Tag: dig for the conflict

The Desire for Happiness

Dealing with the frustration that goes along with challenging conflicts has some similarities to sailors dealing with stormy seas—it is best to utilize a well-rehearsed plan.

For dealing with conflicts, one such plan begins with thinking of the word “DIG.” With a little practice, we can use this word to remind us of a simple way to summarize the conflict even in the midst of swirling frustration.

The letters of the word “DIG” aids us to remember the words, “Desire,” “Interference,” and “Guilt.” Once we recall these words, we use them in a particular way.

First, we state what our desire is in the conflict, then, what is interfering, then, why we believe the other party in the conflict is guilty of doing something wrong. After doing this from our perspective, we then go through the same process from the perspective of the other party.

If we are thoroughly practiced in using this skill, the word “DIG“ not only helps us to create this concise description of the conflict even while in the midst of rising anger, it also helps us remember to dig a little to consider not just the most obvious desire that is involved in the conflict, but also what might be other desires that are involved.

Of course, in simple, low frustration conflicts none of this is necessary. There are times, however, that you will find that when all of those around you are beginning to get lost in a storm, your even-tempered, systematic guidance will calm the waters and lead to inviting harbors.

Conflicts in Which Happiness is the Desire

Now, sometimes when we describe a conflict it takes the following form:

“I desire to be happy, but the other party is interfering. The other party is guilty of making my life miserable.”

The desire to be happy has a special place in the life of many of us. Nevertheless, today I would like to advocate that you think twice whenever you, or the other party in a conflict, describes the desire part of the conflict as “to be happy.”

What’s wrong with Happiness as a Desire?

Describing a desire in a conflict as “to be happy” is too vague. With a little effort you can usually dig a little deeper and find a more specific description. Typically, it is better for a boss to say something like, “I desire that you come to work by 9 A.M. at least 95% of the time than, “I desire that you make me happy.”

Another reason to avoid happiness in your descriptions of your desire has to do with earning respect. If you are like so many of us, you probably want to avoid coming off as shallow or having superficial desires. To explain a little more of what I mean by this, I’m going to discuss a little of what Albert Einstein said on this topic and then present a little parable.

Albert Einstein on Happiness

In a book titled, Living Philosophies: A Series of Intimate Credos, the first chapter is by Albert Einstein. There he states:

The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beauty, and truth. To make a goal of comfort or happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this basis would be sufficient for a herd of cattle. (p. 4)

When I read the rest of Einstein’s chapter, I came away with the following image. He kind of viewed happiness as one-half of an oscillation process, with sadness and happiness going back and forth, thrusting his ship forward, and where he chose to steer his ship was in the direction that led to goodness, beauty, and truth.

This is a deeper way to view the nature of happiness, and for those of us who want to be respected for being deep, in contrast to shallow, I think that there may be some value in meditating on this.

To further challenge you to think more deeply about the nature of happiness, please consider the following parable.

The Parable of Probliss

Once upon a green-blue planet, a scientist invented Probliss, a super powerful happiness pill. It made people as happy as anyone ever dreamed of. In fact Probliss was so effective in improving the happiness in people’s lives that a group of psychiatrists developed a plan that would have all of the people on the planet lie down on gurneys in sanitized rooms and then be hooked up intravenously so nourishment and Probliss could be directly delivered into the veins of everyone. If at any point people felt a little less than perfectly happy, all they had to do was press down with a fingertip and wonderful Probliss would soar into their lives creating pure, pure happiness.

Some didn’t like this plan. “What, no music, no love, no friends? Man, that sounds bleak!”

“True, none of that,” said the psychiatrists, “but far more happiness.”

And it came to pass that studies were done. The results proved indisputable–those on these gurneys who were attached to these machines that provided nourishment and Probliss developed far fewer diseases. They lived over ten years longer, and they were less of a danger to themselves or others when compared to those who lived their lives going out in the world without Probliss. Those who chose to live their lives in the old way, were much more likely to die in car crashes, accidental falls, and homicides. People on Probliss never died from these types of causes because all they did was lie on the gurney in a completely sterile, happy, and healthy state.

Once these results came in, the psychiatrists decided that everyone, from now on, would be tied down to gurneys, even if it was against their will. “It was for their own good,” the psychiatrists explained.

Now some men and women did manage to escape into a deep, green forest, experiencing anguish and tears, love and creativity, but not perfect happiness.

The End

Conclusion

And so, whenever you think you want to seek happiness, consider the value that goes along with identifying a more specific desire. You’re still likely to experience some happiness while seeking this newly identified desire, and some sadness too as setbacks tend to occur. These alterations of happiness and sadness are part of the process that keeps our lives moving forward. Choose wisely in what direction you truly wish to head. And learn to appreciate that there are deeper values in life than happiness.

My Best,

Jeff

——————————-

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags Albert Einstein, conflict management, conflict resolution, desire, DIG Conflict Model, dig for the conflict, dispute management, frustration, happiness, psychiatry, respect, wisdom

conflict management conflict resolution crying MATURITY relationships social intelligence

My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date August 10, 2014
7 Comments on My Answer to the Question, Are People Who Cry When Criticized Immature?

Recently, I wrote a post titled, “Responding to Criticism by Crying: Is it a Sign of Immaturity?” In that post I explained that I had, in earlier posts, put forth a model of how to respond maturely to criticism. To help readers to rate their own skill level, and that of others, I had outlined five levels of maturity. Level 1 was viewed as the most immature level, level 2 as a little more mature, and so on (see HERE for a full description of the first 4 levels of maturity, and see HERE for a description of level 5, the most mature level). Level 1 had been described as follows:

1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

As you can see from this description of level 1, I had come to believe that weeping or sobbing with tears was best to view as one of the most immature responses. I then explained several reasons why I had come to believe that, but I won’t repeat them here. I then wrote that since I came up with the five levels of maturity, I had met some individuals who seem rather remarkably mature to me in many ways, and yet they had revealed to me that they find themselves crying quite often when they are criticized. They say that they are very sensitive individuals, that they don’t hurt anyone or anything when they go through this experience, and that I should consider removing crying from the description of the lowest level. As I thought about this, I thought it would help me if I propose a change to my readers, ask for feedback, and only then make my decision whether or not to make the change. I ended that post as follows:

Proposed Change

Weeping, sobbing and crying will only be viewed as the lowest level of maturity if the person responding to criticism does nothing else but that, or if he or she does that along with the other lowest level responses such as physically attacking the criticizer or damaging property. If, after crying, he or she then begins to display responses consistent with level 4 or 5, crying will no longer be viewed as a sign of immaturity.

Although I could make this change after I get some feedback, I hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.

Perhaps these sensitive individuals can help to reduce the lack of respect that they might encounter. They can explain that their sensitivity helps them to more deeply consider the criticism. Moreover, they might suggest that for people who feel uncomfortable around someone crying, they can provide the criticism at first by email, snail mail or voice mail. This will allow the sensitive person time to process the criticism. Then, a follow-up meeting to further process the criticism can be arranged.

I hope to hear from readers on this.

After I published this, I received more feedback on this post than anything I had previously written. It came mostly from several Facebook groups I belong to, but also from a couple of professional organizations as well. Today I’d like to share with you several of these comments, and then provide my new description of level 1.

The Feedback

The first three comments came from psychologists.

I have read your material, and tend to agree w/ you. It appears to me to qualify for a level 1 response, as it reflects a lack of (age appropriate ) skill development (if it is not a reflection of serious cognitive inefficiency in general). It does invite further negative input from the criticizer and others. It increases the victims sense of vulnerability. There are many other alternatives which could be modeled or practiced — even if they are not available for immediate accessing by the victim. In this sense, I agree with Dr. Phil (who I many times don’t agree) “Fake it till you make it”

Dr. Charles Morrissey school psychologist and lic.clinical psychologist NY

Hi Jeff,

Your query is very intriguing to me. As a psychodynamic therapist, I have found that crying can occur when a criticism becomes associated with an old psychological wound that has yet to be fully processed (e.g., perhaps the criticism sounds like something painful someone heard from his/her mother repeatedly, but they did not recognize this past hurt until it was activated by the current criticism). I hope this example makes sense. I like your revision and think it takes into account such a consideration. I hope that helps!

Take care,

Ashley

Ashley Curiel, Psy.D.

Jeff, you write (I think correctly) that, regardless of any adjustments you make in your hierarchy, you “hasten to point out that it won’t change the fact that many people will still consider crying in the face of criticism as a sign of immaturity. Some will lose respect for those who cry.” I suspect that many will considering crying a sign of “weakness,” an even more damaging judgment than “immaturity” in many social and vocational settings. (I admit to some confusion about the strength-weakness continuum as it has sometimes been explained to me, where compassion was considered “weakness” and aggression a sign of “strength.”)

I wonder how much the context of the criticism matters in this analysis. If a grad school classmate told me I was “incredibly stupid” because I did not know some obscure fact about endocrinology, I could probably have shot at a Level 4 (well, at least 3) response, especially if I had been getting all As in my courses and making great progress on my dissertation while anticipating a return to a secure and fulfilling job. However, I might well cry upon hearing the same words from the chair of my dissertation committee a week before my defense, especially if the time limit on my doctoral program was almost exhausted, I was struggling to make payments on the second mortgage I had taken out to pay for the doctoral program, and my new job was contingent on my receiving the doctoral degree by the end of the school year.

