Who among us does not sin from time to time by being angry and arguing. Despite the fact that there is always a temptation to prove yourself right and prevail, I prefer not to argue with people. Most often, the dispute will lead nowhere, but it will easily provoke a conflict. All parties are very irritated, slowly (or quickly) boil, and there is a chance that there will be no peace. Why don't I argue with people? - you ask. I have nine reasons for this.
1. Dispute aggravates conflict
Arguing never helps people deal with a problem or reach a compromise. It always implies tension and mutual irritation, which deepens the misunderstanding between opponents, and all this pours into big problems... Try to control yourself and channel the argument in a calm direction.
2. You shouldn't argue about feelings.
Human feelings cannot be right or wrong. My feelings, for example, are purely my own business. This is why when someone tries their best to prove to me that my feelings are irrational or meaningless, or that I am too impressionable, I simply close the conversation or change the subject. I've learned to set personal boundaries and not argue.
3. I hate convincing people
Nothing will change, whatever the outcome of the argument. In the end, people have every right to their opinion, although I do not understand or perceive their opinion. When I want to clarify a situation or voice my own opinion, I am always ready for dialogue. But when the discussion turns into an argument, the parties do not hear each other, because they are angry and are preparing to defend.
4. It's useless to argue about the past.
Whenever you argue with your partner, mom, or friends about the past, it's always terribly toxic to your relationship. Women are very fond of clinging to the sore moments of the past, which is completely dishonest and unethical. You cannot reproach partners, friends, colleagues, relatives for the fact that they once did something wrong.
5. I can put myself in my opponent's shoes.
It really helps when you are trying to solve a problem and come to a conclusion. You see the situation through the eyes of your opponent, hear him and understand his motives. This approach has always led to the fact that almost all of my conflicts ended in peaceful discussions.
6. I prefer the truth over self-righteousness
Sometimes I am wrong and I can admit it. But it took me many years to realize that being right and getting the upper hand in an argument are completely different things. It is very difficult to admit that you made a mistake somewhere or that you were wrong. Tame your character and pride, and there will be no conflicts in your life.
7. Human flaws are normal.
Someone is positive and peaceful, while others are quite conflicted, aggressive and instantly flare up regardless of the arguments, theme or weather in the yard. There is no point in fighting people who can butt for any reason - try to limit your contacts and live in peace.
8. No longer controlled dispute threatens to escalate into an ugly skirmish
When two people have a fierce argument, it is very easy to lose control of your emotions. Then you get personal, and in an offensive way. This is the most quick way aggravate the conflict and completely ruin the relationship. Most people tend to take things too personally, so be careful with your criticism.
9. I can draw rational conclusions
I don't argue with people who once hurt my feelings or hurt me. I just don't see any reason to clarify the situation or any grievances, because I came to a certain conclusion and decided for myself whether I want to continue our relationship or not. All the people we meet in life are our teachers, and we should be grateful for every lesson they teach. This attitude helps me to avoid conflicts and to maintain a good relationship with most people.
Controversy is actually a war of words, however human relations should not be based on military action, but on cooperation and interaction. Yes, sometimes the desire to attack an opponent is almost irresistible, but only if there is logic and common sense in it.
Why insist on own point vision is so important for some people? What makes them voluptuous to prove their case? Where does the obsessive desire to argue come from and how to make it stop spoiling life?
My husband just loves to argue. At home, at work or with friends - he will find an opponent everywhere. When he thinks that a person is wrong, he will certainly correct the interlocutor and will persistently continue to argue if he does not agree with him.
“I don’t think this is bad,” he replies to all my persuasions to quit the habit. - This is the desire to explain to a person that he is mistaken. After all, I argue in the area where I am a professional, where I know exactly what I am talking about. "
But sometimes his obsessive desire to argue oversteps all boundaries. It got to the point that in the company of our mutual acquaintances, everyone disperses to the sides of him or is looking for an excuse to quickly leave the party when he comes. “They are simply afraid of a clever interlocutor,” my husband remarks self-confidently.
Who are they - lovers to argue?
