Today we will talk about how to stop arguing with people both live communication and network. Many people experience a painful, uncontrolled desire to prove their own right. Participation in disputes does not bring them satisfaction, but they cannot stop themselves in order not to participate in a fierce and meaningless discussion, in those moments when someone disagrees with their point of view.

And I was not an exception to such people.

My hard vice

Each person has its most "heavy" flaws, with whom it is more difficult for him to cope. One of my complex defects has always been not amenable to control the desire to argue, dominate any discussion, insist on the correctness of its opinion.

I must say that I was much easier for me than to stop constantly participating in disputes. (Let me not surprise you that I compare bad habits with some kind of character features. I do not see a big difference between addiction from narcotic substances (nicotine) and uncontrolled desires in the field of personality qualities. And in the other case, we depend on any Emotions, that is, we are dealing with some kind of dependence. And it is not so important how we get these emotions: with the help of cigarettes and drinking, or participating in the dispute, showing the motivation to self-affirmation, etc.)

I loved to participate in disputes, mostly on the Internet. I could not just get out of the discussion if there were some people who do not agree with me. These disputes caused anger in me, aggression, acute rejection of someone else's point of view, irritation. It really was like a dependency. While I was in the fireplace of the Debate, I did not notice anything around. I could forget about the food, I could be late for work only because I was very hard with the dispute with some person whom I don't know, I never saw and, most likely, I will never see.

When I still moved away from the computer, my whole mind was only engaged in coming up with more deft and skillful ways to protect my point of view and attack my opponent's opinion. Spores pulled out of me a lot of emotional forces, but did not lead to anything. I stayed with my opinion, my opponents remained at their own. The residue came out only wasted spent time and a lot of unpleasant emotions.

But about what I am dealing with harmful addiction, I understood not immediately. For a long time I thought that I was really doing something useful and important when it was proved on some forum that I was smarter than all the rest and my opinion regarding some kind of problem is correct, while all the others are mistaken.

Understanding that this is a problem that this is my drawback, it has come much later.

Exposing flaws

If you compare the tendency to argue with other vices, for example, with a hypertrophied sexual need or with alcohol dependence, we can say that the desire to prove its right thing is not as destructive as other above vices. It does not lead to big health problems and does not destroy families so often. But, though, in some respect, it is even worse than many other human weaknesses.

For example, a lust of the bloated need to have sex is not amenable to final saturation. "Sexomolik" is constantly looking for opportunities to have sex, he is experiencing an irresistible desire. This desire cannot be satisfied finally: its implementation leads only short-term satisfaction, after which the thrust arises again.

And the more often he is having sex, the stronger this thrust, the more significant the measure of his dissatisfaction. I want to say that in such a picture much less than happiness, joy than many people may seem. The state of the eternal search for a new partner is state of constant dissatisfaction With short satisfaction breaks. Yes, such a person during sex and a short time after it feels happiness and satisfaction. But during the rest of the moments, he is in search of ways to satisfy his desire and is experiencing a constant fear of thought that it will not be able to do this.

At the "addict" disputes, unlike "sexHolika", there are almost no short interruptions for satisfaction! If you yourself are subject to such a dependency, then you will easily understand it. Just ask yourself, what moments of the dispute are you satisfied and satisfied? Let's analyze the entire possible chain of events. I propose to bring a dispute on the internet, such an example, in my opinion, will be more accurate. Although the conclusions from it also belong to disputes in real life.

Imagine that someone did not agree with your opinion, you have experienced irritation and acute need to defend your point of view. You write the answer to your opponent. You wrote it. Satisfied? No, you froze in the busy waiting that he will answer. You are afraid that he will not accept your arguments and put forward new, and then again will have to prove something to him.

You went to the forum several times, interrupting your affairs, and checked the answers. For the fifth time of the webpage updates, you found that you were answered and instantly rushed to read! Well, what's there? He disagrees! (And what are you, actually hoping?) He argues with your arguments, not counting them serious! And here you again feel "the need" to defend!

You answer him, then he you, again you. The discussion flares up! The opponents have already moved from the discussion of the abstract problem on the discussion of each other's personalities. Each of them can not stop, because in this the chief participant of the dispute is a vulnerable pride Repat representatives. No one agrees with anyone. Everyone speaks of his own, not understanding the other. Finally, it is tired of your opponent. He left the last caustic comment and disappeared. You realized that he would not argue more. You are facilitating: "Finally it ended! I no longer need to argue! ".

This feeling is like something as if someone gave you permission not to continue this tedious process and not to get unpleasant emotions on. And before that time, no matter how ridiculously sounded, it seemed to you that you were obliged to defend and you had no choice to stop it.

But do you feel satisfaction? Not. Your opponent did not share your point of view. And in the process of communication, he managed to insult you and disagree with your opinion about some other question. It causes a new wave of frustration and dissatisfaction. The degree of misunderstanding between you only increased.
Can you find satisfaction and satisfaction in this chain? Not. The painful tendency to take part in the disputes is the type of drug that does not even bring short pleasure.

(I wrote above that I loved to argue. I took this word in quotes, because there was no love. There were only irritation, frustration and dependence.)

At that moment, when you argue, you are experiencing the unconscious confidence that you are moving to a certain purpose, internal or external. Either you will come to resolve some question in the dispute in your favor, or you will achieve moral satisfaction related to self-affirmation. But neither one, as a rule, does not happen.

