Why can't some people deal with conflict?

[Quiet]

You can't make progress and drive change unless you make it worth peoples time.

You make it worth their time by generating discomfort and then removing the discomfort when they improve.

Carrots and sticks.

Lol, that reminds me of nagging parents (and fascist government). i learned to completely ignore the 'aversive conditioning' of my parents.

After a while, aversive conditioning can result in learned helplessness, which is literally becomeing completely apathic as one realises they are unable to effect their environment. Sometimes this can make people more 'pliable', sometimes it simply makes them useless and dysfunctional.

In terms of effecting behavioural change, positive reinforcement is far more effective and successful than any other of the other methods. Simple as acknowledging and rewarding desired behaviour.

I think you can make progress and drive change without having to use any carrots and sticks. There are many people out there that simply want to be the best people thay can be, just because. We dont all need a childish narrative of good and bad/ reward and punishment

 

[InvisibleJim]

There are many people out there that simply want to be the best people thay can be, just because. We dont all need a childish narrative of good and bad/ reward and punishment

I think that's a very naive viewpoint.

I highly recommend just looking around you.

Generally people will do whatever they can to get whatever it is they want whilst expending the least amount of effort that is possible. Otherwise unemployment would be virtually zero because everyone would be doing 'something useful' regardless of how much it earned them.

Conflict is one of the methods used to generate some activity. Some people would be content to do nothing as long as others provide it for them; therefore there must be a counterpoint and that is called 'shaking stuff up'.

Although there is significant value in contentment, it can force an (unacceptable?) externality on the rest of society.

 

[Odyne]

I think there is a mix up here between Conflict and Confrontation. Conflict is inevitable, while Confrontation is avoidable. As long as there is a speck of individuality in us and we're not mass produced as citizens of a Brave New World there will always be conflict, because it is often the result of our differences.


Confrontation is where most people have a problem with, I think. Those who dislike confrontation resort to avoidance, but unfortunately it will not make the conflict go away or disappear. Which is why learning how to handle conflict when it arises is important because otherwise you couldn't possibly coexist with other people.

 

[Nixie]

I think the question of the OP itself shows the intial bias....

Why isn't the question "Why are some people able to deal with conflict"?

 

[alice144]

If it's to hash it out, and get out all those feelings of anger about a problem or situation and express them, and both parties feel better about "getting it all out" in a verbal duel, then maybe it's a benefit or help for them, possibly cathartic

See, I prefer when people say what they feel instead of seething inwardly and then starting a fight later about something entirely unrelated. It shouldn't be so emotional though.

said, if it's a win-lose, why participate?

It shouldn't be. Arguments should be a forum for two people to speak their piece, to really get it out there.

I just don't like passive aggressiveness. A lot of women are passive aggressive, and it drives me crazy. Urgh!

 

[Gaze]

See, I prefer when people say what they feel instead of seething inwardly and then starting a fight later about something entirely unrelated. It shouldn't be so emotional though.


It shouldn't be. Arguments should be a forum for two people to speak their piece, to really get it out there.

I just don't like passive aggressiveness. A lot of women are passive aggressive, and it drives me crazy. Urgh!

I don't have a problem with passive aggressiveness if direct honesty isn't working since from what I've seen, many people who say they like openness and honesty can't or don't want to handle it when someone does tell them the truth. Too often, the same person who sees themselves as comfortable and capable of dealing with the conflict head on, often when they are faced with it, become defensive, close minded, and argumentative. I find it very interesting and ironic that the persons who want everything on the table, often knock the table down if what's on the table is not what they hoped or bargained for. That's why many people use passive aggressive communication because they tried the direct approach, and it didn't work. And sometimes because the other person doesn't listen, so they suppress their anger.


There are two sides here and it seems we are only giving credit to one, the person who supposedly possesses the "superior" ability to handle conflict.

And what about conflict types or styles:

Are we talking about conflicting interest, conflicting personalities, conflicting feelings, etc.? @Odyne mentioned that conflict and confrontation are being confused. And it seems the OP is referring less to conflict, and more about confrontation.

But then of course, how can you separate the two? Confronting a problem or issue between two or more people is essentially addressing a conflict, but one of interests, differences, or concerns.

You can address a conflict without being argumentative, but if we're understanding conflict to mean, the expression of conflictual feelings, then the issue is not what, but how.

So, many people can handle conflict but may choose not to handle it the way another chooses or prefers. Two people can talk about a difference of opinion without getting upset. Or one person uses a strong vocal tone or is more expressive when presenting their point of view. The other person may not feel comfortable with this "expression" of conflict but not have a problem discussing the problem or differences. So, the expression of views is often what someone may have a problem with, not the actual discussion of a conflict situation. So, simply because I may choose not to argue with someone about a difference of opinion, doesn't mean I am not apt, equipped, able, capable of facing it or handling it. My approach may simply be to address it in a different style or manner. So, there is more than one way to "deal" with conflict. Take your pick?

