Antiprocesos (Sometimes things happen) Starman I insisted that the alien character of an old TV series, using her telekinetic powers after extending the palm of your hand with three small silver marbles in it. Marta said no, I only used one. But I closed my eyes and I could swear I saw the image in the foreground of the hand with three balls spinning in it. We made a small bet,
consulted on YouTube ... ... and despite having the mental image so clear, that perfect memory of the three balls of Starman, that never happened.
This was a debate quite mild and silly, without much impact to reaffirm the ease with which our memories are malleable and are filtered once again and post our experiences, our previous disposition, and a mixture of random combinations with other memories, fantasies, dreams, etc. Well, that and I lost the bet.
But what if it had been a more serious discussion, where two (or more) people arguing about an important fact that can seriously alter the course of an interpersonal relationship?
The terrain of the debates / discussions have been trying for millennia (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and all that plague had nothing better to do than to philosophize about it, even in the absence of heart programs on television), so no doubt that the use of dialectics, to learn to speak well providing convincing arguments, is and has always been important (especially in those functions where it is spoken a lot and recently, as in politics or in a bar). Surely you have seen by many more courses on "how to speak in public."
However, what is not much discussed is learning to hear the arguments. Has anyone seen perhaps a workshop on "how you to listen to the public"? And that it seems obvious that listening is as important as knowing how to speak, because without the former, for the latter rants would be better to release him to a wall with autism. Perhaps it was Zeno, a buddy of previous philosophers, who said something like "we have two ears and one mouth, just to listen more and talk less."
When there is some kind of interpersonal conflict, there are people who choose to remain silent and endure the problems until they explode, and others that are willing to talk about the conflict occurs. Personally, I'm closer to the second type, although one could add "and listen." Interpersonal conflict resolution is based on the right that everyone has to give and ask for explanations about the events of daily life that have hurt or who may have hurt others. As in sport, it is a "mental muscle" that only gets better base to use again and again, trying to polish it even goes wrong, without throwing in the towel. and learning from mistakes. Again, if someone asks for explanations and do not want to listen (or gives them to you and you're too irritated / angry / unhappy / disillusioned / pon_aquí_cualquier_razón to ignore whatever you say you will), there is instead a process of understanding.
precisely this attitude is what is known as "antiproceso." When, even before listening to someone, "you clear" that it is going to say will not change your mind. On the one hand, because human beings are incredibly reluctant to change in general (which is quite logical, since it requires an effort that does not require the "stay as you are"). Furthermore, because our value system, our experiences, memories, etc.., Representing a filter (as mentioned above) of what we receive, if we fought with another person, that filter can be completely opaque or, Even worse, distorting the message filter to fit (and reaffirm the way) to our understanding of that other person is lying to us, or against us, that "learns", "Do not listen to reason" or simply that it is idiotic to the core.
Typical examples are the discussions of taurine / antibullfighting, atheists / believers, windowseros / maqueros / Linux users or yogur_de_melocotón / yogur_de_coco. As you can see, sometimes things are going for taste and the debate can be as simple as "reasons why I like / not like me" so that others understand why you like or not, you understand (although not share!) the reasons that motivate them to support their cause. Or unreasonable in many cases are equally valid, only dressed up with reasons that thought later to try to make sense of possibly only be explained with a "because it makes me feel better" or "because I'm used to it" and the reasons that involve sometimes end up being weak and "easily attacked" or manipulated.
The issue is very complicated and deep (involving cultural and social factors, family, etc., As a typical case of "because at home we play well"), too complicated for serious disputes tend to be none with "It's easy, A is what B would do, which is normal." Do not forget that:
-B may not have known better what was wanted (or had to) do.
-B may not have been able to do what I wanted (or thought I wanted) to do.
-B may not have been able to explain what he wanted done.
"I explained to B to C may have been distorted by the medium in which it has been reported (with an environment noise or other speakers, for example).
-C may have misheard the message has come from B.
-C may have misinterpreted the message he has heard.
-A may not be normal at all for the rest of the world, or at least not for B.