Why is it important for some people to insist on their own point of view? What makes them voluptuous to prove their case? Let's try to figure it out with the help of Yuri Burlan's System-Vector Psychology.
Each person has certain sets from birth. mental properties- vectors that are responsible for the interests of a person, his motives of behavior and desires. For example, a person fiercely carried away by an argument possesses.
From the outside, it may seem that a person with an anal vector is always looking for an opportunity to argue, but this is not entirely true. Valuable concepts for him are truth and honesty. An anal person maintains order and accuracy in everything: in any statements, judgments and views. Measure seven times, cut once - this is about him. The more difficult it is for him to remain aloof when the other makes a mistake in front of his eyes. If he believes that his interlocutor is wrong, then sometimes he cannot remain silent, since a strong tension arises inside his psyche. At such moments, by all means, he simply needs to correct the mistake, that is, to prove to the person that he is wrong.
Finding a mistake or a fly in the ointment in a barrel of honey, separating right from wrong, clean from dirty is the natural task of any person with an anal vector. With an excellent memory and thirst for knowledge, he can study and memorize large amounts of information. This allows the bearer of the anal vector to become a professional in his field, a real master, able to see the slightest inaccuracies and blots.
I like it when my opinion is respected
Another important trait of the owner of the anal vector is respect for authoritative opinion. A person with an anal vector always respects his mentors and the older generation. He is the connecting thread between the past and the future, adopting knowledge from ancestors and passing it on to the new generation. Therefore, experience is a significant category for him, and an experienced person makes him want to listen, follow the advice.
However, it is no less important for the owner of the anal vector that his opinion is also appreciated and respected, because respect, honor are his values. He shows undisguised sympathy for those who listen to his opinion. But sometimes life circumstances or cargo psychological problems does not allow the anal person to fully realize himself. Sometimes there is no opportunity to get a decent job, where his professionalism will be appreciated and respected. And sometimes there is no ability, no education, no desire at all. In this case, he feels dissatisfied and tries to compensate for his frustration: it becomes even more important for him to show that he is an authority for others, so he begins to impose his view of life on those around him, proving his innocence.
I will not go, mother, to the kindergarten
"Stubborn and stubborn" - so they say about inveterate debaters with an anal vector. The roots of stubbornness often go back to early childhood.
Anal babies are very obedient. They do everything right, scrupulously and efficiently in order to get praise and approval from their dear and beloved mom. But it happens that a mother is without an anal vector and has an absolutely opposite type of psyche -. Every minute is important for her, she does everything quickly, instantly switching from one task to another, and often simply does not understand her slow child.
Such a skin mother may not listen to the anal baby, interrupt, rush, and due to her natural tendency to save words and emotions, she may not even praise the child. As a result of such an attitude on the part of the mother, the child with the anal vector simply falls into a stupor. He pouts, gets offended, stubborn and mutters under his breath, resting: "I won't go, mother, to the kindergarten."
Unfortunately, from such, at first glance, trifling childish offenses, a heavy burden of great internal resentment against the mother is collected. Often, a person with an anal vector carries this trauma throughout his life.
When a grown man grows out of a stubborn boy, he constantly clings to every opportunity to be right, engaging in meaningless arguments. Unconsciously, he is not arguing with an opponent. He proves his innocence to his mother, stuck in past grievances, simply because then they did not understand him, did not listen to him, did not praise him.
I can not accept someone else's opinion
Possessing perseverance and a desire to bring the matter to the end, a person with an anal vector will often not give in in an argument, making every effort to remain the only right one as a result. To be the best, ideal is another value in life for such a person.
Moreover, even if during an argument to a person with an anal vector it becomes obvious that he is not quite right, it is hard enough for him to admit it. In this regard, the system-vector psychology of Yuri Burlan reveals before us another aspect of the psyche of such a person.
The fact is that the acceptance of everything new, including an unusual opinion for oneself, is stress for any carrier of the anal vector. He needs to get used not only to new external conditions but also to new thought, new information. Another's opinion is not his own, it is very difficult to accept it. Therefore, it takes time to readjust to a different point of view.