You are obviously correct that most individuals cry less readily in the face of criticisms and other stresses as they become older, which does fit a “maturity” continuum, but there do seem to be individual differences in general readiness to cry when criticized, when singing the national anthem on Memorial Day, when watching a sad movie, or in moments of joy. Some folks also think there are gender differences involved.

Thanks for sharing these posts with us.

John Willis

The rest of the comments came from members of Facebook groups that I belong to.

Phoebe Âû Perlman-Miller

Thank you Jeffrey. I had a few thoughts about your article in so much as I think that we have to be careful about labelling someone who cries, as a response to criticism, as immature. I think context is important and needs to be appreciated, and the nature of the conflict or the criticism needs to be explained. Crying is a pretty normal response to grief, stress, sadness etc., and isn’t something that the “crier” should automatically be ashamed of or guilty about, nor is it a reaction to which the other party, or parties, should automatically attach shame or blame. We expect people to be able to manage their emotions and to control themselves physically, but sometimes I think that this expectation can be a little unreasonable although, again, context is everything. Crying is a reaction which is generally triggered by a heightened emotional state, and sometimes it is difficult, even for the most emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person, to manage to balance out their threat and soothing/calming systems, depending on what has just been triggered for them. There are also, in genuine cases of distress (not the “crocodile” tear brigade), things going on in the automatic nervous system which make it difficult not to cry once the emotion has kicked in, such as the opening up of the glottis, the muscle controlling the opening from the back of the throat to the voice box, causing the “lump in the throat” feeling which often accompanies crying. Sipping water and deliberate yawning are techniques which help to release tension in throat muscles when this happens but I don’t imagine that these will automatically spring to mind when someone is in the middle of a conflict situation and, indeed, deliberate yawning might be taken the wrong way and exacerbate the matter. I think that a great proportion of those who cry when criticised do indeed use tears as part of an immature or manipulative or inappropriate response, because they know no other way of expressing or managing their distress or anger or fear etc., but I don’t think that it will be the case in every instance. I have known some of the most “together” and emotionally mature people to crack under sufficient levels of pressure (those who were criticising were certainly deliberately pushing buttons and hitting below the belt), and to cry despite obviously not wanting to, and they were certainly not wanting this physical manifestation of their emotional state to take centre stage in the interaction. Their response happened to be accompanied by some tears, but those tears were not central to their response, and certainly were not being used in a manipulative manner, nor were they accompanied by aggression or any other inappropriate behaviours, such as shouting or hitting or abuse of any kind. I think we need to look at the skills sets of both the criticisers and the criticised, and make a judgement based on the bigger picture – a somewhat wide-angled approach. Also, while I think that those who use tears to manipulate should not be allowed to gain any traction with such behaviour, I would hate to think that we “condition” people not to cry – there is a “stiff upper lip” stigma already in many societies which can be and is emotionally damaging, especially for men. We need to respect the fact that crying is natural and helpful and healing and cathartic, while also helping people manage their emotions and their conflicts using appropriate language and careful, respectful, assertive forms of communication.

Âûnty Jack

I think this depends a great deal on the type of criticism. Careful constructive criticism would be less likely to evoke tears especially if, for example, the sandwich technique was used – strength, need, strength. I think still, it is possible that someone who is tired and stressed might break down – perhaps consider that human if it is an atypical response. If the response to considered criticism and I am not talking about victimization, provoking, harassment or brutal comments, is always tears, the person may be highly manipulative, rather than immature.

Peter Rafferty

Sometimes a criticism may tap into something from childhood, to which the natural response is to cry. Crying could also be seen as mourning for a parent who criticised a child, but because of the child’s inability to cry in front of the parent, will cry in front of a therapist. Even if crying is accompanied by anger, it may display a need that the inner child is unconsciously displaying – perhaps an insecure, anxious attachment that needs to be addressed.

Kerrie Moor

Your level 1 change pleased me ..

Kerrie Moor

My response to many things are tears.:

Abrar Pirzada

Crying can only mean to show your sensitvity for a certain moment or thing!

Carmen Hipps Prettyman

IMO, crying releases all the pent up anguish that is toxic, it is a way to cleanse. On the other hand, it can also be an overwhelming emotion that can only be expressed through the release of the flow of tears….words just can’t express some of the emotions we feel…good or bad!!!

Franciane Thonet

Sometimes, criticism can remind someone of a bad place in their Life, re-open a wound that never was quite healed..I agree with no right or wrong here.

Ellen Cohen

Crying is natural and very human. If you feel that you want to cry as a response, then cry! Your feelings are your feelings. There’s no right or wrong feelings.

And so, those are some of the many thoughtful responses that I received. After giving them a great deal of thought, I have now decided that in future posts, when I describe the five levels of maturity, I’ll word the first level as follows: 1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts and then does nothing else to address the criticism. (Some mature people are very sensitive and do cry on occasion when criticized. If they cry and also address the criticism in a manner that is consistent with level 4 or 5, crying is not viewed as a sign of immaturity.)
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property

Although this is my plan for the future, I am always open to hearing additional comments and suggestions for improving the wording of all of the five levels of maturity. My Best, Jeff

——————————-

Tags conflict management, conflict resolution, constructive criticism, criticism, crying, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, negative criticism, tears, weeping

anger conflict management conflict resolution dig for the conflict free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt guilting wisdom

CONFLICTS AND GUILT

A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

Party A desires an act will occur.
Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

On this blog, when we think about describing a conflict we use the word “DIG” to remind us to look into the situation for a desire, something that interferes with the desire, and the perception of guilt. If there is no guilt, there is no conflict, but there still remains a desire-interference problem. All conflicts contain a desire-interference problem, but when guilt is present we have a conflict.

In the above Blondie comic, it is pretty clear that Dagwood has a desire to take a nap and interfering with this is his promise to fix a doorknob. He seems to me to be struggling with whether or not to feel guilty if he doesn’t keep his promise.

Also in the comic, we see that Blondie appears to have a conflict with Dagwood. That is, she desires that the doorknob gets fixed and interfering with her desire is Dagwood’s nap. She seems to think he is guilty for not keeping his promise. Is she seeking to punish him for his guilt by not preparing his sandwich?

Today’s post focuses on the guilt condition of conflicts.

Guilt and Conflicts

On the right we see Mary and Ron. Ron desires Mary and she desires him. They currently are not experiencing a conflict.

Consider a different scenario, one that we all have faced from time to time. You are going to the dentist and you have a desire to experience no pain, but you perceive that the dentist will probably act in a manner that will interfere with this. Do you perceive that under this set of circumstances you are likely to be having a conflict with the dentist? Why?

The DIG Conflict Model, which uses our above definition of “conflict,” indicates that if you do not perceive that your dentist is guilty of doing something wrong, there is no conflict. If you don’t blame the dentist for the pain but accept it as a necessary part of the dental procedure, the interfering condition is experienced in a very different way than when we experience a conflict.

In the dentist situation that I just described, you would still have a desire-interference problem–how can you get through this situation as best that you can given that you desire not to experience pain, and yet you are likely to experience some pain? All conflicts have a desire-interference problem in it, but not all desire-interference problems are conflicts.

Consider, if you will, a slightly different set of circumstances then our original dentist scenario. This time you have had a dental procedure done almost painlessly by Dr. Beam. Now a new dentist, Dr. Vopee, is performing the same procedure and as he does so, you are experiencing a great deal of pain.

According to the DIG Conflict Model, how you perceive this situation is crucial in determining whether or not you are experiencing a conflict. If you are blaming Dr. Vopee for this pain, believing he is doing something wrong, you are very likely to be experiencing a conflict with him. On the other hand, if you perceive the pain as due to the fact that no two procedures are exactly alike and that the pain must be due to the difference in the procedure rather than any incompetence of Dr. Vopee, then you will NOT experience a conflict with him.

What people who are in any given situation perceive is far more important than any act by itself. It is very possible for Sally to perceive that she has a conflict with Bob when Bob has done nothing to interfere with her and has no intention of doing so in the future. This can happen, for example, if Sally’s neighbor lies to her about Bob’s actions.

Let’s explore a little more what it means when we say someone perceives that someone is guilty of doing something wrong.

Some Definitions of Guilt

According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilt there are a few definitions for “guilt.”

1: the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct

2a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously
b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach

3: a feeling of culpability for offenses

My Definition of Guilty

As far as I’m concerned, you are free to define “guilt” or “guilty” in any way you choose. I have a very specific reason to use the word guilty in the sense that I choose–because I want to distinguish it from a very different experience and this can get muddled if I use the word too loosely. And so, I define “guilty” as follows:

If I perceive that someone has done something wrong and I become frustrated and angry at the person and I begin to seek to punish the person, I view that person as guilty.

For example, if I make a wrong turn to go to my friend’s house and when I discover my error if I have a strong emotion of frustration that springs up in me and I cry out, “What an idiot I am for making that mistake,” I am feeling guilty that I made the mistake and the reason I am calling myself an idiot is because it is my angry effort to punish myself.