Someone may seem that I am writing about it rather long and thoroughly and not hurry to move to practice. But I believe that before cope with the vice, you must first see in it precisely. Understand it. And not to deceive yourself to his expense, how long I cheat yourself. Since I was hard because of this weakness, I want to carefully analyze it.

But it is not always enough to expose some lack of getting rid of it. After I realized that it was my painful habit, I still didn't stop doing it immediately. I tried to stop myself when I was again involved in the dispute, I told myself that the debate would not give me anything that I would not necessarily prove that I was right to every random person. But I almost did not get it from the beginning. Passion to argue for some time was stronger than me.

Struggling with temptation

When I made this site, one of my main demons began to tempt me more often. On the site I wrote my ideas, and naturally, people did not always agree with them and wrote (and continue to write) about it in the comments. It was not a neutral territory of some kind of forum, and my site and my personal ideas, to which I was very attached. therefore i was very difficult not to be involved in disputes. Moreover, some comments seemed frankly offensive to me, I thought I just can't afford to pass by and not to "teach" the offender. Therefore, I scolded myself for it, but for some time I could not do anything to do anything.

For this reason, you have not seen this article before. I decided to write it only when I began to make significant progress in getting rid of my "favorite" vice. I started to leave some critical comments without answering. Believe me, at the beginning it was very difficult for me, since I always considered my duty to convince a person that he was wrong, but I am right!

Comments that are offensive, I just began to delete, without interference with the response insults. I left the answers of some of the participants disagreement with me on the site, but I just did not answer them if I saw that a person was configured to argue, and not listen. I used to see that someone just misunderstood my article and, therefore, none of us benefit from this dialogue would receive.

Of course, I still began to get involved in any disputes, but I left them, as I understood that there was no point in continuing this discussion.

I can't say that I began to fully control this vice. But what happened was, in my opinion, great success and progress towards getting rid of this weakness. I felt much more free from this habit! As if I should no longer prove anyone!

Therefore, now I can write this article in which I will tell you exactly what I have helped me achieve this.
But still let me tell you a little about the disputes on the Internet and on the biological prerequisites for the emergence of the need for human disputes. I love the topic of disputes, so I write such a long entry.

Holivari

The modern network is replete with forums, thematic communities in which each person can express its opinion, and any other person disagrees with this opinion. Internet communities create fertile soil for the appearance of fierce debates about which computer is better, what religion is more correct, what political beliefs are the most true, etc. The Internet makes it possible to clash people of various ages, views, religions, characters. Even in the framework of convinced supporters of any one system of beliefs, there can be different opinions and, as a result, flashering disputes.

On the Internet, disputes of different people have achieved such a scope that the informal term "Holivari" was invented for them. This word is formed from the English words "HOLY" and "WAR", that is, "Sacred War". In my opinion, this is a very witty and ironic term.

A person can sit for hours in front of the computer, to prove his own right, not to notice anything around, forget about his natural needs. He seems to be given to the Holy War with the enemies, encroaching on the holy truth about the indisputable, undoubted superiority, say, iPhone over other phones! It seems to him that this is his sacred mission, personally entrusted to him by the Supreme Paladine shining apple - Steve Jobs!

The importance that people betrayed Internet debates, contrasts very much with the obvious meaninglessness of this process. Each party does not come to anything, she just spends time to prove to other people what they will not take. And even if they are accepted, what will be the lot from this? But, meanwhile, sacrifice this meaningless need is made a lot of time, which with more benefit could be spent on something else.

Of course, not all disputes are an absurd battle between the "stupid and pointers" in some disputes really "born truth" and the participants are enriched with new knowledge, exchanging with each other.

Also, not all disputes occur between unfamiliar people on the Internet about the fact that better iPhone or Samsung (of course Samsang, there is nothing to argue. Just joking! \u003d)). You can argue with a close person about some truly important things, for example, your relationship. But you can't come to any decision, since the pride of both participants affects this dispute.

In this article, I will try to tell not only how to get rid of the need to prove his rightness in meaningless debates, but also how to make a dispute to productive.

Genealogy dispute

From the point of view of certain directions of evolutionary psychology, the need to defend your opinion was to help people at the dawn of humanity. One who of our ancestors was most stubborn and convincing in the defense of his opinion, sought a higher social status than other representatives of their tribe. Millions of years ago there was no Internet. And therefore any dispute had much more values \u200b\u200bfor the representative of an ancient society than for the representative of the modern company.

After all, all the people with whom the ancient man could join the dispute were familiar people who participants in the community in which he himself consisted. With these people, a person supported constant interaction. And his life strongly depended on how these people perceive him. It is now you can discuss on the forum with a person from Australia about which video card for a computer will be better, each insisting on your own.
Most likely, you will never see each other and your conversation will not have any meaning for anything. But in ancient times every word, something meant in the mind of a close circle of social interaction.

I believe that there is another reason why evolutions need to make disputes from us. At that time there were no abstract philosophical ideas, or material things that do not have explicit practical application (nature, when it created us as such, I didn't know what the Internet and iPhones would be). And if the dispute happened, he concerned things important for survival. How to cut meat correctly so as not to choose? Which way did the Mammoth tribe south or north go?