What a disgrace!
The reluctance to admit one's mistake is compounded by the fear of dishonor in front of other people. This fear can only arise in a person with an anal vector. Hence the fear of public speaking.
Therefore, during an argument, a person with an anal vector stands his ground. Otherwise, he runs the risk of being wrong, that is, imperfect, and this means a loss of authority - a shame. For an anal person, this is a huge mental stress, from which he unconsciously tries to protect himself.
Let's argue?
With sufficient implementation at work, the bearer of the anal vector is much less likely to get carried away with unnecessary disputes, since he gets great pleasure from his activities, and not from proving his innocence to everyone who disagrees.
The correct implementation of the properties set by nature gives a person the opportunity to engage in the activity for which he was born. So, for example, a person with an anal vector finds himself perfectly in teaching or any editorial work. In the profession of a teacher, mentor or coach, as nowhere else, you need the ability to teach, transfer your knowledge and skills to others and, of course, correct inaccuracies.
Understanding yourself and others changes lives
Realizing all the true motives of avid debaters with the help of system-vector psychology Yuri Burlan, we are beginning to understand their behavior. There is no longer any irritation when a colleague or someone from your family starts to argue with you. Moreover, you begin to deeply understand a person and speak the same language with him, so he no longer has the need to constantly prove something to you.
Having acquired systemic thinking, the owner of the anal vector himself realizes the true reasons for his behavior. Long-term grievances disappear once and for all, innate properties find constructive use, so the desire to enter into another senseless argument no longer comes. This is what they say
Some argue so mercilessly and selflessly that it seems as if this is the highest meaning of their being. In fact, according to psychologists, verbal skirmish is rarely pleasurable - just by winning the argument, the screamer can feel safe. According to the American psychologist Karen Horney, the internal problems of some people make them constantly defend themselves, and even before someone attacks them. Such a person considers the outside world to be hostile in advance, and the attack strategy is a preventive defense. “I have a friend who constantly argues with everyone - with sellers, colleagues, friends. But I have long ceased to be offended by her, because I notice: it is really difficult for her to live, - says Sveta (27). - For example, when in a store we approach the cash register at the same time as someone else, Nastya just needs to prove that we were the first. And she sincerely worries if she suddenly loses in this mini-battle. "
What motivates such people? Karen Horney believes the desire to win, to gain the upper hand, to feel normal. If the disputant concedes, turns out to be the second, then, in his opinion, something is wrong with him. The desire to defeat in an argument or some other competition is a necessary tool of self-defense for these people. They are always ready to fight, almost unable to relax. And until they learn to trust the world and those around them, they have no choice: they will argue in order to feel “in order” and receive regular confirmation of this.
MY PERSONAL ENEMY
A person needs dialogue for development. We are constantly in conflict - both with others and with ourselves. When internal contradictions are small, we freely resort to self-irony. “It gets to the point of ridiculousness: for example, yesterday my conscience spoke on the topic“ you don’t have to go to a party before the exam, ”and another part of me insisted that I wouldn’t learn anything anyway and there’s no point in sitting at home,” Polina shares her experience (23 ).
But when not just disputes flare up inside you, but whole battles, and this interferes with life, it becomes no time for jokes. “A few days before the wedding, I suddenly decided that I had made a mistake - I don’t love Nikita and should not marry him,” recalls Sasha (25). - One part reproached me, the other pitied me, the third despised me.
I almost lost my mind listening to this chorus. " One way or another, from time to time we all find ourselves before a choice: from such a nonsense as going to a party, to a fateful one - for example, the decision to move, get married or have children. And almost always an argument flares up inside different sides our personality.
Sigmund Freud was the first to describe the psyche as a battlefield between instincts and rules, an ongoing dispute between various conflicting desires. Following him, Carl Gustav Jung strengthened the "opponents" by adding a clause about the existence of a masculine component in every woman and a feminine one in every man. Many modern psychotherapeutic approaches also consider a person to be composed of various subpersonalities who are forced to negotiate, since they live in one body. And the essence of psychotherapy often boils down to getting to know all sides of your I, learning to respect each voice.
