Why can't some people deal with conflict?
- Thread starter alice144
- Start date
The problem I think is a lot of people aren't reasonable. And can't talk to anyone about conflict or they assume they are being attacked. Or worse attack other people. I've found most people can't be assertive. Their either aggressive orr their manipulative. So for a lot of us it don't do any good becasue the people we're trying to diffuse conflict with don't wish to work through it. Or otherwise block real resolution.
"Discussing the issues" makes some people uncomfortable, I guess. For whatever reason, I don't know. Maybe they are afraid of hurt feelings, or of change. Maybe they are just unfamiliar with that style of communication and conflict resolution, as [MENTION=630]Blind Bandit[/MENTION] described. Maybe it's because they already know that there is a conflict of personality that will never change, and so they decide to deal with what goes on on the surface and brush the serious core problems under the rug.
I think it's not a fear of conflict that is the problem, but rather a fear of being wrong. Conflict airs out our reasoning and allows a peek up the skirt of the conclusions that were drawn. Technically, you can justify anything if you wrap it up in a strong enough emotion and relate it to the ego. A straight line of reasoning untangles that knot and exposes any fallacies. If people equate being wrong with being useless or vulnerable, they may fear conflict or approach it over emotionally.
Excuse my bluntness, but, that's stupid. It seems to me that would only make the problem worse. I feel like 'real' niceness is managing social relations so that harmony may, over time, prevail, even if it requires a 'discussion' or two in the meantime.
Last edited:
I know, but I guess some people have the idea that some problems either won't get worse and will just stay as they are, or they will just deal with them once they start to get worse.
You don't need to excuse your bluntness.
Does discussion always equal conflict?
It seems to me avoiding a useless argument (true conflict) would be a good idea.
A discussion and resolution of harmony would be a good idea, however, and would be the idea to strive for...
I guess my answer would be that it really depends on the situation. If discussion will turn into argument that will not better things, perhaps it would be best to let that go and do other things more beneficial.
If discussion will lead to resolution, clearing out of feelings, and understanding, then that would be the way to go in that situation.
That seems to be the problem of many feeling types: taking things too personally. After all, it is the feeling type who often fears conflict more than the thinking type.
Maybe they cant verbalise their feelings are are embarrassed because of it.
Seems like there is a story behind this post the OP isnt sharing.
Seems like there is a story behind this post the OP isnt sharing.
It is great if the people you're talking to are understanding. Otherwise, as an INFJ at least, it just leads to being further misunderstood and marginalized. Even some supposedly 'mature' people can be emotionally manipulative.
Hey look. It is stupid for people to avoid conflict. But you do know why they do, right? Dealing with conflict is a HASSLE. It's uncomfortable. To many people, it's unnecessary, and some people feel like they have a lot to lose, or fear getting hurt.
Despite all that, resolving a problem is necessary, so it doesn't even matter what the other person's problem is. It's up to you as someone who wants to resolve the problem, to figure out how to work with them. This means respecting them, their feelings, their motivations, and their desires. Expressing empathy gives them the emotional space to open up; identifying the problem as something outside of them instead of them allows them to work with you to resolve it.
The thing is that no matter how stupidly someone else behaves, they have their own reasons, feelings, and desires for so doing. I guess the big question is that do we care enough about them to resolve the conflict, or do we just write them off as a lost cause and let the conflict go on, month after month, like a parasite inside of us?
Despite all that, resolving a problem is necessary, so it doesn't even matter what the other person's problem is. It's up to you as someone who wants to resolve the problem, to figure out how to work with them. This means respecting them, their feelings, their motivations, and their desires. Expressing empathy gives them the emotional space to open up; identifying the problem as something outside of them instead of them allows them to work with you to resolve it.
The thing is that no matter how stupidly someone else behaves, they have their own reasons, feelings, and desires for so doing. I guess the big question is that do we care enough about them to resolve the conflict, or do we just write them off as a lost cause and let the conflict go on, month after month, like a parasite inside of us?
Not so sure I agree with that. Thinkers can be pretty sensitive to criticism, too. "How dare you try to take apart my system that took me so long to build!" There can be a bit of pride invested in, and a great desire to preserve the system against the world. For instance, see certain scientists who lose their data so that no-one can critique, much less reproduce, their findings.
Bingo.
It depends on the nature of the conflict, the person instigating the conflict, and the amount of damn you give to set aside the time to sit down and resolve the issue. Some people use conflict to attempt to emotionally control others or are oppositional-defiant because they haven't gotten their way. Or, their ego demands they dominate.
Indeed, people don't always begin conflict with the intentions of potentially using the Socratic method in mind to get to the bottom of an issue. Sometimes conflict is an expression of irrational emotions that plague the individual. It's used to antagonize someone, sometimes appearing under the guise of a 'rational discussion.' People are always calm and reasonable when they think they're right, or when they especially don't have a stake in the argument. But turn the tides a little, make the conflict a bit more personal, and see how quickly that conflict with a rational person turns into something less than pleasant.
Maybe I'm on a different wavelength than you. In that case, the conflict you're speaking of is typeless.
As is yours.
All types can take things personally and react emotionally to conflict, even fearing it. MBTI is the exploration of cognitive processes that underlay behaviors, not the other way around. You may have to explain the conflict you're thinking of.
The word 'agony' has come to mean an extreme mental or physical suffering, but has its origins in competition. From Late Latin and Greek, agonia 'a struggle for victory', from agon 'contest'. We also get the words 'protagonist' and 'antagonist'. The agon is the central conflict in a story or the central premise in a debate.
It is just ironic, to me at least, that we are inevitably conflicted over the worth and value of conflict.
I hate to be the poster that brings the inevitable 'look at society' portion into the discussion, especially so soon, but I cannot say that it surprises me that so many people feel conflicted about conflict (Hah!)
On one hand, we all understand that conflict exists, that it will always exist and that there is value in standing up for what you believe in (we've all heard the age ol' adage 'what doesn't kill us makes us stronger'). But on the other hand, we're taught to consider the feelings of others, to appear politically correct and diplomatic at all times lest we become ostracized for challenging any socially indoctrinated beliefs and this often comes at the cost of speaking our minds and the truth. More emphasis is placed on sculpting our point than making it and it can become confusing, especially when it is not what we would actually want to say.
Conflict is frequently seen as something that must be suppressed if it cannot be communicated in a way that is socially acceptable and as a result, becomes internalized. People have to look to other ways to express it, often passive-aggressively or, if internalized for too long, may result in anxiety or depression. No wonder some of the conflict we end up dealing with is more residual emotions of frustration than the actual matter at hand.
Lots of cognitive dissonance on this matter breeds contempt and confusion. No wonder some people want to avoid it all together. Who wants that headache?