How would you solve a conflict?

[carlos]

What process do you devealope to solve a conflict? Conflicts can go from an argument to decide what TV program to watch to a war between two countries for a territory.

I'll quote something I said in another thread


Now seriously; what I strongly beilive is that a conlfict only can be solved by trying to listen and understand the other.

Most problems (from very little problems to huge wars) are a collision between two or more interests / ideals.

There must be a desire to hear "the other one", hear what they want, and even more important: why they want that (or why they think the way they do). Forget prejudices, proudness and what other people say he is.

Also, when you have to analyze a conflict that doesn't imply you, you have to be interested the context of it; and to think "How would I feel if I was in his/their situation? What would I do?"

Only after that, we can think of the most fair solution, that in a perfect world would be the one which benefits everyone.

What about you?

[Caine]

There's a couple routes to solving conflicts, and following any one way every time is just dumb. There are times when using your mouthpiece to get yourself out of sticky situations is useful, but at other times bruting your way through the issue is simply more cost-effective and easier.

Bout to get my head whooped and jacked for all I'm worth? Get ghost.
Got rolled up on by the police? Mouthpiece.
Small time dealer trynna gyp me? Beat that ass.

As you can see, using either of those tactics in all 3 situations is just dummy retarded.

[Unome]

Where Reason fails… Violence never does.

[carlos]

Where Reason fails… Violence never does.

Oooh yes it does

[alfieb]

:thumbsup:


Good point there, Carlos.

Most people today refuse to hear the other point of view and simply begin to recite their beliefs again and again, louder and louder thinking that they'll get their point across better.

I don't submit to that philosophy. I refuse to repeat myself more than once. I see that as embracing futility.

I enjoy hearing other viewpoints, and approach them with an open mind. I wouldn't say it's common that I change my opinion, but I'd sayi it's probably around a good 10-20% of the time that I'm intrigued enough that I look further into it and come to a different conclusion than the one I had previously.

[Unome]

I think your OP suggests that in order to argue with or moderate somebody ~ they need to "be reasonable".

Would you reason with an angry mother-bear if you came between her and her cubs?

No, you would run-away, play dead, or fight back (shoot it with a rifle perhaps).


One cannot 'reason' with an animal…

One also cannot 'reason' with one who refuses to listen…

[Mike the Jedi]

Diplomacy is not my strong suit, so I have no idea how to diffuse conflict. Because I feel I am not prepared to deal with it properly, I typically try to avoid it, probably to the detriment of my psychological well-being.

[carlos]

I think your OP suggests that in order to argue with or moderate somebody ~ they need to "be reasonable".

Would you reason with an angry mother-bear if you came between her and her cubs?

No, you would run-away, play dead, or fight back (shoot it with a rifle perhaps).


One cannot 'reason' with an animal…

One also cannot 'reason' with one who refuses to listen…

...Hehe, and there's wehre the war begins.

[Geto-Thracian]

In my teens, I used to always avoid physical confrontations as long as nobody put their hands on me...but the way I felt afterwards was very psychologically damaging as i would relive the situation over and over, in my mind, and always wished i had the guts to respond physically instead of avoiding fighting.

Later on, I decided that no matter the result of the confrontation, it was better to lose a fight than allowing myself to be mouthed off and feeling like a coward for days or weeks afterward.

Now, I respond in kind to any confrontation and I feel much better about myself regardless wether it turns physical or not. Also, I found out I can fight exceptionally well and getting hit doesn't hurt as much as I had imagined.

Psychological pain is far worse than the physical variety....and the stress release of putting people in their place is priceless!

[Don Keebals]

i would give an offer that can't be refuted. seriously, often the best way to solve a conflict is to realize that there is none.

[Unurautare]

No man,no problem!

[Semitic Duwa]

I used to solve conflicts when I was like 7 yrs old... Nowadays, I'd hit for anything.

[Don Keebals]

No man,no problem!

yes arithmetic helps

[Aleksander]

I tend to talk my way out of conflict.
Dealing with the unreasonable seems akin to dealing with someone that is very drunk.

There are so many variables in conflict, it's hard to define any one particular fashion to deal with them. Sometimes you need to talk it out, other times run, and other times force the conflict to end.

[jibarodepr]

I try to solve it by giving advice, if it doesn't work, well, at least I tried it.

[AlexDelarge]

There are different types of conflict. For example, if someone hits me deliberately on a football match i won't try to reason with them...

[Bittereinder]

I'll quote something I said in another thread

Habermas would approve.

[Don Keebals]

I try to solve it by giving advice, if it doesn't work, well, at least I tried it.

You sound like a true negotiator.

[jibarodepr]

You sound like a true negotiator.I am good at it at least. ;)

[Metaontologist]

Where Reason fails… Violence never does.

I don't like to fight, I really don't, BUT...

Well, you can't argue reason into someone, but you can beat some sense into them if they only understand pain...

With "certain types" and in "certain situations" Oohwee... Nothing changes the expression on a jerk's face faster than being hit with an elbow smash and a knee to the nuts. There is meaning for the term "he is asking for it". This is best when you have a back up against the wall or are in a corner, because then you can and should "flip the switch". Or as AC/DC puts it become "unchained".

Conflicts can be better resolved only if the quality of the persons in the conflict is higher, resulting in a "higher conflict" which doesn't have to dissolve into violence. I prefer to avoid conflicts of the less reasonable kind but I resent it when a guy acts like he can push me around. At a certain point there is just no going back and I just dive in. I either avoid conflicts, or I finish them.

But what is a conflict except something mostly in the heads of the individuals "involved"? Many times only one guy has a conflict and not the other. I like to resolve my own conflict by trying to act like the other person isn't trying to piss me off (even though his negligent behavior is in need of some serious adjustment, I try not to be the guy who does that...). I just try to ask in a very nice way if someone can change something they are doing. They often seem to realize that I actually have rights to be much less kind to them (if they were really negligent but not actively so) so they usually cooperate in varying degrees, and I'm usually satisfied in proportion. No overreaction is the rule in that case!

If they are really being an ass all along well, now I really know, because they will be like "fuck you". That's when I decide if I have to put up with it, go away, or in some cases cause pain and damage. But before anyof this I try to make sure that I've done all I can do to remediate my "inner conflict". Some people are asking for it, yes, but sometimes it's really all about some inner drama I need to work out and they are just a painful reminder. Realizing the difference between these is not always easy and takes lots of inner work, but it's worth it by far. In the meantime, when the negotiating is over, when the talking is no longer going anywhere (including with other mediators), I flow through the process shown below.

After attempting the diplomatic approach and getting whatever results that gave I have to size up the situation like this:

What will I lose if I put up with this?
What will I lose if I go away?
What will I lose if I physically make my point?

I have to also look at the pros to each, which is more positive anyway, so "what will I gain" in each case. All these are "felt" and analyzed in a wordless and intuitive sort of way.

I weigh this for shorter or longer times depending on the matter. Then I make a decision and fully commit myself to it. To me there is no other way. But for sure I never will "soak up" conflicts because that leads to a build up of rage. The conflict is there and it must be resolved by some strategy of parley, reevaluation, investigation into facts, productive avoidance, or else some other solution that works. Sometimes it is Iwho need the attitude adjustment, so I always like to go through a cascade of least-irreversible thought experiments and methods of diplomacy FIRST.

I have found that belligerence never accomplishes anything except putting oneself in a bad light before many who do not know you, and that is a bad setting for conflict resolution. The other person might do what is desired, but this can be a sign of worse problems to come. If I feel I want to be belligerent I simply go back to the steps above and do anything but that.

[DragonRouge]

I tell the person off.