"The Mammoth tribe went south! I was there today and saw myself! Why do you say that it is in the north? You were not there today! Maybe the mammoths were in the north yesterday, but now it is in another place! We will not listen to you and go south! "

The principle of survival was beneficial for the person to defend his point of view, if he is confident in it. Therefore, nature provided a human part with such biological mechanisms that "force it" to argue him, to prove their own right.

But since that time, when these mechanisms were created, a lot of time passed. Strong metamorphoses occurred in the human environment and in human culture. But genetically, a person has not changed much. There are still alive those ancient impulses that caused a dispute about mammoths. But as part of our time, these impulses themselves cause problems that I do not know about. Then I will tell you exactly will help you to argue less and make controversy productive.

1. Give yourself a time

Sometimes our vulnerable pride and a valid sense of justice require that we will be able to argue and prove that we are right, ignoring all the arguments that suggests common sense. I, as "addict a disputes", is well known how the ego quickly bypasses all reasonable arguments and whispering me: "Come on, explain to him, it is very important! Show him! You need to restore justice! "

It is useless to argue with the ego, you just need to ignore it for a while. Before answering, let your pride calm down. Try to relax and do not think about the dispute. Consider 10 deep breaths and exhale equal duration, and then ask yourself, do you need this dispute?

Even if you still begin to argue, then the passage will give you at least the opportunity to keep calm in a tense discussion, do not succumb to the momentary emotions and maybe come to productive conversation. This council is more applicable to disputes on the Internet, but there is nothing terrible to take a time-out in real life: "We are both experiencing strong emotions. Let's calm down a little, and then continue this conversation. "

During this respite, you can try to understand the position of the enemy and scroll through the possible chain of events in the head. This will allow you to avoid tedious, unnecessary discussions or come to a joint understanding in the framework of a meaningful conversation. Read more about this in the following paragraphs.

2. Try to understand the position of another person

In fierce disputes, "opponents" are not at all interested in achieving some mutual understanding and come to consensus. When a person begins to get involved in a dispute, he becomes in the position of protecting his opinion and attack the opinions of the opponent.

No matter how strange it sounds, no one thinks who is actually right. When you listen and read the arguments of your rival on debate, first of all, you are looking for logical contradictions in them, weaknesses and in parallel with this are trying to "strengthen" the own opinion with new arguments. You find yourself allies in the dispute that agrees with you, but do not agree with your "opponent" so that your arguments look more convincing. This is an attack and protection.

As a result, discussion turns into a game. In it, the tasks of the joint detection of truth, the productive exchange of ideas retreat to the latest plan. And on the first place the goal of "redo" a person disagree with you, without bending with any rhetorical techniques.

But you do not always give yourself a report that you all play the game. You yourself seem to be a carrier of objective knowledge, impassive judge. And you think that this is only your opponent is peculiar to bias, emotionality, illogic of conclusions and inconsistency. Actually biased becoming both sides, some more, some less. And the more emotions, personal addiction affected in the dispute, the more bias in it, the more he begins to be like a game.

Even if you are really right and try to be as objective as possible, it's all the same when you begin to defend yourself, you often cease to notice the sound grain in the opponent's arguments and the weakness of your own argument.

The productive dialogue between people gives them a chance to learn from each other, to understand themselves deeper (after all, this can be done through the opinion of other people about our views), pay attention to their own shortcomings and become better. But when we turn the dialogue in the game, its value and meaning disappear.
Someone may argue: "So maybe there is nothing wrong with the game from the discussion, if this game is fascinating and interesting?"

The game has a sense, only when there are winners and losers. But as for disputes, especially disputes on the Internet (holivarov), there are no winners. Any Party - Loser! Although, of course, an exception may be partly some debates with strictly regulated rules and judges who are judged by the participants. But even the victory in such debates, in my opinion, the thing is quite dubious. Because, it seems to me, the dialogue should be aimed at finding the truth, and not to self-affirmation.

Therefore, before starting to argue, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do I understand the position of my opponent?
   (What is the position of my opponent? What is its main arguments? Can these arguments be fair? Maybe they are not suitable for all cases, but in some situations turn out to be correct?)
2. Do my opponent understand my position?
   (Is he ready to lead a dialogue with me or he only came to impose his point of view? Or maybe I myself didn't really clear my own opinion, so he misunderstood me?)
   What is the difference between my position from his position? (You must understand what points you are converging and disperse with your opponent, so as not to keep a meaningless dispute about things for which you actually agree)
3. Can my opponent be right?
   (Why does my opponent think so? Is there any really some truth in his words? "After all, he doesn't just say it or writes, it means that he is sure about it. Why is he sure about that?)
4. Can I be wrong?
   (How much are you confident in your own rightness? What is confirmed by this right thing? Are things on the basis of which, do you consider yourself right obvious to all participants in the discussion?)

When you ask yourself these questions and answer them, then it may be necessary to argue by itself. There are a variety of situations. I will list some of them.

For example, you will understand that your opponent simply does not understand your position and may not want to understand. Then what a lot to explain to him when he is not going to listen to you, but wants only to lead his monologue?

I come across such a situation often on my site. Some people are trying to even argue with me, but with their own understanding of my articles, which may not at all relate to the meaning that I laid in them. Perhaps they did not read carefully articles, but simply came to argue. In this case, I do not spend time simply for the retelling of the article for this person in an attempt to convey to him, what I meant (there are exceptions if a person needs help, then I try to help him and explain something again).