And all this without there being any kind of bad faith, and only subtle variations of the original feelings. The following is part of a joke, but surely we will all have witnessed similar examples:
"Your Honor, my son asked me" Dad, what time is it? "But I understand him" Dad, machácame the head with a jackhammer " .
addition, we are talking about a case in point theoretically isolated. In the real world, each specific case is usually the latest in a previous series of individual cases (ie a mountain of confusion). In all the above problem is compounded by the "list of grievances" can not agree on a particular point because there are always 800 more you can bring up and reaffirm that B is a knave / liar thief / foo. Each item in the list leads to another, leaving the first unlocked, and the conversation ends in a loop of recriminations that ends when one of the partners lose patience, endurance, or have something more interesting to do, and the pellets counted of the toes.
I would like to extend this part with real practical examples, but as everyone has their own, let's leave that C tells D: "Yesterday B left the bar without paying his share of the dinner, which is miserable." D explains "is that he had forgotten the wallet, so I paid it and this morning I returned the money." C insists: "Always do the same, once ran out of fire and took a lighter from my house. You have to be miserable."
sound I guess the topic. For C, B will be a miserable even come Jesus, Allah and Buddha in person and explain that, although overall it appears that B is a miserable, have only been independent acts at specific times they had an explanation (plausible for B, at least) and, moreover, usually arranged in due course. Something curious
list of grievances is the disparity of the "seriousness" of them, which has taken a lighter in your home can go as an argument reafirmatorio although the issue of what is being discussed is about a substantial inheritance (ah, inheritance, this great invention for lawyers and notaries in the world). Or what about a break a couple. The list of grievances is made alone, but takes a lot of effort to remove it (not to say that is impossible.)
Our brain refuses to believe that everything on the list may be a misunderstanding or not having the slightest importance, and though it is created, often not bothering to remember that since it has been believed, and again emphasizes the minimal change in the wound without a good scar. Not to mention that, although the list contains one hundred items, enough to have one of them (too stupid to be seen in perspective) that does not have a "perfectly reasonable Passing Convince Me to me and also I've ever spent And be able to recall and assume that I also would give bad image to other people even do not consider myself a scoundrel, "said that just one of those elements without explanation megasatisfactoria to contaminate the entire list again the stench of disbelief and then be used as ammunition, arsenal and trench.
With all that has been so far, and considering that human relationships are not one to one, but many to many, and sometimes does intervene in bad faith, do not you surprised that sometimes to manage to get along?
antiprocesos Just as an example of that would happen to me this very entry:
"Ugh, this is a suckling pig and pass it down. "This is psychology
bus stop, so what he says is unfounded.
"There is more than reading the stupid things this guy says sometimes, it can not be taken seriously.
"With the disaster that is sure he has it all wrong.
"It's a freak, can not be taken seriously.
"That says to bug me.
"I have not heard anything that says. "That says
because D has been told to say.
"This is always doing the devil's advocate.
-Put your reason here (or comments, go).
In short, really listening requires an enormous effort and great courage to assume that, after all, we are not infallible, we all make mistakes and the other person was right (or at least that their position is as valid like mine and there's no conflict): Starman used only one ball, where I saw March 1 put a 1, I forgot to have the X (or that person never said X but I swear have heard), coconut also likes a lot of people, or if not, would not sell things with coconut-and belching after eating is the most normal in some places (and even disrespectful to do so there.)
So, before starting a discussion / debate would do well to ask ourselves something that the other person tell me I would change my mind? Am I able to assume that I'm wrong? Am I able to assume that the other person is right? "I can understand a different view to mine or think that just my way of doing things is the right / sensible / logical / normal for everyone? Or, perhaps the most important: I want to reach an understanding?
If the answer to any of these questions is "No" (and be honest with yourself, you do enough to report in what has happened to previous situations), perhaps not worth wasting time to anyone until you have not thought in depth if you know listen, and I predispongáis to understand when the time comes. As
heading (or counterpoint, as you want to understand) to this post, a phrase I read long ago: "Never give explanations
: Your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway.
Happy New Year full of understanding for everyone! For the 3 balls of Starman!