 

[beepmachine]

conflict implies a certain level of aggression in at least one party, and aggressive behavior gets me anxious. i avoid it because i hate tension.
i have no problem discussing issues in a calm, direct, tactful way. as soon as the knives start flying, i'm gone. some people thrive on it. that, i'll never understand.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

Getting along just gets in my way, so let's try doing everything my way, and if you get in my way, I'll run you over. k?

 

[toska]

It shouldn't be. Arguments should be a forum for two people to speak their piece, to really get it out there.

Sure, if you're dealing with a reasonable person. Some people are just assholes and it's best to avoid them and their bullshit as much as possible.

 

[Trifoilum]

[MENTION=1669]Ame[/MENTION] raises a fine, fine point.

Sometimes, I noticed some nuances that there are these sorts of expectations that:

a) there is only one thing to be seen and one way to see things within a conflict (and it's usually that person's viewpoint)
b) people (should) only has one consideration and dealt with it within the same realm, in a same way, using the same method in a same amount and etc,
c) overreactions are unreasonable / insane at worst, tactless at best.
d) everything should be said.

Not to mention some sort of pedestal built over honesty and-- openness. And maybe logic; cool head is preferred over a warm heart.

No judging, just observing.

 

[Thinkist]

"Why are some people able to deal with conflict?"

I'd like to see [MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION] answer that question. It seems like you actually like conflict.

 

[Matt3737]

"Why are some people able to deal with conflict?"

I'd like to see [MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION] answer that question. It seems like you actually like conflict.

Is it still technically conflict if she enjoys it? That might be like asking, "Does happiness make you mad?"

 

[sassafras]

"Why are some people able to deal with conflict?"

I'd like to see @TheDaringHatTrick answer that question. It seems like you actually like conflict.

♩♪♫♬ Hi, I just met you.
And this is crazy.
You like conflict.
So call me maybe. ♩♪♫♬

No, seriously. How do you figure?

 

[Gaze]

c) overreactions are unreasonable / insane at worst, tactless at best.

funny, never thought of this, the right to overreact but I think it's justified. We often look at the person who supposedly overreacts as unreasonable and too emotional, someone we think doesn't or can't think rationally or reason capably. But ironically, sometimes, we say someone is overreacting when we have knowingly or unknowingly violated a personal value or feeling or questioned a belief or made a statement or judgment which sharply conflicts with that person's views. In other words, it's only overreacting when we don't get it. But if the shoe were on the other foot, we would wonder why the other person is not as upset as we are about what they've said. People say clearly insulting things or show utter disregard for someone's feelings or ideas, but when that person understandably reacts, they say the person overreacted, and then pawn off this apparent clueless about what they've said or done as a superior ability to reason rationally which in their minds the other person is clearly unable to do, while completely being unable, themselves, to imagine why that person would be upset or reactive. So, even something like "overreacting" can be subjective.

 

[Apone]

You can make progress in discussions, but not really so much in arguments.

I'm not going to pretend I don't get into them, but I can't remember any real conflicts I've had that ever went anywhere... most of the time, I don't even remember what they were about, but I almost always remember the anger/how my ego was drawn into it. When voices get raised, etc., you know that the people involved aren't really discussing anything or willing to listen to each other/understand each other, and will probably never be able to either.

At some point, you just sort of have to check your ego and quit before it gets worse/ruins your friendship/takes up too much of your time that could be spent doing something else... because (online more than real life) it does often devolve into a clash of egos/trying to make the other person look stupid as opposed to actually trying to understand each other.

 

[Trifoilum]

One thing I'm going to add more is that discussion, or confrontation, can only be beneficial when both parties actively want to:
a) make things better
b) listen to the other side

otherwise it's not an attempt to make things better, it's an attempt to feel superior on one side, and an attempt to defend on another.
Not that it's bad per se; just it makes a different sort of case on dealing with conflicts, no?

 

[Quiet]

I think that's a very naive viewpoint.

I highly recommend just looking around you.

Generally people will do whatever they can to get whatever it is they want whilst expending the least amount of effort that is possible. Otherwise unemployment would be virtually zero because everyone would be doing 'something useful' regardless of how much it earned them.

Conflict is one of the methods used to generate some activity. Some people would be content to do nothing as long as others provide it for them; therefore there must be a counterpoint and that is called 'shaking stuff up'.

Although there is significant value in contentment, it can force an (unacceptable?) externality on the rest of society.

