Relationships and Nature of Conflict: "Please Understand Me"

I wish it was obvious. That whole bruhaha was mostly folks telling one party what his motives were with the majority consensus being that they were bad; and then telling the other how she was being taken in by it all. The implication was that each should think and feel and relate differently than they were doing. From my perspective, an injustice was being done to both by people who were going on nothing more than the fact that these two were relating to each other in a way others thought to be wrong. Most would not accept either accused party's explanation that they were just fine and being incorrectly judged.

David Kiersey tutors us in how to look at things through the other person's eyes as well as our own before we judge the other person to be wrong.

In other words, most were telling one party he was unacceptable in the way he was and needed to change, and they ere telling the other that she needed to see that and change the way she related to him; i.e. they were attempting to change the subjects into what somebody else thought they should be.

I don't want to continue with this particular example though as I am sure both parties would prefer not to be the object of discussion at this point. But the process of understanding other people sometimes isn't always as obvious as it seems and sometimes we--that's the rhetorical we and not anybody in particular--are more controlling than we realize we are.

This is something that I never learned anywhere, as it always came natural to me to see things this way. When I was very young, I use to think it came natural to us all. It was obvious to me at a very young age that people were different and we all thought differently. I noticed that we all had different taste in food, music, etc...and I just natuarally accepted people for who they were.
I always got along very well with my friends and they usually last a life time because there's no interfering in eachothers lives.
We respect our differences and when we do disagree, we agree to disagree and get on with our friendship.
I remember one time my best friend and I were sitting in a restaurant and there was 2 women in the booth behind us talking (we'll call them Sally and Donna. We could hear them arguing. Donna was speaking to Sally the same exact way some spoke to me (you know where) and she couldn't understand why Sally was so offended by what she was say.
Sally said "listen Donna, I know you care about me, which is why I can't understand why you can't see how hurtful and insulting those words are to me! Think about it and ask yourself how you would feel if the situations were reversed and I was talking to you in the very same way".
There was silence...then Donna said "I'm so sorry Sally, I never even thought of it that way". They hugged and Donna learned something new, so it was a happy ending.

After all was said and done, my best friend looked at me and said "hell, I thought everybody knew that and how could Donna not know she was being insulting, hello! " I laughed and said "I know, some people just don't get it I guess".

Not digging this 1960's crappola.

If so, why bother comment in the thread? What am I missing?

So...you just want agreement and kudos for this stuff?

I consider neither extreme on this spectrum to be ideal, and this is one of those self-contradicting morals as it aims to change the meddlers instead of understanding them itself. A balance is needed, and this passage isn't the full picture to me because I can think of a lot of situations where being empathetic and understanding instead of trying to change the person is harmful to all involved (e.g. should families not have interventions for destructive addicts and merely strive to better understand?) while I also frequently see cases where the first impulse is to project your beliefs and preferences onto others.

I think it's important to accept differences between people, but not all differences. Contrary to popular folklore people can and do change, and sometimes it's a good idea.

Well this '1960's crapola' is big business used by some of the world's biggest corporations and in organizational structure processes just about everywhere. Kiersey is by no means the only organization doing this, but I think on a personal relationship level Kiersey is the most user friendly. Folks can appreciate the truth of it or blow it off. That part is up to the individual and nobody else too.

No of course we don't accept all differences and we certainly don't condone all behavior. But when it comes to how people respond to the situations in their lives or how they process information or how strongly or weakly they might feel about something, it is not only futile but usually counter productive if not downright destructive to presume to to decide that for somebody else. We aren't discussing behaviors here which can be controlled amd/or modified by people, but we are talking about each person's own special intelligence and how they see their world and everything in it.

Not at all, just that I didn't understand the comment. Perhaps a little more explanation is in order instead of being so dismissive. After all this is a discussion forum.

As an afterthought because I forgot to address Robert's point about 'changing the meddlers':

It is as futile to try to force the 'meddlers' to change their point of view as it was futile for them to try to change somebody elses either through insult, bullying, or patronization that was flying around thick as mud there for awhile. But if the 'meddlers' can be convinced to allow somebody else the strength of their own feelings and point of view, it is possible that the 'meddlers' might come to see that somebody else's point of view is actually right for that somebody else. The two might never agree, but the 'offender' stops pushing and pulling and insulting and beating up somebody trying to make that somebody into something different from who he or she naturally is.

Reading along in agreement with every word Fox is saying. "Counter productive" is the key words for me here because that's what it can be and was in my situation.
I can appreciate expessions of concern and am always open to hear advice, but it's the delivery of it that makes all the difference in the world, at least for me it does.
People who can't show concern or give advice without insulting me are people I tend to avoid because insults from people I care about are obviously hurtful to me, which is in fact counter productive in 2 ways. #1. I end up hurting more than I was already and it adds anger to hurt. How can this possibly help.
#2. Since anger was added to the equation, whatever I was doing to concern them, I'll tend to do more just because they pissed me off. Not in spite, but just a natural reaction.

I'm actually very surprised that so many don't see things this way. I always considered it natural human reaction.

I would be very surprised if big corporations used only acceptance of difference and did not make demands for change if the differences impeded corporate aims...including excluding the different one.

I think Robert said it best for me, and I am not sure if there is much further comment to be made....especially as, despite Ragman asking that the recent brouhaha not be the point of the thread, it is the large bright purple elephant in the room farting really, isn't it? I have a sense that not buying the whole acceptance line (which I don't, for the kinds of reasons Robert has pointed out, and also because some differences have a major effect on others) is going to be seen as an attack on Montana.

I think this is one of those nuance and balance things.