I use that specific type of definition for “guilty” to distinguish it from how I define responsibility, which, as I view as a more mature response. When people act responsibly, they recognize that they did something wrong, experience a strong feeling of frustration, recognize at the same time that as long they are a human being they are going to make mistakes. They recognize that the strong feeling of frustration is a good thing because it leads them to focus on what they did wrong, and the emotionality helps spur a process that increases the possibility of fixing the error in the long term, decreasing the chance that they will make the same mistake. Part of this frustration reaction leads me to focus on what I can do next time to prevent the mistake. This is a wonderful process and I welcome the experience as I would a helpful friend. When I see guilt springing up in me, I have been getting more and more skillful at transforming it into my helpful friend.

Some people think guilt occurs whenever they see that someone has done something wrong. It is not wrong to define it this way except when we are using the DIG Conflict Model. But even when we are not using the DIG Conflict Model, it will still be beneficial to keep the idea of angrily desiring punishment when someone does something wrong separate from the idea of learning from the experience of making a mistake by experiencing frustration in a friendly, non-punishing manner.

If you see that your five-year old son has made a mistake when trying to add 7 plus 3 and he came up with 9, you may see that he has done something wrong, but you might experience this as somewhat different than when you feel someone is “guilty” of doing something wrong. You may think that your son almost got the right answer, and he’s trying, and this is part of the learning process. You might not feel angry at him, nor think he deserves to be punished for his efforts. Perhaps you might gently correct him and give him a warm smile.

Another Example

A husband comes home from work. He doesn’t look like he is responding in a friendly, gentle manner as he perceives that his wife is doing something wrong. His face looks angry about it. We can easily imagine that he is likely to make some punishing statements toward the two people who are kissing, and perhaps he might even go further by making some other punishing acts such as hitting or seeking to divorce his wife.

When thinking about conflicts, it is useful to distinguish between guilt that arouses anger and seeks to punish versus viewing someone doing something wrong without it being accompanied by anger.

Now, some of my students ask me, isn’t there a place in this world for righteous anger? Doesn’t the guy who finds his wife cheating on him have a perfect right to be angry and to seek to punish the cheats?

The DIG Conflict Model does not attempt to decide this philosophical issue for all people for all situations and for now through to the end of time. Instead, it seeks to free people who have learned when they were young a rigid pattern of responding to their perceptions that someone did something wrong. If you have learned to react to a perceived wrong in only one way–with frustration, anger and punishment, perhaps you may welcome the freedom to choose between guilt or a friendlier response.

Well, that’s my post for today. I hope you find that it offers some food for thought. Have a great week!

——————————-

Tags anger, Blondie Comic Strip, conflict, conflict management, Conflict Model, Dagwood and Blondie, dig for the conflict, dispute management, experience, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, frustration, guilt, guilty, maturity, responsibility

Beetle Bailey conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling recurring conflict social intelligence types of criticism

RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 16, 2014
1 Comment on RESOLVING RECURRING CONFLICTS

One day Beetle Bailey and Sarge have a conflict:

As you can see, eventually the conflict is resolved.

But a few days later, the two have another conflict.

Again and again other conflicts spring up between these same two individuals. These recurring conflicts come about with a distinctly higher frequency than usual for two people in the types of situations in which they live and interact.

When we see two people having an unusual amount of recurring conflicts, at some point we might want to dig a little below the surface to figure out why.

Using the DIG Conflict Model to Help with Challenging Conflicts

From time to time on this blog, we have been using the word DIG to remind us of a simple way to briefly summarize any conflict. The letters in the word “DIG” reminds us to look for a desire, what is interfering with achieving the desire, and if someone feels that the person who is viewed as interfering with the desire is guilty of doing something wrong. We also noted earlier that the word “DIG” is a useful memory device because sometimes we have to dig below the surface to understand a conflict (see DIG FOR THE CONFLICT and DEALING WITH CRITICISM BY DIGGING DEEPER).

In an earlier post, I discussed two digging tools that help us to find ways of improving our style of providing criticism and resolving conflicts (see WHY IS CRITICISM SO HARD TO BEAR?). There, I mentioned that it is helpful to stay mindful that when people are criticized, their desire to be liked and to maintain their freedom may become threatened. By keeping this in mind, we can often come up with less threatening alternative styles to engage people during our disagreements. During recurring conflicts, these tools for digging can be very helpful.

Today, we are going to look at three other digging tools because they are especially helpful when we notice that we are dealing with recurring conflicts.

Three Digging Tools Especially Helpful for Resolving Recurring Conflicts

The three digging tools we will focus on today are in the form of questions:

1. What desire might be motivating the conflict?

2. What other desires might be motivating the conflict?

3. Why do the people involved in the problem have this desire in this situation?

To familiarize yourself with this aspect of conflicts, please consider the following Beetle Bailey comic:

From this comic, we might get the impression that Sarge views this situation as a conflict he is having with Beetle, a conflict that we might describe from his perspective as follows: Sarge desires Beetle to wait in a certain spot and interfering with his desire, Beetle wants to wait in a different spot. Sarge believes that if Beetle doesn’t follow his order, he will be guilty of insubordination.

Suppose we ask Sarge if, from his perspective, these two sentences capture a conflict he is having with Beetle, and he replies, “Yes! That lazy bum is trying to goof off again!”

At this point, something strikes me over the head, urging me to dig a little deeper than the two-sentence conflict description Sarge has said captures his conflict with Beetle. It seems to me that Sarge and Beetle seem to be having far more conflicts with one another than is usual between a sargent and a private under his command.

Hmmm. To begin digging into this conflict, I put my tools out there where I can easily get at them. In bold letters I write out the following three questions.

1. What desire might be motivating the conflict? 2. What other desires might be motivating the conflict? 3. Why does the party have this desire in this situation?

As I begin to think about this a little more, I wonder if the desire that I identified in my first attempt to describe the conflict is the best that I can come up with. Is this really about Sarge’s desire to have Beetle wait in the exact spot that he has pointed to?

In this situation I don’t see how Sarge thinks Beetle is likely to behave in a manner that is interfering with what Sarge says he desires. Beetle just asks if he can wait sitting in the shade. Sarge knows Beetle well enough by now so that he must realize that once he orders Beetle to wait where he tells him to wait, he isn’t likely to be insubordinate. Moreover, it wasn’t any problem for Sarge to figure out how to get Beetle to wait where he wanted him to wait. All he had to do was bark orders at Beetle, something he’s done numerous times. Perhaps Sarge has some other desire that is part of the reason he is getting so worked up here.

My memory scans over the other recent conflicts I’ve seen happen between Sarge and Beetle. I recall, over and over again, situations that had Sarge perceiving Beetle as lazy.

I also recall seeing many times over the years Sarge becoming furious about Beetle’s laziness.

OK, so in most of the situations that conflicts spring up between the two, laziness is an issue.

Let’s pretend, for instructional purposes, that I can explore with Sarge whether or not we can reword the original conflict description as a recurring conflict.

“Sarge, I’m gonna describe your conflict a little differently than before because I don’t think the original description is as good as we can make it. If you don’t mind, let me know if it is more or less accurate. Earlier I described it from your perspective as follows: You desire that Beetle wait in a certain spot and Beetle interfered with your desire when he indicated that he wants to wait in a different spot. You believe that if Beetle doesn’t follow your order, he will be guilty of insubordination. You agreed that it is pretty accurate. But what if I describe it instead like this: You have a desire to have privates under your command that are energetic go-getters, and after Beetle was assigned to your outfit you have found his laziness has been interfering with this desire. You believe Beetle is, and will continue to be, guilty of laziness.”

“Yes, that is a much better description of my conflict with Beetle than your original description.”

“I thought it might be. Beetle has been in your outfit for years. Specific conflicts arose. To deal with his laziness I’ve noticed that you have yelled at him, given him KP duty that required that he peel potatoes up to his ears, and used all manner of threats and physical attacks.

Beetle at least listens to your orders, though sometimes taking them a bit too literally. But, nevertheless, he is never blatantly insubordinate. Although Beetle continues to be lazy, you found that with a little assertive hollering (“I SAID WAIT HERE, AND I MEAN RIGHT HERE!”) he usually complies even if he has to stand in place while a steam shovel comes roaring by.”

“Yeah, but he keeps acting lazy. It’s driving me BERSERK!”

“I can tell it’s starting to really get to you.”

“You’re telling me!!!”

“This last conflict you had with Beetle was resolved with so little difficulty that it really didn’t qualify as a conflict or even a problem. And yet, Sarge, you remained angry. And this kind of troubling interaction with Beetle has been happening in one situation after another. Something else has to be going on.”

“Sarge, I noticed that in each situation that you get angry with Beetle Bailey, it usually has to do with his laziness.”

“You’re right about that!”