But sometimes I understand that something really did not quite exactly explain, therefore the wrong conclusions were born.

In another situation, you will see that your opponent is right. Only he exaggerates the meaning of his own ideas, builds faithful in the particular case of arguments into the rank of common and universal truth. You should not argue with his ideas themselves.

Even if the discussion defeat, then you, with the help of this analysis, at least give yourself a breather and come to a better understanding of the opinion of another person.

Not worth it, of course, it hopes much that you will be as honest as possible with yourself. Perhaps this will not give you your ego and bold pride. You convince yourself that your opponent is just stupid and there is nothing to argue with him. Let it be untrue, but it will save you from the time spent.

3. Loosen the protection of the enemy

Imagine that you accuse her husband that he does not pay enough time to your children. Suppose you do it in emotional and little rough form. He, being insulted by your rudeness, begins to defend themselves and blame you in response, even if your reproaches were fair. You're still offended and to take revenge the offender, remember him some more long-standing guilt. And gradually the dispute goes into the scandal.

I think many of us are familiar with such a vicious circle in which both disputes fall. The greater the pride and emotions are inside the dispute, the stronger the participants from understanding each other are given. Everyone speaks only about his own and refuses to understand the other.

So that this does not happen, try not to provoke the protective reaction of the person who you want something will explain. Do not hide his pride. Do not express offensive. Do not go to direct accusations.

Pride is a wall through which the mind arguments cannot pass. Do not build this wall before you!
Neil Fiore in the book "" leads a good method, allowing you to start a heavy conversation, but, at the same time, do not hurt the ego of another person.

This method helps to move from direct accusations for the recognition of their own problem. Instead of talking: "You are constantly biting me! You are sad! You behave wrong! ", You need to start a dialogue with such a wording:" I ran into a small problem. I strongly offended your rudeness and I do not want to hear her. How can we solve it? "

In principle, the meaning of the phrase does not undergo changes. Only the wording changes. AND this allows us to circumvent protective mechanisms. Personality. After you did it, you have more chances that your words will reach the understanding of another person. Even if he disapplies with you, he will not be annoyed by an insulting form of charges to his address, accordingly, it will not go to response insults and will not affect your own protective functions. And then it will be easier for you to understand what perhaps you yourself are wrong.

4. Present a possible chain of events in my head

Before you get involved in some kind of dispute, for example, on the Internet, think is your opponent ready to listen to you? Perhaps he plans only to impose his opinion and defend him. You do not convince this person in anything! No need to argue with him!

If you still really want to lose his nose in the dispute and crush it with your indisputable arguments, then imagine a real chain of events that will follow your action.

You will answer him, he will answer you, then you, he, he and so on ... Imagine this process in the most smallest details. Think how much you have to spend time. Surely you are not the first time in your life participate in the dispute and know, although you do not give a report in this knowledge, that this does not lead to anything, despite the time spent. Both people will not receive anything other than negative emotions.

Also, you can ask yourself: " What will I get from this? Even if I manage to convince someone in something (which will most likely happen), what will it give me? Will I be able to make something new and useful for myself from this dispute? Will I be able to enrich my mind and erudition? "

Most often, you will not get a positive response to these questions.

When I want to argue with someone, I will alive, how much time I will take this process, and what I will be dissatisfied with myself due to the fact that I have spent so badwalk and did not achieve any result. And I immediately disappears the desire to argue.

5. Give other people the right to implement our beliefs in practice.

This principle helps me not to get involved in long discussion. If you understand that each person has the right to embody his convictions in action, then participate in disputes will want less. What does it mean? Everything is very simple. If someone believes that Apple computers are better than PC, then this person will buy an Apple if he has such an opportunity. If someone is confident that articles on the self-development site should be concise and not very detailed, then this "someone" will write short posts if he has a site about self-development. You suppose disagree with each of these opinions, so you will buy a PC with which you will publish volumetric posts on your self-development site.

I understand that it sounds terribly trite, even, tritely stupid. But if you take the fact that every person acts according to its principles or will it act like possible, then why argue about these principles with each other?

If I do not want to argue with someone, I can say: "If you do not agree with the fact that you need to regularly clean the computer from dust, then you will not be regularly brushed from dust. And I will, because I think differently. Why do we discuss this? "

Of course, you should not abuse this method. If the discussion concerns some important, urgent things, which depends on the happiness, human health and the people around him, then sometimes possible on this person somehow influence it to become better. For example, try to prove to him that with children should not be rude, it is not necessary to constantly drink, even if a person does not agree with you.

Use this method when you understand that the dispute will be meaningless or when initially the productive conversation went too far. It's just a way to "dodge the bullet", stop unwanted emotions, and not suppress any dialogue in the bud.

6. "Perhaps I'll come to this"

On the website of Steve Pavlin, one of the most famous English-speaking blogs on self-development, his author describes that it is helps him not to be involved in long-term disputes with people who express disagreement with his ideas. He says or writes to them: "Perhaps you and you are right" and finishes a conversation on it.

Maybe someone will be useful to know about such a method. He really requires a little distract from his ego and recognize at least in the possibility that your views may not be the truth in the last instance and the one who criticizes you is likely to be right.

But personally helps me a somewhat different installation. I think about myself: "Now I do not agree with him. But maybe I will ever come to share his opinion. "

For example, someone tells me that I am unfairly dealing with some style of music, calling it simple and talentless. Maybe it is so. I'm not ready to agree with this. But maybe someday mine, (as it happened more than once in my life) and I will not be so critical to such music. Therefore, I will not argue with someone and prove the opinion that I stick now.