“Because of my low self-esteem, I always chose not those men that I liked, but those who were simpler,” says Olya (27). - It seemed to me that the “simple” ones are safer, that being rejected by them is not so scary. Of course, I didn't respect them. One part of me said: “You’re a fool, he’s a monster,” and the other objected: “Who but a monster will love you?” During the course of psychotherapy, I stopped arguing with myself and heard that unfortunate insecure girl who forbade herself to fall in love with worthy ".
As soon as a person stops constantly arguing with himself, as soon as he passes the desire or the need to stifle some part of his personality, relations with others are improving. However, we are not able to independently recognize the main "actors" of our internal conflicts. Psychotherapy removes the causes of disputes with oneself from the unconscious, helps to understand them. Awareness of the origins of internal conflicts allows you to be bolder in your choices and actions. And then we throw all our strength not on arguments, but on changing the situation that does not suit us.
BY INHERITANCE
Part of the blame for the habit of arguing lies with our ancient ancestors. A dispute is nothing more than a safe way to fight for various benefits. Previously, people fought primarily for the means of survival, competed for food, territory or partners of the opposite sex. Now, when most of the physical needs are more or less satisfied, we often argue over a higher place in the hierarchy of our group, and this struggle has taken on quite civilized forms. Sports, mind games, political elections, beauty contests, and kitchen battles are all socially approved ways to prove your superiority over others.
Men feel the need to fight more sharply than women, so there are more not only athletes and politicians among them, but also tireless domestic arguers. Knowing this, the next time your loved one engages with you in a fierce discussion about, for example, a woman's driving style, advise him to go to the gym. There, the desire for competition will be satisfied with less loss to your relationship and more health benefits.
THERE IS QUIET IN THE STORM
However, those who are not attracted to verbal skirmishes are much more than people who love arguments or are forced to constantly prove something (due to internal problems). Some are even afraid of active discussions. "Why are you arguing all the time?" - my colleague Natasha was angry every time I asked her a clarifying question about her project, says Elena (29). - And I did not argue and did not doubt the genius of the idea, I just wanted to clarify. When we began to communicate more closely, I asked Natasha why she reacted so strangely to my words. And a colleague admitted: as a child, her parents often quarreled, and if she asked something again, they said "do not argue with the elders." Since then, she regards any questions as the beginning of a quarrel. "Many find it hard to believe that arguing with a colleague or husband can be constructive. We often avoid verbal fights for fear of pain or aggravation of the relationship. Meanwhile, modern conflictology calls on people not only to argue if they want to, but also to quarrel, since open confrontation is full of positive functions. Experts in this area believe that disagreements and quarrels are a natural characteristic of social relations.
American sociologist Lewis Coser is sure: conflict unites people in its own way, makes it possible to get to know each other better in the process of interaction. When you stop perceiving opposition as a threat and start treating it as a signal that says “something needs to be changed,” you can take a more constructive stance. The value of disputes, according to Coser, is that they prevent the ossification of the system, stimulate change, become a challenge that requires a creative response. Living together of people (personal or professional) is filled with situations in which you need to make concessions and seek compromises. Paradoxically, the closer the relationship, the more potentially conflicting it is. But without intimacy, it's hard to imagine contentment and happiness. Therefore, you just need to constantly remember what you are fighting for.