Once Sarge clearly understands the nature of his recurring conflict, he is in a better position to seek out a resolution. Before he understood this, when he would complain to his fellow sergeants about Beetle not doing this or that, they would ask, “Well, did you get him to do it?” When Sarge would answer yes, they would shrug, and say, “At least he’s not insubordinate.” But now Sarge tells his fellow sergeants, “See if you can help me with this problem. I want privates under my command to be energetic, hustling team members, and after Beetle was assigned to my outfit I’ve found his laziness has been interfering with this desire. Beetle continues to be guilty of laziness. Any of you have any ideas to fix this?”

“Well, I had a recruit once by the name of Bob,” says one of the sergeants, “and he was the laziest bum I ever saw in my life. Well, what I did was, I told this here Bob, the next time you do anything that strikes me as lazy, I’m gonna put you on KP duty until you go a whole two weeks without my catching you acting lazy. Then I’m gonna let you off KP duty until I catch ya being lazy again. We’re gonna keep doing this until you stop being lazy. Anyway, it worked like a charm.”

Now I’m not saying this plan is ideal or that it will work every time. I simply lay it out there as a part of a parable designed to give you an example of a recurring conflict and to suggest that by digging a little to better define a conflict, we are oftentimes better positioned to seek more specific, helpful advice.

——————————-

Tags Beetle Bailey, conflict, conflict management, conflict resolution, desire, dig for the conflict, dispute management, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, insults, negative criticism, recurring conflict

conflict management conflict resolution emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt Hope psychological maturity respect Romeo and Juliet social intelligence wisdom

NELSON MANDELA AND THE ART OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date December 8, 2013
7 Comments on NELSON MANDELA AND THE ART OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

“Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (From Nelson Mandela’s speech to European Parliament, 1990.)

As I write this post, we are in the middle of South Africa’s 10-day mourning period for Nelson Mandela. Although I myself have never set foot in South Africa, I, along with millions of Americans, and millions more around the world, find our hearts merging with those of his country’s citizens. It is, of course, a period of remembrance of a man who learned to forgive his oppressors; a man who in his later years developed a smile full of wisdom and kindness; a man who could fill up Yankee Stadium with thrilling cheers; a man deeply respected.

For me, Nelson Mandela provided us an enduring inspirational lesson on conflict resolution.

Nelson Mandela and Conflict

When we attempt to come up with a brief description of a conflict, it helps to have a good definition of “conflict” at hand. On this blog, we have been using a definition derived from the DIG Conflict Model.

A conflict exists whenever the following three conditions exist:

Party A desires an act will occur.
Party A perceives that another party is likely to act in a manner that interferes with the desire.
Party A perceives that the other party would be guilty of doing something wrong if he or she carries out the interfering act.

Notice that each of the three conditions has a key word italicized—desire for the first condition, interferes for the second, and guilty for the third. If we take the first letter of each of these key words and put them together, they spell DIG; hence the DIG Conflict Model’s name.

Party A, in the above definition, indicates the individual who is theoretically engaged in a conflict and from whose perspective the conflict will first be described.

For most of Mandela’s life, the major conflict that existed in his country can be briefly described as follows:

The large majority of people living in South Africa desired to have basic civil rights but interfering with this was the government’s apartheid laws and policies. The majority of the people felt that those supporting the laws and policies of apartheid were, and would continue to be, guilty of doing a terrible wrong.

Many of the people who participated in the conflict experienced its guilt condition as so large that their attention was focused mostly on that particular condition, and it became hard to focus their attention on solving the desire-interfering problem. To understand this better, we have to take a couple of minutes to see how each of the three conditions of a conflict can vary in size and how that affects efforts to resolve a conflict.

The Three Conflict Conditions Can Vary in Size

The three conditions of a conflict (desire, interference and guilt) are not just present. Each of these conditions, like the sides of a triangle, can vary in size.

The Variability of Desires. People have different desires, some not as strong as others. We can get a feel for this by considering the following scenarios:

Over the course of a few months, Juliet meets four young suitors at different times. First she meets Tom, spends an hour with him at a nice café, and the next day she has no desire to ever see him again. A few weeks later she meets Dick at a play, and the next day she has a small but not overwhelming desire to see him. The following week, during a stroll through a lush park, she is introduced to Harry. The next day she finds that she wants to see him even more then she wants to see Dick. And then she meets Romeo. Juliet’s passion leads her to follow Romeo through the gates of death.

Let’s say twenty-four hours after each of these four meetings, Juliet is asked to rate on a zero to ten-point scale how much she wants to see each. Zero indicates she has no desire to see the guy, and ten indicates the greatest desire she can imagine. For Tom, she provides a rating of zero; for Dick, a three; for Harry, a six; and for Romeo, a ten.

Once a person desires something a certain amount, over time it can change. We all know cases in which both the bride and groom swear at their wedding that they desire to be together for the rest of their lives, and then after a few years, they have no desire to be with one another for another minute, let alone for the rest of their lives.

The process of asking people to rate from one to ten how much they desire something allows us to measure this kind of variability. A similar process can be used to measure the other two conditions for a conflict—interfering and guilt.

The Variability of Interfering Acts. Recall that in a conflict an interfering act refers to a party doing something that gets in the way of Party A’s desire. With that in mind, consider the following scenarios:

Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father gives his blessing and says, “Marry him whenever you want.” Juliet is asked to rate on a zero to ten- point scale the degree she perceives that her father will act in a manner that is interfering with what she wants. Zero indicates “not at all interfering.” Ten indicates “completely interfering.” With a delightful smile, she indicates a zero.

Let’s change the scenario a bit. Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father says she can see him as much as she wants six days a week. He goes on to say that on Fridays she can also see Romeo as much as she wants, but only during the day. From suppertime to bedtime on Fridays she will meet some other eligible men in the city. If after three months of this plan, Juliet still wants to marry Romeo, her father tells her he will give his blessing. Although Juliet wants to marry Romeo right away, she indicates that it appears to her that her father’s plan will not be completely interfering with what she wants by giving it a rating of three.

How about this scenario? Juliet wants to marry Romeo. Her father forbids her from ever seeing Romeo and has hired some thugs to kidnap and transport him to Australia, thousands of miles away. Juliet indicates that it appears to her that her father’s interfering act is a ten.

These three scenarios illustrate that, like desires, interfering activities can be perceived as varying on a scale from zero to ten. So too can the guilt condition.

The Variability of Guilt. Like the desires and incompatibility conditions of conflicts, people don’t perceive guilt as just present or absent, but rather they perceive varying degrees of it. For example, let’s say Juliet passionately desires to marry Romeo, but discovers that the prince has ordered that anyone marrying Romeo will be beheaded, along with all of her family. Under this set of circumstances, Juliet may not blame her father at all if he refuses to give her his permission.

What about a different set of circumstances? Juliet passionately wants to marry Romeo. In this case, the prince is not involved. Juliet’s father earns a meager living running a grocery store in town. Many of his customers hate Romeo. If they were to hear that Juliet’s father gave his permission for her to marry Romeo, they would stop shopping at his store.

The whole family depends on the income from the store. Juliet believes her family would somehow survive, but they would lose the house that they love and have to make other major sacrifices. In this case, Juliet may blame her father for refusing to give his permission for her to get married, but perhaps just a little bit.

In our final example, Juliet’s father refuses to give her his permission to marry even though everyone in town likes Romeo and thinks he would make a great husband for her. When Juliet asks her father for an explanation for his refusal, he replies, “Because I said so!”

Under this set of circumstances, Juliet may believe her father is completely to blame for his interfering act. In the case of so large a guilt condition, Juliet may begin to focus on doing something terrible to make him “pay” for his guilt. Her angry emotions can make it difficult to think rationally and creatively.

Back to the Mandela Conflict

In 1980, when Nelson Mandela was still in prison, I spoke for over an hour to a person of color about his views on South Africa’s apartheid policies. The entire time he was very angry and he spoke about all of the awful things that those supporting apartheid were guilty of doing. Each time I tried to get him to discuss what the country can do to move forward in order to achieve his desire to obtain civil rights for all of the people of South Africa, he would begin to answer me, but before he could finish his first sentence, he switched back to talking about another set of actions that supporters of South Africa were guilty of.

I believe this type of discussion was typical of many of those embroiled in this conflict until Mandela was finally released after 27 years in prison. Mandela spoke with authority when he modeled for his people a very different form of discussion, a form of discussion that was less angry, less blaming of who did what, and more on how to achieve the desire for civil rights and how to end the interfering acts of apartheid supporters. He spoke with authority in part because the people knew that if Mandela could forgive after how he suffered in prison for so long, perhaps they could find a way to do so as well.

Oh, there were those who wanted revenge despite hearing Mandela’s approach. Would have more violence bred even more violence?

In the end, the South African people decided overwhelmingly that Mandela’s approach was the wiser of the two paths that laid before them. Yes, there remains many serious problems that remain for the South African people to solve. But the people have spoken, and there are many signs that exist to say they were right. Today, according to a recent Gallup poll:

In closing, I want to leave you with the words of former President Bill Clinton. Upon being interviewed about the death of Mandela, Clinton said:

“His enduring power is that he showed us that there is truth and freedom in forgiveness and in the mental and emotional discipline to live in the present and think of the future.”