This installation helps to recognize that the truth that you stick is not something static and unchanged. This is a thing that strongly depends on your age, the level of development, knowledge, momentary emotions, views and beliefs. All these things may change, therefore, your truth can also change. Admit it, and you will be much easier to measure with the fact that other people's ideas and views do not coincide with your beliefs. After all, once everything can change!

7. Be prepared to any reaction

Keep in mind that your reluctance to argue with people can cause them the most turbulent reaction. When two people argue, it can be said that they mutually satisfy each other's need for a dispute. Refuse to man who wants to argue, actually, in the dispute, it is like to refuse a person in sex when he has already tuned. Naturally this will cause a negative reaction.

So be prepared to hear about the following:

• "You just have nothing to say. You have no arguments. Haha, I knew that I would be right. "
• "Well, what, give up? I showed you? "
• "How it comes to the arguments, you immediately leave!"

Do not pay attention to it. It's just an expression of a man's resentment who has not received what very much wished. This is his hidden desire to provoke your reaction.

8. Go out when it smells fried

Remember, it's never too late to get out of the dispute, even if you are bogged down in it. Just finish it. If it happens on the Internet, close the page and do not open it in the near future. Do not answer anything. Just stop spending time and go on.

In real life you can say: "I'm sorry, I no longer want to discuss it. We will not come to anything with you, but only one will turn around. Let's not allow any trivia to which we disagree with you, get up between us. "

9. Manage attention

The above methods will help you avoid unpleasant disputes. But just "dodge the bullet", not to respond to other people's provocations, it is not enough. Sometimes it becomes very difficult to cope with the temptation to return to the dispute after you have decided to prove anything to anyone. After all, so many crushing arguments come to your head, with the help of which you can also defeat rivals! Your mind will tell you: "Return, you surrendered early, you need to prove it that he is not right!"

But do not give in to these impulses! If you decide not to argue, follow your solution to the end. Once you have thoughts come back, just translate attention to something else. Be prepared to repeat this action as many times how many times you will come about the thoughts about returning to the dispute. Believe me, you will spend less time "on the struggle" with these thoughts than on a meaningless dispute, if you get involved.

(The word struggle is taken in quotes, because it is not necessary to deal with anything and do not need. This is a struggle without struggle. It is necessary to just learn how to react and redirect your mind on something else, every time these thoughts appear. This principle will help You are not only in disputes, but also in the fight against dependencies, fears, and any annoying thoughts.)

10. Do not bind to your ideas

Fear associated with the fact that your ideas, convictions questioned, provokes you to fiercely protect your own opinion. But ask yourself a question: " what will happen if I find it wrong?»Is it really such a big misfortune if Samsung is better than iPhone? Canon better than Nikon? Mercedes is better than BMW?

No, nothing terrible will happen and your opinion will not suffer. Stop considering it as a question of life and death.

Of course, this principle is more difficult to apply in those situations where the subject of the discussion is the foundation of your worldview or an important part of it. For example, faith in God or belief related to the development of the personality, the emergence of this world, the purpose of man, etc. If you consider yourself ugly, but smart, it will be difficult for you to even think about the fact that physical beauty can be more important than intelligence. Because it is tied to the opposite conviction.

It is difficult, but impossible. You can not base your self-esteem, and your views, on some things that may suffer. It should be to achieve such a result when you do not tie yourself to your ideas, a planned, comprehensive work on the development of the personality, which is dedicated to my site. I am not ready to associate this result with one thing.

But recently, I myself began to come to it. I ceased to worry so much that my ideas will be wrong. Of course, I have no doubt that my site helps someone. My practical recommendations are true if they work. But as for my views on some ideas not very related to everyday experience, I began to worry much less about what they suddenly prove in inaccurate. It means so that there is .. it means that it will help me get rid of delusions and will give a chance to find the truth. That's all.

And this thought really became the liberation for me! I stopped worrying about the fact that I lose the foundation under my feet. And it gave me the opportunity to hear other people, instead of fiercely protect your beliefs.

But if you are sure that your views, no one can shake, then why argue?

11. Please accept that you will not all agree

In the end, the world is so arranged. People have their views and refuse to share your. You will not be able to convince each person in its rightness, even if sincerely confident that he is mistaken, and your personal experience confirms it. People will argue with you, do not agree, criticize your ideas. This is the order of things. The only way to avoid this is nothing to say anything and not to write.

Think that with the fact that someone disagreed with you? Indeed, what about?

Conclusion

Different these methods can be used depending on the circumstances. I use them all at different times. Sometimes I get to "dodge the bullet" immediately without any thoughts (lately it happens more and more often and thickets) sometimes, I have to look for support in these ways and convince myself that I should not give the course of my painful habit.

Some of these methods are designed not to just get out of the dispute, but also make a dispute more productive. Turn your "opponents" in the allies in the search for truth!

But finding a balance between a productive dialogue and a stupid dispute is difficult. Therefore, if you experience a serious dependence on how to argue, follow the principle of an alcoholic, which is trying to quit drinking. "No alcohol in the near future, in any form. Perhaps, then, when you learn to control your desire, then you will be able to afford to drink a glass on holidays. But it is better to avoid any temptation. "

Strive to stop the dispute at all, even if it seems to you productive, in the event that you have big problems with self-control. But when you train your ego, you can conduct interesting dialogues, protect your point of view and not to be involved emotionally in the conversation and do not cross the face of respect for its participants.