“It seemed to me that civilized people can always come to an agreement without raising their voices,” says Irina (27). - But once, after a loud quarrel with Vova (because of some nonsense - they chose wallpaper for the nursery) I felt: we became very close. I am glad that I was able then to overcome my upbringing and scream a little. And my husband said that he loved me not only smiling and calm, but also angry. "
THIRD IS NOT EXTRA
Civilization and modern psychology not only legalized the human right to argue and quarrel, but also offer specially trained people who help to do this with minimal losses and maximum benefit... In the middle of the 20th century, a new profession appeared in the United States - a mediator, a mediator in resolving disputes, whose task is to restore the ability of each party to hear and understand, to make the vision of the situation, their own and that of others, clearer. Mediation is used to resolve international, property, environmental conflicts and even during divorce proceedings. “Our goal is to return responsibility for the conflict and its resolution to those who own it - the conflicting parties,” says Andrei Pentin, a mediator who leads restorative justice conciliation programs. “People argue because they see the same situation differently, but they quarrel because they cannot be constructive; they often move from discussing the problem to the individual, identifying it with the problem.” The consequences of the conflict almost always do not suit both (relations worsened, health, income decreased due to bad mood) Is the key to motivating each other. And if we turn to a specific situation, and not to all relationships, then it is easier to be constructive. Being able to admit a mistake and suggest options for correcting it is what is important.To believe that the one for whom argues best of all the last word, - child's position. An adult who has bothered to learn something about himself and about people in general understands that the one who argues better after that feels better than anyone else.
This is a very interesting procedure - a dispute, as a result of which, according to the saying, truth is born. But what the truth is hidden in and how to look for it, you and I do not need to know now, for the dispute is interesting not so much for its substantive form as for the impulse that prompts it. You have probably argued with someone in this life, at least once, but it certainly happened, and ideally it happens quite often. Have you ever wondered why you argue at all, why do you need it? But here there is a lot of everything that is not noticeable from the first and even one can even say to the naked eye. Disputes are different, on different issues and with different ultimate goals for the disputants, but above all, a dispute is a reaction to another person, and this already says a lot.
For example, it may speak of yours, not enough high self-esteem how, yes, elementary, you consider it important for yourself to convince another person of something, thereby recognizing the importance of his opinion for yourself. That's right, because in fact, knowing that you are right, seeing white as white and black as black, whom and why do you convince of the obviousness of this, say, a psycho in a psychiatric hospital, you, I am sure, will not convince you of this, knowingly considering him even not worthy of talking to you.
How are things with you in other situations, with other people? Is your opponent in a dispute always a personality worthy of your attention and your efforts? Entering into an argument with any person, whoever he is, you already consider him worthy of your attention, and attention is dear, it actually concentrates all your resources, emotional and intellectual, on something, or in this case, on someone in particular. So when you argue with any person, you thereby spend quite serious resources for searching and presenting arguments that are correct from your point of view and prove you are right. Therefore, before arguing with someone, it is necessary to correctly assess the prospects from this dispute, and of course, you should not follow the lead of emotions and engage in flame, that is, to argue for the sake of a dispute. This is stupid and completely unproductive.
The dispute itself can be of a domestic shade or fateful, and if it is really important for you to prove something to another person, if you see a practical sense in this, then of course you are forced to argue, spending serious resources on this process. If your dispute with another person rests against the confrontation of your personal interests with his personal interests, then in this case, the essence of the dispute is not reduced to an objective consideration of the controversial issue, not to, so to speak, the search for truth, but to a banal, mutual psychological pressure... That is, you have a dispute with your opponent, in which case an ideological confrontation occurs, in which a clash of two interests, two egoistic points of view, is expressed in the form of a discussion, in one form or another. This is the most management struggle, which boils down to managing other people's thoughts and someone else's psychological state, while protecting your own mental and mental state.
Whether you will be a manager following the results of a dispute or a subordinate, subordinate, first of all, to someone else's opinion, someone else's point of view, depends on your ability or inability to conduct competent discussions. And in a dispute, according to the results of which a specific physical action can be performed, including an action that is fateful for someone, we actually have an impact on another person if this dispute develops in our favor.
Well, let's say, if you convinced another person of the correctness of this or that decision made by you, and based on this decision, he began to act exactly as you need it, you can say that you subordinated this person to yourself, without using physical force on him. Here it does not matter at all who is right and who is wrong, when a result is needed, the essence of the dispute boils down to a simple conviction or to the imposition of one's point of view, either on a group of people, or specific person... Everything is very simple here, whoever is more convincing will win this exciting game mind and feelings. But you need to understand that it is advisable to argue in your favor only if we are talking about a confrontation of interests, and not in cases where people want to get to the bottom of the truth in order to make the right decision for both of them or to draw certain, adequate conclusions for themselves. from the controversial issue they are considering.