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Tags anger, apartheid, conflict resolution, dig for the conflict, emotional intelligence, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Nelson Mandela, psychological maturity, respect, South Africa, violence, wisdom

anger bullying child discipline conflict management conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts MATURITY Name calling respect stress taunting teasing wisdom

RESPONDING TO INSULTS BY IGNORING

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date November 24, 2013
5 Comments on RESPONDING TO INSULTS BY IGNORING

If you have been following this blog, you know that I have often discussed different ways to respond to insults.

For example, some people respond to negative criticism that is designed to be constructive as if it was an insult. They then become angry, defensive and end up storming away. In a post titled CRITICISM AND WISDOM, I encouraged people who respond in this way to this type of criticism to learn to change their attitude. I explained that this type of criticism does not have to be viewed as an insult, but rather, as something potentially helpful and something that can lead toward wisdom. Rather than becoming defensive, we can learn to welcome this type of criticism and even encourage the criticizer to feel free to provide additional criticism in the future. This takes practice, but it can be achieved.

Sometimes people begin to throw insults at you because they are angry about a conflict they have with you. In this type of situation, rather than to respond to the insults by becoming defensive and returning the insults, I advocated in an earlier post learning a plan to DIG FOR THE CONFLICT in a friendly, assertive manner.

More recently, I mentioned that in certain types of situations RESPONDING TO INSULTS WITH QUIET SADNESS can be helpful. This type of response is most helpful when the insults are being provided because the insulter is in a stressed-out mood about something that has nothing to do with you, or because the insulter is jealous of you.

When I engage in discussions about the above types of responses, people sometimes ask me what I think about just ignoring an insult.

In the above Luann comic strip, Delta tries to get Luann to consider ignoring Tiffany. I wonder if it would be better to ignore her insult but not ignore Tiffany.

This ignoring insults strategy has been with us for a long time. I remember a principal many years ago advocating that kids should learn to ignore insults because tossing insults at someone is a lot like a game of tennis. That is, in tennis, if Ron serves a ball to you, if you refuse to hit the ball back, Ron will quickly become bored and find someone else to play with. Similarly, if Ron throws an insult at you, if you ignore it, rather than throw the insult back, Ron will soon become bored and leave you alone.

There are times when I have used the ignoring approach fairly successfully. I remember a time when I was about 12-years old. I was passing three guys who were hanging out on a street corner. They appeared to be around 18. When they started insulting me, I ignored it and just kept walking. They let me pass with just one more insult. It was all over in a matter of seconds and no physical harm had occurred to me. And so, the ignoring strategy worked pretty well.

However, when I got home, my imagination took flight. I wondered if my sense of being a “true” man had gotten roughed up just a bit. Maybe, I thought, if I really had guts, I should have told those guys a thing or two even at the risk of being beaten to a bloody pulp. Then I imagined being Superman, and I used my super powers to beat all three of them up.

But now that I’m quite a bit older and I have a far more secure sense of my manhood, I think that under the circumstances that I found myself as a 12-year old, my actions were indeed reasonable. I’ve learned over the years that nothing I could have done differently would have been really likely to have had any real positive impact on those three guys.

To create real change with boys like that requires an intervention that a typical 12-year old could hardly be expected to create. It would have to involve, for example, someone the older boys genuinely respect, or creating a coalition of citizens working together to take the type of nonviolent actions that was used to put a stop to the disrespectful treatment of blacks during the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s.

For young children and those individuals who have trouble learning words, the great benefit of the ignoring approach is that it is perhaps the easiest strategy to learn. Not even a single word is required, and it indeed can often produce better results then returning insults with insults.

Close cousins to the ignoring approach, is to learn to use a particular word or phrase in response to the first insult followed by ignoring any following insults. The most popular of course is “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never harm me.” Others are:

“So.”

“Good one.”

“Nice try.”

“I’m not going there.”

This “word or phrase approach” can give the person using it the experience of doing something to stick up for oneself. The word or phrase is meant to convey to the insulter that you recognize the game that the insulter is trying to play, and you are smart enough to know how to refuse to play it if that’s what you wish to do. There is a sense of empowerment that comes with being involved in a choice and taking some outward action to exercise your choice. Ignoring, or covering your ears to pretend to ignore, without saying anything may seem “weaker” to you than at least saying something on your behalf in a pleasant, self-assured manner.

This strategy works best when the word or phrase is uttered in a pleasant, friendly tone while looking squarely into the eyes of the insulter. If you instead say the word or phrase with a sneer or with any other action that tries to convey that you are somehow better or smarter than the insulter, the strategy is likely to make the situation worse. You don’t want to do anything that makes the insulter angrier than he or she may already be. That might lead to an escalation of any underlying conflict and violence. A sneer amounts to returning the insult, when that’s just what you want to avoid. Any action that comes off as returning the insult will most likely motivate the insulter to try harder to make you feel bad.

Now, although ignoring or using a quick word or phrase followed by ignoring is easy to learn and often much better than returning the insult, for most situations trying to first find out why the person is throwing out insults is a much better course of action (see INSULTS: A COMIC STRIP LOVER’S GUIDE). By asking the insulter in a concerned manner the reason for the insult can lead to a quick fix for some underlying problem. And of course, if this “asking in a concerned manner” approach doesn’t work, you can always use the ignoring approach or one of its cousins afterwards.

Well, that’s my post for this week. I’m hoping readers will take some time to post a comment about these ideas. What has worked for you? What has been your experience in trying any of these strategies? I’d love to hear from you.

Have a great week!

——————————-

Tags anger, conflict management, conflict resolution, criticism, dig for the conflict, dispute management, disrespectful, free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum, Ignoring, insulter, jr, Martin Luther King, psychological maturity, respect, violence, wisdom

ABCs of Personal Power anger conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt insults interpersonal conflicts negative criticism parenting social intelligence wisdom

THE ABCs OF POWER AND THE GUILT CONDITION

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date April 13, 2013
2 Comments on THE ABCs OF POWER AND THE GUILT CONDITION

For the past few weeks I have been discussing personal power. Power is the skill to achieve your desires. To help people to come up with plans to achieve their desires, we have been constructing a list, in alphabetical order, of sources of power. We are calling this list the ABCs of Power. So far, the list looks like this:

THE ABCs OF POWER

A=Advancing Skill (see The ABCs of Power: The letter “A”)

B=Breaking Down a Conflict into its Three Conditions: Desire, Interference and Guilt (see The ABCs of Power: The Letter “B”)

C=Coalitions (see The ABCs of Power: The Letter “C”).

Each of these sources of power do not instantly provide us with a plan that is specific enough to achieve our desires. Rather, when we feel stuck in coming up with a specific plan, these sources of power can guide us along a path that leads us to discover a specific plan.

As I have already mentioned, the best way to learn how to use the sources of power is to look at a variety of examples of people using the ABCs of Power. To that end, we have recently looked at an example of someone who had a desire to feel less lonely, and found utilizing the sources of power led to a plan that successfully achieved his desire. We also looked at an example of someone who was being bullied when he went for a drink at a water fountain.

Today we will look at a fresh new example.

Eugene and Doreen (Illustrations by Eric Sailer)

Eugene and Doreen recently divorced after ten years of marriage. They have three children. Doreen takes care of them during weekdays, and then, according to a legal agreement, she is to bring them on Saturday morning at 10 to Eugene’s house. Eugene is supposed to return them by eight PM on Sunday evening. Over the past two months, Eugene was late in returning the children to Doreen’s house on three different occasions. After the first time that Eugene was late, Doreen said nothing. “Better to keep things cool for the sake of the kids,” she thought. After the second time, she still kept quiet, but inside she was fuming. On the third occasion, Doreen blew up at Eugene as he was retuning the kids.

“How dare you bring the kids back an hour late? Can’t you tell time? You’re always late. It’s just like you!”

“You dropped them off late in the first place!” he yells back. “You can’t take my time with the kids and then not expect me to bring them back late. I already see them way less than you!”

“The kind of father you’ve been to the kids you shouldn’t get to see them at all!”

The two end up storming away from each other, leaving the children distressed.

Eugene recognizes that this conflict is not good for the kids, and it’s not doing him a whole lot of good either. But he has been unable to come up with a resolution that he likes. Even by focusing first on the desire component of the conflict and then on the interference component, he has met with absolutely no success. His mind keeps thinking about all of the wrongs that he believes Doreen has done during their relationship, and he ends up obsessing on all of these wrongs. Now he decides to spend some time focusing on the guilt component, which is kind of what he has been doing when he spends time obsessing over these wrongs. However, when he decides to focus on the guilt component, he understands he is to do this in a very specific manner.

To focus on this component, like focusing on any of the other two components, he must first use the DIG pattern to describe the conflict. The letters in the word DIG remind him to describe first the desire, then the interference, and then the guilt. He says to himself, “I desire to have a full weekend with the kids, and interfering with this, Doreen has been regularly bringing them to me on Saturday morning over an hour late. I believe she is guilty of being wrong for being angry when I bring them back on Sunday at a time that makes up for her lateness.”