Speaking about the training of his "I", I would like to see that even if you, applying these tips in practice, feel very large resistance, which prevents you from finish the dispute, then this does not mean that such resistance will always be. Systematic and methodically fulfilling my recommendations, you gradually expect your ego, and it will no longer have so much power over you. The truth of these words I feel myself.

Every day I am easier and easier to cope with your own desire to argue. The main thing is patience. Do not scold yourself strongly for the fact that "fell" and again began to lead a debate. Instead, calm down. What happened, then happened. Think about how you can not allow it to continue.

I reread these lines and feel like a person who has not experienced such a problem, a smile may arise if he read it. On my site I write about, alcohol addiction, panic attacks and. It can really be called problems with a capital letter. But I also argue about the topic of this article, it is also detailed, methodically and serious, as about one of these problems. "This is just a dispute!" Someone will say! Does it deserve so much attention? " Believe me, deserves. For someone, it can actually represent trouble. And it represented trouble for me.

Well, now you know well about my weakness with which I fought and continue to fight. Perhaps after this article, someone wants to provoke me to the holivar on the site! Well! I will be happy to train your ego! (Offensive comments I remove \u003d))

6 years ago

My blog readers often ask me the question: "How ...

7 years ago

In this article, I will tell you how to extract ...

It is very difficult to understand the difference between a healthy and unhealthy dispute in any respect. There are two types of dispute. The first treats and helps to clarify some questions, the second destroys and spoils relations. Frequent and banal disputes usually arise due to ignorance of how to communicate correctly. When partners allow emotions to enter into a discussion, they risk strengthening the dispute. Currently, many couples argue that they spend water to be invested on a dispute, which can be used for something else. You must do everything possible to show your opinion in a respectful form. Here are a few signs that you are experiencing an unhealthy dispute with your half.

1. You do not want to listen

If you refuse to listen to what your partner says, then you are not correctly, because communication is the main element of all healthy relationships. In addition, communication can be a tool for solving the issue. That is why you should listen and refer to the point of view of your partner with respect. If you ignore what your partner speaks and focus only on your truth, you can spoil relationships.

2. Wish to win

The constant desire to defeat the dispute is one of the most obvious signs of unhealthy argument. Your desire to defeat your dispute every time makes you aggressively prove your right thing. Consequently, another person feels attacks and the dispute is exacerbated. In addition, if you always try to show what kind of smart and refuse to discuss the question, the partner will feel overwhelmed and unrelated.

3. Anger during the dispute

By all means, it is necessary to control anger during a dispute with a partner. Otherwise, you can tell what you will regret later. Anger is a destructive emotion that brings more harm than good. The main point for avoiding anger is that you must focus on the arguments, and not on a person. It can easily turn an innocent argument into a verbal quarrel. If you cannot control your flashes of anger, then you should better leave the conversation and breathe fresh air. Do not use what can hurt your partner, try to resolve the dispute in a friendly atmosphere and civilized.

4. Corn on the same

If you are constantly arguing about the same thing, you must try to find another approach, because it is very dangerous for your relationship. It often happens that old unresolved from the past arise in your daily life. Your partner can already be tired of hearing the same every time, you can not change the past, so try to focus on the present moment and try to avoid the same problems in the future.

5. You forgot about turn

I am sure that you know that when one says, the other must listen, especially during the dispute. It is extremely important that in turn spoke and listened. It will give you both the opportunity to explain and say what you need. If you are a very emotional and hot-tempered person, sometimes you have to surrender, if you really love your soul mate.

6. You can not stop the dispute

If the conflict is caused by serious and complex problems, then you should try to accept the fact that you are different and cannot agree with some things. If you can not cope with the situation, you need to find support and help from friends, families or other people. They can help you solve the problem and find a solution to the dispute.

7. Raising voice

When you want to discuss a difficult topic with your partner, then you should try to keep yourself in your hands and not to raise your voice. Just take responsibility for your emotions and discuss all the controversial issues. I am sure that you can solve the question of the dispute without useless and annoying as an increase in voice. I know that you can make your partner feel guilty, ashamed or look stupid if you raise your voice during a dispute.

If you really love and respect your partner, you should try to treat various misunderstandings of life consciously and reasonable. You can not change the partner, but you can make changes to your life in order to save your relationship.

While the argument did not flaunt around until a serious scale, take a timeout and appreciate how interconnected in this conflict. Psychologist of the North-West University Eli Finkel, the author of bestseller "Marriage" all-or-nothing ": how best marriages work" (The best Marriagees Work: How The Best Marriages Work) argues that the key to resolving the dispute in the adoption " conflict interdependence "- the degree of involvement with which the solution to the problem requires returns on both sides.

Good example - buying an apartment. Let's say one of the partners prefers repaired or new housing, and the other is not able to save now, but over time to invest in the repair. To clarify the situation, the topic of the dispute does not have to be so serious - the essence is that in such cases the problem will not move from a dead point without a joint solution, and your interdependence is very high. You can of course, okay on each other, but in the shower you understand that there is a more flexible tactic. Just as you cannot alone choose an apartment for you two, you will not be able to go for dinner until you agree to go.