Overestimated self-esteem, by the way, plays a very significant role in the dispute, because thanks to it, a person not only believes in his strength and his righteousness, but also is not exposed to the influence of someone else's authority on himself, in cases where this is the case. On the one hand, this is good, because a person should not have authorities in life, there should be some kind of reference point and standard, based on people who have achieved significant results, but not an authority that mentally sets a person to worship his authority, create a cult out of him and complete confidence in him in everything. This should not be, therefore, speaking against an authoritative personality, it is necessary to understand first of all why you need it, because it is from this that we started, that if you argue, you recognize the importance of the one with whom you are arguing, and in this case you recognize the authority of that person, whose authority you are going to shake. Without understanding this, one can only strengthen his authority with his dispute, here the EGO is deceiving itself. On the one hand, you stood out as not a tacit and stupidly absorbing majority, but on the other hand, you only supplemented constructive conversation, and perhaps they did not, simply questioning the conclusions and conclusions of the other person.
But perhaps the most common stimulus for an argument, according to my observations, is the unwillingness to destroy the established stereotypes and the picture of the world that is present in a person's head. Here we are not talking about the authorities and not about the importance of one person for another, here everything comes down to the content part, to that information that completely overturns a person's head, simply destroying what he has lived all this time. If a person has been taught one thing all his life, and then suddenly he begins to understand that all this time he was mistaken, and no matter who opened his eyes to it, it is important that he sees and with all his gut feels that this is really so, that he did not live real but the fictional world, here the failure of the entire system begins, so to speak. By the way, this can become a strong psychological shock, and even despite the fact that a person can stubbornly argue, defending his own point of view to the last, defending his world in which he lived, this does not mean that he did not accept reality. This is also called to lower from heaven to earth, because living with one setting, it is difficult to accept another, especially if at the same time you understand that it is difficult or impossible to change anything.
Therefore, I consider it unconstructive, completely useless and even harmful a dispute in which one person points out the mistakes of another, convinces him of them, but at the same time without making a conclusion, not offering a way to solve them or not repeating them, in short, not softening such a harsh fall ... You can enjoy this psychological suppression another, to rise on this one himself, to raise self-confidence and bathe in the glory of his own righteousness, pointing out the other to the dirt in which he is sitting. But this behavior a weak person, whose psychological stability is also not all right, because the strong man does not focus the attention of others on their mistakes, but suggests ways to solve them, and quite gently and painlessly. This brings much more significant pleasure and recognition from the one who solved his problems with such help, and did not go into deep depression with them. So if a dispute can say a lot and lead to a lot, it is only important to see true reason dispute, both on our own and on the other's side.
Sometimes the dispute can be quite reasoned, when indeed both sides begin to see more than they saw before, but sometimes it is just a stupid insistence on its own, where the Ego declares itself, not wanting to put up with the delusions that are pointed out to him. It is important to understand here whether you want to see what you do not see at the moment, and if so, then there is no point in the dispute, unless, of course, you conduct it purposefully, in such a way as to get as much information from the interlocutor as possible, deliberately provoking him erroneous arguments on their part. Also, a person will never suffer from a dispute psychologically, in terms of depression because of his wrongness and erroneous attitudes, if the meaning of the dispute for him is not the dispute itself and defending his point of view, but a specific result that can really give something.
Let your world collapse, but you will find another, and in this case, why resist what will make you stronger, and not the recognition of your interlocutor as a person more significant than you, will soften any information that you receive from him. As an example, I can cite a computer or a book whose authority you do not recognize, no matter what meaningful information they give you, you understand that you are better, you are more perfect. Treat other people in the same way, use the argument to your advantage, and do not convince others of what they do not want to be convinced of, you will not convince of something a book, because it is just a book, having received the necessary from it information for you. You just put her back on the shelf without arguing with her or convincing her of anything.