After describing the conflict from his perspective, Eugene tries to describe it, as best he can, from Doreen’s perspective. “Doreen,” he says to himself, “desires that I always bring the kids back at 8 PM Sunday evening, but interfering with this, she perceives that there are times when I will bring them back late. She believes I am guilty of being wrong for bringing the kids back late even when she has been late dropping them off on Saturday.”

As he comes up with this description, Eugene realizes that Doreen has other unresolved conflicts with him that involve her angry memories about mistakes he has made in the past, and he has additional unresolved conflicts with her. By using the DIG pattern of describing his conflict, he has come to better understand this. He had seen all the other conflicts with her as all one big amorphous conflict. This made it much harder to figure out any reasonable resolution. He now realizes that perhaps it will be much better if he focuses just on one conflict at a time, a conflict that can be clearly stated.

“Now, not only am I going to just focus on this one conflict, but I’m also going to just focus on the guilt component of the conflict. This requires that I ask myself the following question— Can I do something so that the guilt part of the conflict will be reduced or eliminated?”

As Eugene ponders this question, he finds himself saying, “What can I do so that I don’t view Doreen as guilty of being wrong in this situation, and what can I do to convince Doreen that I am not guilty of being wrong?” Suddenly, Eugene remembers that the issue Doreen felt he was most guilty of throughout their marriage was that he didn’t listen to her. “Whatever I do to resolve this conflict, it would be best if Doreen ends up feeling that I really listened to her. Otherwise she will remain so angry that she will refuse to do anything to resolve the conflict.”

As Eugene crafts his plan, he realizes that when he calls her to discuss this issue, she will view it as a situation in which he is providing criticism to her. “I better review the providing criticism level 5 description. And at some point in our conversation, Doreen will be criticizing me. To prepare for our conversation, I better review the level 5 description for responding to criticism.”

After studying those two descriptions, he starts to imagine different ways he can respond to Doreen so that she clearly feels he is listening to her and that he is using skills consistent with the highest levels of maturity. Some of the comments he imagines Doreen will make anger him so much that he has to spend a few days utilizing the anger techniques that we discussed earlier. Finally, he believes he has come up with a plan that’s worth a try.

RING!

“Hello,” says Doreen answering her phone.

“Hello Doreen, it’s me, Eugene.” He had to practice making sure he could say this without bitterness in his voice.

“What do you want, Eugene?”

“First, I want to say I’m sorry about how I spoke to you in front of the children last Sunday. I know that wasn’t helpful at all. I would like to get together with you sometime this week without the kids around so that we can discuss how we can better deal with the lateness problem we’ve been having.”

“Is that Daddy?” their daughter asks Doreen. Eugene can hear this on his end of the phone line.

“Yes,” answers Doreen. “Now be quiet. I’m trying to talk.”

“I hear the kids are in the room,” says Eugene. “Let’s set up a time when we can talk without the kids overhearing us. I don’t think it’s good for them to hear us quarreling.”

“I don’t know what there is to talk about!” says Doreen sharply. “Just bring the kids back when you’re supposed to. I can’t believe you have the nerve to complain about my being a little late on a few occasions when you didn’t even show up half the time for the kids’ big events when we were married. There was Judy’s play, Mark’s little league games, I can go on and on.”

This is extremely hard for Eugene to hear, especially because he knows the kids are in earshot. But he has prepared himself well, and he manages to keep listening to Doreen without interrupting. When he is sure she has finished with all that she wants to say, he summarizes her key points, agrees that there is much merit in what she has to say, and then he adds, “You are right that I was far from an ideal dad in the past. I’m sorry that I disappointed you, myself, and most of all, the kids. I really do want to try to do better. That’s why I’m asking you to meet without the kids to discuss our latest problem. Please tell me a good time for us to do this.”

“I think it’s a waste of time, but how about next Sunday, when you bring the kids back. I’ll have my mom here to watch the kids and we can go for a walk. Is that okay?”

“Thank you, Doreen. I’ll see you then.”

That Sunday, Eugene returns the kids a few minutes early in an effort to make certain he would not be late.

“Thank you for setting this up with your mom,” Eugene says in a pleasant tone as he and Doreen begin their walk. He is making an effort to start their conversation on a positive note. “I know how busy you are.”

“A full time job and raising kids is pretty exhausting,” she replies sounding a bit harried.

“Yes it is, Doreen.”

Doreen then launches into her outrage that Eugene has the nerve to make a big thing about her coming late a few times. “If you bring them home late, it messes up our whole routine and the kids don’t get the sleep they need, and the next day at school they’re wild.”

“I can see your argument is a good one, Doreen. If you bring the kids to me late on Saturday morning it’s just me that loses out. If I bring the kids home late on Sunday, not only are you put out, but the kids get messed up too. What I did without discussing it with you clearly isn’t an acceptable solution to my problem. I should have discussed this with you first. I know I was wrong and I apologize.”

“Well I’m glad you understand,” Doreen replies, her tone beginning to sound a little less angry.

“I do treasure my time with the kids, Doreen. Is there anything you can come up with that you think would be fair when you come late on Saturday morning?”

Doreen again goes into how often he was late in the past. “If I’m late a few times it serves you right for how many times you were late in the past!” she concludes.

As Doreen speaks, Eugene makes sure he does not interrupt her and that he makes it clear he is listening and trying to see the merits and legitimacy in her point of view. He attempts to communicate his understanding of her viewpoint by checking his understanding every few minutes. This involves summarizing what he has heard her say and then pausing to see if she is satisfied with his summary.

As he listens to her list of criticisms, he is tempted to say that she deserves to be punished for all the things she’s done wrong, but he realizes that providing negative criticism to her now would not be a productive approach. Doreen would start to go down her list of all the things he did wrong in the past once again, which he is already well aware of. He could then go down all the things she has done wrong over the years, something he’s already done with her on numerous occasions. In the end, they would end up getting nowhere on the conflict he came to discuss.

“Doreen, I understand why you feel I should be punished for the many mistakes I made over the years. In my mind, I am being punished for them. For example, you got the house, and you know how much I love that place. And I only get to see the children two days a week. Going through the divorce was hard on both of us. Please suggest another way we can work out this lateness problem.”

“Don’t you understand, bringing them back late on Sunday is out of the question.”

“I understand that, Doreen. Can we make up the time some other way?”

“Well, how about this? If you feel I’m dropping them off too late on Saturday morning, tell me and we’ll figure out together when you can make up the time. The kids have some Monday’s off from school every now and then, like Presidents day. Maybe you can make up the time on a Sunday when there’s no school on Monday.”

“I like that idea, Doreen. So, when I feel that I want to make up some lost time I should contact you and arrange a time to make up the time.”

After this issue is agreed upon, Doreen talks a little more about some difficulties she’s having with the kids of late, and Eugene uses his best listening skills. As they return to the house, Eugene again thanks Doreen for agreeing to discuss this problem.

Afterwards, Doreen is much less likely to bring the kids late on Saturday mornings, and when she is late, it’s just a few minutes. Eugene never bothers to ask to make up the time, for it really hasn’t amounted to anything significant. He too, on occasion, has brought the kids back a little late but Doreen understands that this will happen from time to time. Both he and Doreen are pleased with how this conflict had been resolved.

Notice that Eugene, upon focusing on the guilt component of the conflict, came to realize that Doreen not only thought he was wrong for bringing the kids home late on Sunday evening, but also about not listening to her whenever she spoke to him. By improving his listening skills and by apologizing for his mistakes in the past, including bringing the kids home late on a Sunday evening, this helped to reduce the intensity of the conflict. Once this occurred, Doreen became more open to working out a resolution with which both parties felt comfortable.

In sum, the source of power that we have been discussing encourages you to break down the conflict into its three conditions, then to come up with an idea to make a change in just one of them, and then to see if the change might lead to the rest of the conflict becoming easier to manage.

To be an effective source of power, we found that it must be coordinated with the other skills we learned. For example, utilizing the knowledge about the Responding to Criticism Rating System and the Providing Negative Criticism Rating System helped Eugene resolve his conflict with Doreen.

The source of power that has you breaking down a conflict into its three conditions, like all sources of power, cannot immediately provide a specific plan that will resolve a conflict. Nevertheless, when you are having difficulty resolving a conflict, the perspective that occurs when you focus on just one of the three conditions will often help you to create a valuable plan that might have otherwise been overlooked.

——————————-

Tags ABCs of Power, anger, conflict, criticism, dig for the conflict, guilt, insults, maturity levels, negative criticism, parenting, sources of power, wisdom

ABCs of Personal Power coalitions conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum guilt insults interpersonal conflicts Name calling teasing wisdom

SOME EXAMPLES OF UTILIZING THE ABCs OF POWER

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date April 7, 2013
No Comments on SOME EXAMPLES OF UTILIZING THE ABCs OF POWER

On this blog, for the past three weeks I have been discussing the nature of personal power.

I’ve also been constructing a list, in alphabetical order, of the main sources of power. So far, the list looks like this:

THE ABCs OF POWER

A=Advancing Skill (see The ABCs of Power: The letter “A”)

B=Breaking Down a Conflict into its Three Conditions: Desire, Interference and Guilt (see The ABCs of Power: The Letter “B”)

C=Coalitions (see The ABCs of Power: The Letter “C”).