Another thing is disputes with minimal interdependence, something related to selfish problems that are related to one of you. For example, your partner persistently leaves plates in the sink instead of immediately remove them into the dishwasher. True, it is not necessary to look for a compromise - it is obvious that he (she) is to blame, and the conflict would have been exhausted if the plates were sent for their intended purpose?

Dr. Finkel conducted a study where 675 volunteers described their "chronic" dispute with partner. When the level of interdependence was high, the subjects tried to solve the conflict from the position of cooperation, trying to come to mutual agreement. On the other hand, disputes, where volunteers felt outside the problem, were decided in tough upholding positions, demonstrating partner's shortcomings, which often sounded offensively and negatively influenced relations. In general, in the first case, the respondents were much more satisfied with the result of the conflict and felt happier.

"Healthy conflicts," Finkel summarizes, - those that are a temporary obstacle, not a competition. The idea is to try in disputes to repel from the "interdependent" perspective. " Think if there is a way to rephrase the problem in your head (unless, of course, you do not dream to bend a partner in the barnings of Rog) in order to stop the bored conflict. Even if you go back for example in the sink - ask the partner that you can take together to lime the habit that drives you crazy?

Latitude of thought

Conflicts are able to develop and strengthen relationships if you take the fact that even ideal partners learn to understand each other. This Council is associated with the so-called relationship of thinking theory - the area of \u200b\u200bresearch by Carol Two, a psychologist from Stanford. The bottom line is that people are inclined to approach lives in one of two ways: on the theory of two, those who have a "fixed" thinking, believe that the abilities and traits of a person remain more or less unchanged throughout life, while people With "developing" thinking, it is believed that situations can change over time for the better.

People with a fixed or, as he also calls Carol, the fatal thinking is confident that the meaning of life is to search for the second half, an ideal partner. The right choice does not imply disputes and conflicts - you are either compatible or not, and that's it. Those who are endowed with developing thinking believe that the world is changed and the relationship is an unlimited field, where compatibility can be developed to the same limits.

In his book, "Thinking: New Psychology of Success" (Mindset: New Psychology of Success) The foard explains: "In fixed thinking, everything is magically through perfect love. If you are lucky and you found a kindred soul, conflicts are excluded. And if problems arise, it means that the system has failed and you have another round of trials and errors until you make a sure choice. For those who look at the world from the position of development, pass through difficulties in relationships is not at all "O God, we are incompatible!", And the opportunity to learn to understand each other and strengthen relationships through the resolution of the conflict. "

Interpretation of disputes as capabilities sounds positive - although we know that it is easier to say than to do. Even with very close people, sometimes it is easier to recognize the collapse of living together, than to reach a constructive round of the conflict. Nevertheless, take a look at the dispute from the other side: this is a good exercise that makes your couple better and harmonious, actively promoting mutual understanding. Just try.

Based on materials Elle.ru.

In the dispute will never win the one who is right. Only the one who knows how to argue can win. Therefore, it is critical to learn how to discuss correctly, while not offended by your interlocutor. Most of this do not know how and do not even want to learn, preferring battle with fists than an adequate dispute. But the educated person is always ready to defend his point of view without screaming and waving his fists. To figure out how to argue, we recommend to read our article.

Every self-respecting person must exclude the classic concept of "dispute" from the head, when two friends or unfamiliar man, drinking a couple of wine glasses, start loudly and noisily arguing about politics. In the dispute, truth never be born, but in the controversy - yes. Speaking with simple words, the controversy - a kind of the same dispute, but at higher intellectual themes and much more organizer.

People are always difficult to argue, especially if you want to do it culturally. You never know what you can expect from your interlocutor. That is why it is necessary to be very neat so as not to find yourself another enemy. Thanks to the observance of small rules, you can not only find a friend, but also learn a lot of interesting things. But you need to really know them on the teeth and use each time every way.

Rule first

Decide in advance for yourself what you want to make a discussion. It will be great if your opponent will do it too, and even better it will be if your goals coincide. Try to really look for the truth during the controversy, and not just express your friend or familiar entire negative. Sometimes it happens very difficult, especially if a competitor begins to actually behave. But always try to stick to your initial position - find the truth. It is difficult, but only so you can learn to argue with the art.

Rule second

We are all people, everyone has their own consciousness and understanding of things. Therefore, even before the controversy, talk to the opponent and find out whether you understand the interpretation of terms that relate to your dispute. It often happens that people literally gnaw up to each other throats, although they just perceive some concepts in different ways.

Rule third

If you really want to get to the truth, then in the course of the conversation, decide personally for yourself, with which you disagree and what is not qualified. Be sure to tell about this opponent. Most people do not want to admit that they are in some kind of rival in something better than they are, especially when you argue with a girl, but nevertheless you can find the truth.

Rule fourth

Solve personally for yourself that you do not want to win and raise over the other. When people argue only in order to win, they will never find the right answer to the question, and instead will receive shabby nerves and a bad mood. Therefore, decide for yourself what is more important.

Rule fifth

In no case can not be called upon to behave and uncultivatically behaved. So you will turn the controversy into an ordinary chicken coop, where everyone is ready to beat each other, just to prove that he is right. Practice shows that after swearing opponents and forget at all because of what they argued. Their main goal becomes not even prove their rightness, but simply heat up to their interlocutor more than the second interlocutor can do it.

