and skills to facilitate communication between conflicting people while not taking one side or another.

A lawyer is trained to take the side of the person or group of people he or she is defending and come up with legal reasons for that person or group to win in a conflict with another person, group or entity. It would be difficult for the lawyer to be a mediator because the lawyer would need to step away from his or her usual practice of taking one side in order to be impartial. He or she would also probably find it difficult to avoid looking for a law that would solve the conflict being mediated, as the lawyer do, because the mediator has no voice in how to solve the conflict, but only in facilitating communication between the conflicting parties so that they, themselves, can come up with an agreement that is acceptable to both of them.

A psychotherapist is trained to interact with a person, family, couple or group on psychological issues using therapy or treatment to help solve the problem. It would be difficult for a psychotherapist to be a mediator because the psychotherapist is used to taking an active role in solving the problems and is trained to know what therapy or treatment would be best for specific situations. In the course of their normal work, a psychotherapist doesn’t necessarily let the person, family, couple or group work out the problems themselves and come up with mutually agreeable solutions, as he or she would need to do as a mediator.

“…until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.”

The authors of our book promote resolving conflicts in a manner that is mutually advantageous to all involved. They state that this “usually first requires that partners increase their range of perspectives, solutions or alternatives.”

This concept appealed to me because in dealing with people, I try to live by an American Indian quote that goes, “Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.” I can’t judge someone for their behavior because I can’t know what’s behind it. A behavior may appear abhorrent to me, but I can’t judge the person based on their behavior because I can’t know why they are doing it. I can and do believe the behavior is wrong, but I can’t call the person a bad person. It’s the behavior, not the person, which is bad, and I can’t know why the person behaved in such a way because I haven’t “walked in their moccasins.”

How this relates to our reading this week is that developing mutual understanding requires understanding the perspective of the other person and trying to see the issue as the other person sees it. Looking at it from the other person’s viewpoint also lets me see what he or she wants out of a situation and perhaps find a solution that benefits both of us. Or, as the book suggests, understanding where the other person is coming from can help me work with the person to help him or her define the issue differently, although this seems a manipulative to me unless I try also to look at the issue differently.

“Spare the rod, spoil the child”

I have heard parents tell me that they teach their children using strict discipline when I think it borders on abusive behavior. So I do think people overstep the authority they believe they have to punish their child. On the other hand, I have heard parents tell me that they teach their children using strict discipline when I think the discipline is entirely appropriate. I believe the difference lies in exactly what the strict discipline entails, and why it is used instead of other methods of discipline.

Many people consider spanking strict discipline. “Spare the rod, spoil the child” goes back to Proverbs 13:24 in the Bible. Some people have taken this to mean that corporal punishment is not only acceptable, it is required in order to properly bring up a child. In the U.S., spanking is not illegal, but injuring the child is. I have spanked my children, but only when their safety was involved, such as when they ran into the street, and only when they were so little that reasoning with them wouldn’t work. I have seen children spanked at the slightest bit of misbehavior, and shuddered when it looked like that was the only discipline they would get. How can they learn anything from that except that it’s okay to hurt someone who’s smaller than you?

There are other ways strict discipline can be used besides spanking. Never bending strict rules set by a family and always disciplining those that break those rules can be considered strict discipline by people who have a more relaxed view of parenting. Who’s to say which is the better way?

I believe the difference between punishment and discipline of a child is that punishment is done to a child and discipline is done with a child. Punishment leaves a child angry and just as likely to do the offending behavior again, although the child will probably be careful not to let the punishing parent know they are repeating the behavior because they don’t want to get hurt again. Discipline includes working with the child to help them see that their behavior was not appropriate and why it wasn’t, and includes sharing what the appropriate behavior should have been so that the child learns how to behave the next time around.

Self-centered, other-centered and relationship-centered conflict orientations

When faced with a conflict, my initial reaction is to respond with a self-centered orientation. As I mentioned in a post last week, I still have the ingrained tendencies of having to be right in a conflict as well as wanting to have the last word. When I was growing up, I definitely had a self-centered orientation and used the strategy of aggressive communication to try to get what I wanted. I was happiest when I got my way, thrilled, even, that I was on the winning end of a win-lose outcome, even though even back then, I realized it was at the expense of someone else. I remember I would gloat over the other person’s loss in an argument with me.

In my late teens, I had a quick foray into other-centered orientation, which happened to correspond to a relationship at the time with a boyfriend. I avoided conflict by keeping my opinions and feelings to myself. Am I glad that relationship didn’t work out—I probably would have developed ulcers because being subordinate to someone and being on the losing end of win-lose just wasn’t me. So I definitely wasn’t satisfied with the outcome of conflicts solved using the other-centered orientation.

As I matured, I realized that neither the self-centered orientation nor the other-centered orientation is conducive to getting along and working with people. (Of course, until I read Chapter 3 I didn’t have the vocabulary to put this into words). With each conflict I still fight my initial tendency to take a self-centered orientation in solving it, but realize that a relationship-centered orientation will not only help solve current issues, but help set the groundwork for solving future issues. I assertively speak up in my interests but respect the interests of the other person. I do compromise sometimes when solving issues, but do prefer collaborating with people so we reach an agreement that leaves us both happy. So I am most satisfied with outcomes when using a relationship-centered orientation.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t sometimes use a self-centered or other-centered orientation. When I’m tired, I sometimes slip back to using the self-centered orientation, and when I think a family member or close friend needs to “win” because they are stressed and unable to use a relationship-centered orientation, I have use an other-centered orientation.