When the list is completed, there will be sources of power all the way up to the letter “F.” But before we expand the list to include these other three sources of power, let’s take a little time to look at some examples of individuals who use just the first three sources of power. This will allow readers to become more familiar with how this list can become helpful in a variety of situations.

First Example

It’s summer, and Tommy, a thirteen year old Brooklyn boy, loves to play basketball at the nearby school yard. It’s a pretty big school yard, and he and his friends play pick-up games at one end, while the older kids play pick-up games at the other end. Near where the big guys play is the water fountain.

In summer, after a game, Tommy needs a good drink of water. But lately, some of the big kids at school who have bullied him have been playing in the big kids’ game.

The last time Tommy tried to get a drink of water after a game, the bullies really gave him a hard time. That was yesterday. Now Tommy wants to go play basketball, but he doesn’t know what to do about the water fountain problem. All last night he imagined he was Superman and he beat-up the bullies using his super powers.

But that really didn’t solve the problem. ” What should I really do about this?” he asks himself.

He remembers that his counselor at school gave him a list of the sources of power and taught him how to use it. He goes and gets the list.

The first item on the list says A=Advancing Skill. “Hmmm,” he says to himself, “can I learn some skills to take care of these bullies? The only thing I can think of is to learn Karate, but it would take years for me to get good enough to get the bullies to leave me alone. Let me look at the next thing on the list. It says, B=Breaking Down a Conflict into its Three Conditions: Desire, Interference and Guilt.

“To use this source of power,”says Tommy, “I have to first describe my conflict using the word DIG to remind myself to dig for the conflict by first describing my desire, then what is interfering with my desire, and then the guilt. Okay, that’s pretty easy. I desire to get a drink after each basketball game. Interfering with this is some of the big kids by the fountain who like to pick on me. I think those big kids picking on me are guilty of being bullies.

“Now that I broke the conflict into the three parts, let me see if I can change just one part to make things better. The first part is my desire. How can I get my desire for a drink after a game despite those kids at the fountain?”

After thinking about this for a while, he converts this source of power into a plan. “I’ll bring some water from home.”

Tommy goes down to the schoolyard with his school backpack carrying a couple of bottles of water and his basketball. He now has all the water he needs between games.

By staying away from the big kids who like to pick on him, he finds that he has no more trouble with them.

Example Discussion

The list of the “ABCs of Power,” gets you to start thinking about finding some realistic solutions. Once Tommy began to think about what he could do to achieve his desire despite what was interfering with this desire, the problem became simpler to manage.

It’s important to keep in mind that if you can’t come up with a plan by yourself, you can utilize the third source of power on the “ABCs of Power” list–COALITIONS. What I mean by this is when using the ABCs of Power, it is often helpful to get together a coalition of some people whom you respect and together you can go down the list while trying to come up with a plan.

Second Example

Charlie Brown is the Manager of his baseball team.

This year, he is not satisfied with trying to fire-up his team with a spirited speech about spirit. He knows most of his players have not been playing as well as he would like.

Although he tries his best, he gets one criticism after another.

Let’s say that Charlie Brown has been learning to use the “ABCs of Power” list, and he begins to wonder how he can use it to achieve his desire to become a better manager. He takes a look at the list and sees that the first item on the list is–

A=Advancing Skill

“Hmmm,” he says to himself, “how can I learn some skills to be a better manager?”

This question helps him to come up with a plan. First, he goes on the internet, puts into his search engine–“learning to become a better baseball manager.” From this, he tracks down relevant material written by experts on how to run a baseball team.

One of the strategies that is recommended is to watch a local college baseball team practice to see how its coach runs the team.

When Charlie Brown goes to a college baseball team practice, he is struck by how there is so little standing around by the other players when the coach is working with a few of the players. All the other players have some assignment to work on their own skills while they wait for the coach to direct his attention to them.

Hmmm, Charlie Brown thinks to himself, when I hit ground balls to my infielders, I have my outfielders stand in the outfield watching. Then, after I finish hitting some ground balls, I then hit some fly balls to the outfielders, while the infielders just stand in the infield taking some throws back to me so I can hit another fly ball. Too much time is wasted by carrying out a practice like this.

Charlie Brown, after watching this college practice, instructs his outfielders that whenever he’s working with his infielders, they are to play a special game in the outfield that is designed to help them work on their skills. The left fielder is to throw a fly ball to the center fielder, who then throws a fly ball to the right fielder. The right fielder, after catching the fly ball, tries to fire the ball back to the center fielder as if he is trying to throw out a runner on second, and then the center fielder is to fire the ball back to the left fielder as if he is trying to throw out a runner heading home.

Charlie Brown also gives other players who are not out on the field, different games to play that are designed to practice one skill or another. He urges everyone to use all of the time they are at practice to work on a skill and to never just stand around. In this way, his team begins to get three times as much practice advancing their skills in the same practice period then before Charlie Brown went to watch the college coach. His players begin to say that they are enjoying practice far more under the new set of practice rules, and soon this pays off in the amount of games that they begin to win.

Example Discussion

We see here an example of how the “ABCs of Power” list can help someone to better achieve a desire. Charlie Brown could have become all caught up in a net of excuses for why his team always complains about him and why they never win a game. But the sources of power list helps to redirect him to focus on some ways to come up with a practical plan.

In addition to focusing on the item on the list called, “Advancing skills,” Charlie Brown could have joined that source of power with the source of power known as “Coalitions.” This might have helped him to come up with a different type of plan. For example, he might have thought about organizing a fundraiser with each of his players offering to do some special chores around their family’s house, like washing the car. The goal would be that each player earns five dollars. By pooling the money, which might amount to $50.00, Charlie might persuade the college coach to help him identify someone he knows who is in training to become a baseball coach. With a little financial incentive, an aspiring coach might come to one of Charlie Brown’s baseball practices. The team could then learn how a person who is a grown-up with specialized skills in running a baseball team runs a practice session.

Learning to use the “ABCs of Power” list for a wide range of conflicts requires that people see quite a few examples of others using the list. Today’s lesson was designed to begin providing those necessary examples. Have a great week!

——————————-

Tags ABCs of Power, anger, brooklyn boy, bullies, conflict, criticism, dig for the conflict, emotional intelligence, insults, psychological maturity, sources of power, wisdom

conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict emotional intelligence free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum insults interpersonal conflicts social intelligence wisdom

THE ABCs OF POWER: THE LETTER “B”

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date March 24, 2013
9 Comments on THE ABCs OF POWER: THE LETTER “B”

In my last blog post, THE ABCs OF POWER: THE LETTER “A” I presented some ideas about the nature of power. The key points are:

1. power consists of our skills to achieve our desires

2. when we feel confident that we can achieve our desires, generally speaking, we feel less defensive when someone throws insults at us

3. to better handle name calling, insults and teasing, it is a great idea to learn to increase our power

In addition to making these key points about the nature of power, I began to construct a list of the main sources of power, a list that we are calling, “The ABCs of Power.” Of course, we began that list with the letter “A.” “A” is for Advancing Skills.

Improving your math skills can be viewed as employing the “advancing skills” source of power if you use it in a way that people you care about value.

By following this blog, you can advance your skill in dealing with name calling, insults and teasing. If you have a desire to be respected and liked, this skill can be a big help.

Art, music, dancing, academics, carpentry, sports, and any other skill that your friends, family members, and co-workers value can be developed by you to increase your power. Set yourself on a plan to reach a level of proficiency that will delight you and the people you care about, and then watch your power soar.

Now that we covered the letter “A” on the list of the ABCs of Power, let’s move on to the letter “B.”

B is for Breaking Down a Conflict into its Three Conditions: Desire, Interference, and Guilt

Earlier on this blog, I discuss how to describe a conflict by using DIG as a memory device (see DIG FOR THE CONFLICT). Here’s a brief summary of that earlier discussion.

The letters that make up the word, “DIG,” are in a sequence to remind us of a useful sequence for placing conflict conditions into a conflict description. The “d” and the “i” remind us to first create a sentence that identifies the desire condition (I want to go to a Chinese restaurant with you) and then the interference condition of the conflict (instead of doing what I want, you want to go to an Italian restaurant with me). Then the “g” reminds us to create a sentence that identifies the guilt condition (I think you are wrong for not agreeing to go to the restaurant I want to go to because you got to pick last time).

CONFLICT=DIG=DESIRE+INTERFERENCE+GUILT

Just like a triangle must have three sides to be a triangle, a conflict must have all three conditions to be a conflict.

Let’s take a minute to review the three major reasons for using this technique.

First, when someone is saying something to you that feels insulting, you can become frustrated and defensive. This makes it hard to think clearly. By having a well practiced, easy to understand way to summarize a conflict, you can clarify the main issues.

Second, very simple conflicts can be looked at as a single unit with little difficulty. Often by doing so, we find that we can begin to generate conflict resolution strategies that work to our satisfaction. However, more complicated conflicts will leave us scratching our heads. The skill to break up the conflict into its three conditions allows us to familiarize ourselves with smaller, more easily understandable parts. Then, when we join the parts together, the whole becomes easier to grasp.