Sixth rule

The management of the dispute is the usual conversation with man. It often happens that opponents deploy from the essence of the case, they begin to touch completely different topics, obviously abusively chosen question. Always try to translate the conversation in that direction, where everything began. Otherwise, you risks it and forget about the dispute and never return to it anymore. And then how can you find the truth?

Seventh rule

The harmoniously completed dispute leaves positive impressions of all participating. Carefully sum up the conversation (what you came to), shake your hands and disappear quietly. Or order coffee mug and sit peacefully in a cozy atmosphere. This is really much better than shouting at each other and spend your nerves.

Despite the common opinion that you should not argue with the elders, it is not always the case. Of course, if you want to quarrel with your grandmother for a single loose place in the car, you really get better to climb. But if this is a highly qualified specialist who has some kind of attitude to what you study, then a decent discussion here quite takes place. Just be careful, because older people are very acutely perceived criticized in their address. If you are not sure about your abilities, it is better not to start to stay a polite and educated person, and not the "illiterate ballback", as yours can call your senior touchy opponent.

Each person is like a small universe with its own laws and ideas about the world order. These universes are constantly meeting each other, interact and, of course, non-promotion and conflicts between themselves periodically discover. So the dispute is born - verbal competition, a discussion in which everyone defends its opinion. The dispute can put the beginning of something new, combining different opinions into one, or, on the contrary, turn into a conflict and a quarrel. We have gathered for you a few simple rules that will help to make a dispute to constructive and hold it so that as a result, if the birth of truth does not happen, mutual understanding has improved and there was a warm attitude of the debaters to each other.

The rule is first - decide for myself, and whether it is necessary to argue

Perhaps one of the parties is not interested in finding mutual understanding and discussing a controversial issue. Or time for the dispute inappropriate. If you understand that they are involved in a hot discussion, it makes sense to stop for a moment and ask yourself a question - but in general, you need to spend your strength and time to argue.

Rule second - determine your goal

At the same short moment, when you decide whether to be involved in the discussion, ask yourself a question: why do I need it at all. If the goal suddenly turns out something like "I will prove this scounding that it is not very smart" or "will be as I think, any ways", and not the search for points of contact and solve the problem, then you should not expect a constructive dialogue.

Rule Third - Control your emotions

We rarely try to prove their point of view when the subject of discussion does not affect the topic of themselves. Therefore, often such conversations are very emotional and can easily turn into an empty dialogue with a transition to personality. There are many techniques and techniques that help to smooth your own state and talk without prejudice to your psyche and with benefit for business. To the dispute ended in your favor, it is important to convey your position to the interlocutor and the opinion so that he understands and accepted it, and it is much easier to do it in a calm state.

Rule Fourth - Learn to listen and hear

If we understand what they hear us, then automatically become more located to the interlocutor. In modern psychology, there is already a whole direction of development of the skills of listening to a different level, and this skill is useful in the most different cases of people's interaction. Try to understand the opinion of the interlocutor, his views and how he looks at the problem. Do not interrupt your dialog partner - while your interlocutor fully will fully state his thought and will not speak, he will not be able and will not listen to you.

People often typically interoperate completely differently and imagine the same thing, and it may be clear that opinions on a controversial question did not really distinguish, but only they were expressed in an unclear for an opponent form.

Rule fifth - appreciate and respese your opponent

The person with whom you were in the situation of the dispute, whatever it, still has enough good reasons for your own position. And even if he cries it, it does not mean that it is impossible to agree with him. Everyone wants to be understood, and this is one of the reasons why we argue. Ask clarifying questions, find the values \u200b\u200bthat protect another person. If you are sincerely interested, why there was such a difference in the opinion, if you, as a tortured researcher, immerse yourself in a different universe and are looking for the possibility of coexistence with your own, the interlocutor will surely feel it, and your dialogue will rather become more friendly and efficient.

Sixth rule - be specific

If you are exposed to some question, then it is worthwhile to avoid common phrases like "everyone is thinking", "it was always", "Yes, it's clear that every fool" and so on. As a rule, in response to such replicas, it is necessarily remembered and there is a refutation, and the dispute passes completely into another, conflict channel. Create specific arguments, not abstract examples.

Seventh Rule - Arguments in Socrate

Socrates still identified an important rule for victory in the dispute: "First, ask a person two simple questions, for which he will have to answer" yes ", and only then ask him the third, important question for you." This rule, if it is reasonable to apply, it works and so far. Even more effectively, it will actually affect the questions that suggest a positive response will be your arguments. So, when you express your main idea, the interlocutor will have to agree - after all, he himself just agreed into her.

Eighth rule - be careful not only by the words

In any communication, it is completely unconsciously more important for the interlocutor, what intonations, gestures, views and other non-verbal signs accompany our speech. This is due to the peculiarities of the device of our nervous system and the brain. Explore yourself and your interlocutor, those non-verbal signals that you serve each other. Signs of openness and friendliness are open gestures, relaxed relevant facial expressions, a calm and even voice.

The correct sign that the dispute was successful - a sense of relief, mutual agreement and a greater understanding of each other. If at the end of the dispute you are full of offense, claims and dissatisfaction - it means that the dispute still turned into a conflict and is very likely to appear again. Try to complete the dispute on a friendly and warm note, find some kind of solution that will help all participants feel satisfied at least half.