I also think that when we choose to bare ourselves in a situation such as the one on A2k, we are likely gonna get a whole passel of comments that we don't like and which make us feel pissed off. This be the nature of the beast. It may not be pretty, but it is a highly predictable part of the decision to bare oneself.

If one is into accepting difference, one is likely to have to accept that some will be different by choosing not to accept OUR difference, and will say stuff. By this rubric it seems we ought then simply to accept THEIR difference, even though it has a negative effect on us, and cop it sweet.

Kind of an infinite regress sort of thing, eh?

The situation of talking to an intimate friend is quite a different one, I think. Acceptance of each other is usually a big part of the deal there...though intimate friends also need to make decisions about when they simply accept and when they speak up.

As with A2k, some people are better intentioned than others, and some are better at expressing concern in ways that are more palatable than others. Also, some are good at shutting the **** up and some aren't!

Maybe reasoned disagreement (like Robert's) instead of off-hand dismissal? One could just use the thumbs down for that...

While this is not the end all and be all approach, it certainly is an eye opener for some.

I certainly do not think that this is crap and it does have much merit. Of course, there are situations where it may not apply. That is only common sense. The ability, however, to know the difference is what is also important.

Good thread, Ragman. And thank you foxfyre for your contributions.

Yes, this had me nodding in particular.

My first two long-term girlfriends were, well, let's say, a lot like me in superficial ways. They were quite different in temperament, and deep inside we turned out maybe not to have as much in common as we first would have thought. But a lot of the day-to-day stuff was just a self-evident consensus.

My third long-term girlfriend was from a different country, a different social background. She had a lot of issues, which in turn turned out to trigger plenty of my own that had been submerged. There were a lot of ... difficulties, of various kind, some acute and some more pedestrian, some to do with long-seated emotional trauma and some with just different ways or basic principles of life we were accustomed to.

Over time I learned to very clearly and definitely stake out my personal borders: x or y is something I just do not tolerate well, and if it occurs I will not be available for sharing + communicating. Drunkenship, for example, at least outside the occasional big party. But the process of staking out those limits also involved discovering and surrendering a whole lot of other, minor "limits", things that I turned out to instinctively disapprove of or at least have a negative emotional reaction to, but in the end turned out to just be different ways of dealing with situations or acting in them. With drawbacks that were immediately obvious to me, but counterbalancing advantages that it took a little effort to not just acknowledge but also respect (if you know what I mean with that difference).

There's still a lot of things that make me go - well - I wouldn't do it that way, doesn't seem smart - but then, you know - she did get x or y or z doing what she does the way she does it that I sure don't have, so ...

Basically, yes - we are more controlling than we realize we are ... and yes, I think that holds for almost all of us, at least that's what I discern. Way I see it, it's just up to ourselves to choose whether to be aware of it (or become more aware of it than we already might be) and check ourselves more; or, on the other end of the spectrum, to say - well, that's me, I say what I think, people can rely on me for always speaking my mind, and that's part of who I am, so in turn something that others who care for me will just have to deal with.

Wait - actually, that's not quite all the way on the other hand of the spectrum. Because it still involves at least an awareness that yes, the "plainspokenness" (or, in someone else's eye, "judgemental rudeness") is something of a quirk of one's own and might well come across the wrong way. It's just that you know that, well, that's who you are and you hope people will accept that the way you'll accept some of their quirks. The real other end of the spectrum would be something different still, I guess: not even being aware of it also just being one way of dealing with things, and considering it simply "the right way" of responding to things, and people who take it the wrong way to be "whining" etc.

I'm getting your point loud and clear bunny and I understand it, but I feel that I'm not being understood by some, obviously.

I know this is a public forum and responses from people are not always pretty, but my point doesn't seem to be coming through for some.

What my biggest problem was, is that a few felt compelled to insult me and in the same breath, saying it was because they care. I don't care how well anyone tries to wrap it (pretty bow and all), it doesn't take away the fact that I was treated like a mindless twit (by a few), which caused my reaction.
These caring insults did nothing but cause me more pain and even added anger, which, in turn was counter productive.

Anyone can say anything they want to me, but if someone comes along and insults me, saying in the same breath that it's because they care and they're trying to help, I'm gonna call them out on it.
I may have been less angry if I hadn't already expressed to the same few in the past that I found being called gullible and naive to be extremely insulting, so the only reason I can think they would continue to throw these offensive words at me is to hurt me.

Other than a few, I was just a little irritated with some others who I felt didn't give me enough credit for being able to think for myself. I don't blame them because I know they're just lookin out for me and I appreciate that very much.

Anyway, I do accept that some see things different than I do, always did and always will, but I don't accept being punched in the face by those who say they care. My ex use to do that, except he did it more with his fist.

Totally agree!

Beautifully said, Nimh...and very true.

I think the more we are aware that our ideas about what are "obviously" right and wrong ways of thinking, feeling, and doing things are simply beliefs, the more we are able to manage these things.


The net, I think, is a place where we often let go of that nuance and self-awareness, for a bunch of reasons, even if we have it quite well developedin real life.

I think you are also absolutely right about the non-negotiable things...the deal-breakers.

Some of us are exactly the same on the net as we are in real life. I, for one, do not separate the two since I am me and that is the way it is. I think it is immature and silly to create a personna on the net. Then again that is just me.

There is a fine line between insanity and genius. That is also evident on the net.

I think your point is clear, Montana...well, I think it is to most... and highly understandable...it's just the interactions are being seen from a somewhat different perspective by some.

It'll be interesting to see if any perspectives change for anyone involved when the dust settles, and all is calm again.

C'est la vie.