Third, sometimes we can come up with an idea to make a change to just one of the easier to understand conditions of the conflict and this leads to the rest of the conflict becoming easier to manage.

Let’s take a look at a mother using this source of power.

Resolving a Conflict by Focusing on the Desire

Imagine a family of four that loves to go to the movies, but they’ve stopped going because they are angry at how expensive it costs, especially the items at the snack counter.

A new film has just come out and the kids in the family are pleading with their parents to go because all of their friends saw it and said it was great.

“I’m not going to that stinking movie theater,” the father says. “The owner is a robber charging what he does for candy and popcorn.”

“Let’s try to break up this conflict and see what we can come up with,” says the mother.

The family agrees to give this a try.

First, the mother summarizes the conflict using the DIG memory devise. “We desire to see a movie at a price we can afford,” says the mother, “but interfering with our desire, the movie theater owner charges too much money for candy and popcorn. We think he is guilty of being wrong for charging such high prices. From the perspective of the movie theater owner, he desires to make as much money as he can. He probably doesn’t have a conflict with us. He accepts that if he charges too much it will interfere with his desire that people come to his movies. He probably doesn’t think we would be guilty of doing anything wrong if we choose not to come because we can’t afford it. He therefore doesn’t have a conflict with us. We have the conflict with him. Does that capture the conflict?”

“Yes,” the father replies. “That’s very impressive the way you did that!”

“Thanks,” says the mother. “Now, let’s simplify the problem a bit by just focusing on the desire part of the conflict. Can we achieve our desire of going to the movies at a price we can afford despite the prices at the theater for candy and popcorn being so high?”

“We don’t have to eat any candy,” the father offers.

“We can’t sit there at the movies and eat nothing,” says the oldest kid.

“Hmmm,” says the mother. Then, turning to her husband, she say, “Honey, you know what’s going to happen once we get to the theater and the kids see the candy and start smelling the popcorn. The kids are going to start whining, and we’ll end up spending a fortune.”

“Well, we can bring some candy with us,” says the father. “Then we don’t have to pay for the outrageous prices at the theater.”

“Now that’s an excellent suggestion,” says the mother.

“You’re not allowed to bring candy in from outside the theater,” says the youngest kid.

“Well, let’s just try and see what happens,” says the father. “I’ll bring my coat with big pockets and we’ll stash some stuff in there.”

“I’ll bring my big handbag, and we can bring some drinks in it,” says the mother. “We’ll have a much better selection of what we want to bring to the movies if we first go to the supermarket.”

The family gives this plan a try and discovers that it works fine. The movie theater owner is better off with this plan because this family wasn’t coming to the movies at all. Now they come and pay for the price of four tickets, and they still buy a fresh bag of popcorn at the counter. The family gets to enjoy the movie and popcorn, while saving a significant amount of money on candy and drinks. It’s a win-win resolution. And notice that by just focusing on the desire part of the conflict, it helped to simplify it, and this helped to come up with a plan that resolved their conflict.

Okay, that’s our lesson for today on how to utilize the source of power known as “Breaking Down a Conflict into its Three Conditions: Desire, Interference, and Guilt.” Today, we only have space to give an example that illustrates how, by focusing on the “desire” component of a conflict we ended up in a better position to resolve a conflict. I would have liked to give an example that demonstrates how a conflict can become easier to resolve by focusing on the interference condition of a conflict and then at an example that demonstrates how a conflict can become easier to resolve by focusing on the guilt condition of a conflict, but I’m afraid our time is up for today. We’ll get to these kinds of examples soon.

In the meantime, have a great week!

——————————-

Tags anger, conflict, conflict resolution, criticism, dig for the conflict, emotional intelligence, frustration, insults, name calling, negative criticism

Abraham Lincoln anger Bullied comic strip conflict resolution criticism dig for the conflict free social intelligence and emotional intelligence curriculum Gettysburg Address interpersonal conflicts Name calling negative criticism types of criticism wisdom

ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND CONFLICT

Post author By Dr. Jeffrey Rubin
Post date February 2, 2013
2 Comments on ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND CONFLICT

When we describe a conflict it is useful to avoid insults and relate it to something that will occur in the future. Old Abe Lincoln was a master at this. Before illustrating this with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, let’s take a few moments to review this idea with one of our favorite comics.

Bumstead Gets Into Trouble

Please consider the following comic.

Now, let’s pretend we know what happens after Dagwood arrives at his office. Immediately, his boss, Mr. Dithers throws an insult at him, yelling that he is a Bobblehead!

Dagwood responds by becoming defensive and starts screaming and throwing insults at his boss which leads to getting fired.

His boss is now stuck trying to replace Dagwood, and Dagwood has to look for a new job. Upon reflection, both parties come to realize that this was not the best outcome to the conflict.

Consider, if you will, another scenario. Dagwood, upon arriving at work and hearing his boss’s insult, recognizes his boss is probably insulting him because he has a conflict with him about coming to work late. Dagwood, instead of insulting his boss, looks concerned and summarizes the conflict by saying, “You’re angry with me because you desired that your employers come to work on time, and I interfered with your desire by coming to work late. You feel I’m guilty because I’m over an hour late.”

This wording is a pretty good step toward describing the conflict. However, it can be improved. Notice that it describes the desire and the act that interfered with Mr. Dithers’ desire as all happening in the past. A more helpful thing to do is to try to describe the conflict, without insults, as something important to the future. It is helpful to spend at least some time, when describing a conflict, to focus on the future because the past can’t be changed, and conflicts, when wisely considered, are designed to lead us to improving our futures. Your job, when you are an expert in conflict resolution, will be to translate the common but immature way to express a conflict into a language that reveals the true nature of conflicts.

Let’s apply this lesson to Dithers’ conflict with Bumstead.

When Bumstead arrives at the office in our example, Dithers starts to yell at Bumstead, “You Bobblehead, you’re an hour late!” This sure seems like the conflict is about something that occurred in the past. But, if you will, consider this scenario:

Bumstead upon arriving at work and hearing his boss yell an insult at him, says “Boss, I’m sorry that I’m late. The elevator broke down. Now that I am late, is there something that you desire that I get done that you are afraid I won’t get done because I arrived late?”

Suddenly Mr. Dithers realizes that the real reason he is upset is that the Smith report has to get done before the end of the day.

Bumstead then summarizes the conflict in a concerned manner, “Boss, you want me to complete the Smith report that I promised would go out by the end of the day, and now that I arrived late, you are worried that all of my other duties I have to accomplish during the remaining workday will interfere with your desire. You feel I’m guilty of being an irresponsible employee. Is that correct?”

“Yes!” cries Mr. Dithers.

This restating of the original conflict points us in an easier direction for resolving the conflict. Arguing all day about coming to work late today will only waste time and can end up getting Bumstead fired. Thinking about how to get that report out as soon as possible can be far more productive.

Bumstead, now focused on what the major concern of his boss is, perhaps might reply, “Boss, I know how important it is to you to get that report out, so when the elevator got stuck, I wrote the report sitting on the elevator floor.” Or perhaps Bumstead might reply, “Since it is so important to you to get that report out, I’ll work over my lunch break and get it done.” Or Bumstead might reply, “I’ll work late today until the report is done, and then I’ll bring the report to the overnight mail service. They have a pick-up as late as 7:30 pm.”

Any of these replies, all designed to address Dithers’ concern about a problem relevant to the future (getting the Smith report done by the end of the day) will be more helpful in calming Dithers’ concern then either Bumstead getting defensive or both Bumstead and Dithers arguing about some things that have all occurred in the past.

It is for this, and many other reasons that we will be discussing in future posts, that it is helpful to try our best to describe a conflict as something relevant to the future.

Insult Avoiding, Forward Looking Abraham Lincoln

Arguably the best example in all of history of a statesman describing a conflict in a manner that avoids insults while focussing attention on a relevant future occurred when Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address.

Over forty thousand men died during the three-day battle at Gettysburg, and bitterness was in the hearts of those who came to hear Lincoln’s words. If asked for the reason to continue the war, many might have pointed to the violent events in the recent past and thrown vicious insults at the rebels. But Lincoln provides not single insult. Instead, he begins his speech reminding all in attendance what the war is about.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

We see here Lincoln focussing the listeners’ attention on the worthy cause of this nation enduring into the future.

After Lincoln’s first two sentences, notice how his next three sentences show respect for what had taken place but then hastens once gain to connect this with something relevant to the future:

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

In those three sentences, Lincoln again directs the attention of his listeners to what those who lost their lives were fighting for, “that that nation might live.”

Although spending time to honor the brave men of the battle is altogether fitting and proper, as Lincoln continues, the future aspects of the conflict is further developed. Thus:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground…. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We see here, not a single insult directed at those on the other side of this conflict. Instead, Lincoln brilliantly moves his audience, all of whom are engaged in the conflict of their lives, from the vivid past to a relevant future. We all must learn to do this if we are to become experts in dealing with conflict.

——————————-

Tags Abraham Lincoln, anger, bullied, conflict, criticism, dig for the conflict, disrespectful, Gettysburg Address, insults, maturity, name calling, negative criticism, psychological maturity, respect, types of criticism, wisdom