Relationships and Nature of Conflict: "Please Understand Me"

Any particular question or comment Ragman? (I just led a workshop using that very material this past Saturday.)

So you'll never warn someone if a person near them, offline or on, has (for argument's sake) a history of sociopathic (not, I think, a clinical term) behavior?
abusive behavior? Perhaps someone who does not understand the word sociopathic?

Foxfyre: thanks for dropping by here. Based on your A2K interactions, I respect your opinion. I just learned of this book today. Perhaps, you could feel free to wing it and describe how this workshop went for you when you first attended it and/or others, seeing that you led? How well have you (and others) been able to put these fine ideas into practice in your (or others) own life/lives? Is this a workshop that is a one-time workshop. Please tell us more.

Though, I will say, I'd like to direct the convo to keep the FOW fiasco out of this discussion as much as can be helped. It's pretty well "jumped the shark".

I'm not sure, Osso, so I'll listen for Foxfyre's comments, but perhaps this more applies to people in ongoing relationship with some sort of history. At least MY interest is more about ongoing established relationships.

I'm going to frame that and put it on my wall. Kitchen I think, since most would see it there. Maybe the Foyer.

That quote basically says: Love me the way I am and don't try to change me. It's an old mantra, left over from the Hippy Generation.

That's OK for setting some ground rules in adult relationships, but you could not raise children or run a compnay or teach a classroom using that philosophy.

I don't think there's REALLY such a thing as unconditional love, anyway.

The concepts behind this have far deeper non-Hippy roots. Sullyfish, your cynicism and over-simplification is duely noted. Where is it that anyone said/wrote that you can run a company with this? I think that it could be helpful in a company using it is one tool to help resolve SOME conflicts might be useful with willing participants. But my main focus here is to discuss the dynamics within ongoing personal non-work relationships.

Ragman and Osso, Kiersey's work is in temperament sorting/typing to better help us understand those components of our temperament that is pretty well hard wired and to deal with and appreciate the relationships in our lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with abnormal or socially unacceptable behavior of any kind.

I've been doing these kinds of workshops--everything from a couple of hours (which allows for a good introducton only) to all day seminars to week long sessions--off and on for more than 30 years now. Kiersey's stuff is the bedrock of my teaching materials, but it isn't exclusively limited to that.

But the excerpt Ragman posted is the foundation upon which it all rests.

Essentially it helps us address the fact that too often we judge others based on what we think, how we feel, what is important to us. We have notions of how people should behave or communicate or respond. We think our perceptions should be obvious to others . We think others should appreciate and share most of what we hate and what we love. And we may feel negative or irritable or critical of those who see things differently than we see them or who respond to things differently than we respond.

Temperament sorting/typing helps us understand the differences in tempermanet and understand that everybody doesn't see or hear or respond in the same way that we do and that's okay.

We will come to accept and appreciate people much more when we stop trying to get them to be like us and/or stop condemning them because they aren't like us.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, though there is a huge area of complexity built into it all. Fascinating stuff though. I have yet had anybody attend a workshop who didn't find it interesting, but then maybe it is people willing to hear and understand who are more likely to attend exercises like this.

I know I would attend if I were close by.

The folks who hire me (or ask me to volunteer) to run the workshops are interested in family relationships and organizational relationships and find it useful for both.

For instance, to understand that your out going extraverted kid is simply being who he is while your more reserved, introspective introverted kid is absolutely normal and okay is a good thing to know and accept. If you make decisions based mostly on objective, impersonal criteria and your spouse makes decisions based more on how he or she feels about something, you can both absolutely be being your normal selves and it is okay. It is not asking us to condone bad behavior, but it does help us to understand that somebody else's annoying way of saying things or responding to something may be 100% right for him/her, and once we accept that, it becomes a lot less annoying and possibly even endearing.

Ah, I jumped to a conclusion I guess wasn't warranted.

I get that we have different ways and temperaments and a right/privacy for them.
Not ever speaking critically of another's (say, a mate's) point of view? Never irritation? All communication couched in cushions or not expressed? Sounds like dealing with a pillow.

Not exactly. Again, adopting this philosophy does not mean nobody will ever make you mad again or that you find somebody else's words/behavior acceptable. You aren't relinquishing your value system in any way.

But it does help us be more accepting of the natural self of another person and allowing that person to be that self without undue criticism or trying to change them. Once we can do that, there will be much more harmony in our lives. It won't mean that we will click with everybody or enjoy everybody's company from then on though. But it does help us understand why we do click with some people and not with others, but appreciate that this does not mean that those others are necessarily wayward or off base.

I think you would pick up on this in a heartbeat, Montana, and probably would have a very high aptitude for it. That shouldn't be interpreted as the rest chiming in here wouldn't though.

Thanks Fox. I think it's something I'd find very interesting.

Ah, well, that is obvious to me, most of the time. I seem to be in the wrong thread.
(backs up)

? Why wrong thread?

why do you feel that you are in wrong thread?

Well, the whole idea of not changing people into copies of yourself is too obvious to belabor, at least re my interest.
I did take this at first as a comment on the Fow/Montana roundabout, which is why I clicked to read. Thus, backing out.

The push/pull that goes on between two people is a huge portion of the engagement between the two. The alternative to engagement is nonengagement, that is too say weak relationship. One can never eliminate push/pull and only fools try. Conflict is not in and of itself a problem, which is why relationship pros talk about fighting fair not about conflict avoidance. Those who continually avoid conflict are unhealthy, and their relationships can not avoid being unhealthy as well.

However, if a relationship becomes consumed by conflict the individuals must be taught how to back off of it, which is of course disregarding the advise to stop trying to change people.