I can understand that you think thats a naive viewpoint. I too have felt that way at different points in my life. I guess it comes down to the field of life you are engaging in at different times, perception, and what you choose to focus on. Im studying naturopathy with hundreds of amazing people, many that want to be the best person that they are and help others as well. Many people working in health, human services, purely acadamic fields, science, enginereeing, hospitality, creative fields and countless others may have this attitude as well. Also, working and volunteering in charities, community centres and community projects has really helped me see how many wonderful people there are in the community. Engaging in political groups, from all sides of the fence has also helped me see that even people that have opposing political views to me generally still have good intentions. Intentions that I may disagree with and I personally think are misinformed, but they are coming from good place and are valid and genuine.

There are many reasons for unemployment, as there are many reasons for employment. It is such a complex and multifaceted issue, and it involves an interplay of factors related to the individual and the greater community and matrix in which the person is living.

I completely agree that conflict is one of the methods that can be used to generate activity and progress. People need different kinds of stimuli and scenarios to create action and new ways of thinking. Lest we become stagnent, static, uncreative, uninspired and cease to evolve. Movement and flow is good. Some people are self motivated, and others are not. There is no 'specific' way that people are. There is not even a specific way that you or I are. We are constantly learning, evolving, adapting and changing. We are all learning as individuals, and we are learning together. There are many people operating under all kinds of assumptions and beliefs.

There is significant value in contentment and there is significant value in conflict. We can learn much from both if we are self aware and if we care to.

 

[Apone]

Actually, competition can easily sabotage employment, corrode basic morality, cause people to focus on base needs over their principles, and in many cases also cause the whole workplace to implode/destroy itself.

This doesn't apply to all companies, but I'd say that most businesses would rather hire the cheaper, more submissive employee over the best qualified-so it becomes a competition to see who will put up with the largest amount of bullshit, thereby devaluing the position itself for everyone, causing companies to turn away from hiring locally, or worse. In other cases, employers would rather hire the friendlier/funnier person who slacks off over the awkward person who works hard, potentially sabotaging their own output because they feel a greater need for levity/fall for somebody's charms. So what, people are supposed to be inspired by this? They're supposed to focus on 'playing the game' over job performance? This is personal improvement?

So yeah, my point is that people succeed for a variety of reasons that aren't at all related to positive or even beneficial qualities-- and competition in the workplace can easily devolve into cutthroat politics, or competitions that aren't at all related to the job itself/any kind of 'excellence', and the qualities that determine success through competition are almost never dictated by any sort of rationality or objectivity. If you're exceptional, then you only get as far as the politicians let you... and unless you're careful, then chances are your ideas are going to be stolen from you and used to bolster someone else's career.

War is another perfect example of a conflict where the rational, inherently 'good' perspective does not prevail (the one which probably would have avoided going to war in the first place)... and where the absolute worst aspects of humanity are brought out. It's basically the idea that a successful use of force means that you're 'right', and becomes a competition to see who can hurt the other guy into submission-- who can do something so unthinkably cruel that the enemy will be forced to submit. It would probably at least be a good idea to stop before stooping to barbarism and atrocity, but more often than not, committing atrocities/embracing your own moral degradation can actually help you to win.

I guess some people succeed because they want to be recognized by others as 'the best' (their ego demands it), but I think that this kind of thinking almost always leads to exploitation of others, or irrational attacks, or the failure to listen to reason-- whether it's in a pointless online debate, in a war, or in the workplace.

The better, deeper motivation is the intrinsic sense of having contributed to a society that's worthwhile-- and that doesn't have anything to do with competition. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that nobody seems to think that society is still worthwhile, and I can't say I blame them-- I feel the same way.

 

[alice144]

I don't have a problem with passive aggressiveness if direct honesty isn't working since from what I've seen, many people who say they like openness and honesty can't or don't want to handle it when someone does tell them the truth.

Meh. Even if they struggle with accepting criticism, they'll have to at least try, or else suffer cognitive dissonance. And of course, whoever's doing the criticizing needs to be sure not to be too denigrating. Nope, the 'I'm right you're wrong approach never works'.

Two people can talk about a difference of opinion without getting upset.

Yes, this is important. Not all conflict is 'bad' conflict. If an argument remains polite, it can also be a good way to figure out the best way to get something done.

So, simply because I may choose not to argue with someone about a difference of opinion, doesn't mean I am not apt, equipped, able, capable of facing it or handling it.

Yeah, but there are real issues that need to be addressed, sometimes, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away. An unwillingness to participate in a raucous political discussion is one thing, addressing someone's behavior is another.

funny, never thought of this, the right to overreact but I think it's justified. We often look at the person who supposedly overreacts as unreasonable and too emotional, someone we think doesn't or can't think rationally or reason capably.

Right, but you keep your emotional reaction to yourself, out of deference to the other person.

I never take insults personally unless they're meant to be insults. Then I stop, and scratch my head, and start to wonder about the sort of person I'm dealing with.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

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.

If I'm not mistaken she was just making an observation about human nature. Not trying to define what "real" niceness is.