3. The inherent logic of effective communication
The inherent logic of effective communication
Getting rid of my problems: social skills.
“Find problems, need to communicate,” almost everyone knows.
But not many can do.
There are a number of people who are believed to have experienced the following:
In life, you’ve encountered some unpleasant things, possibly quarrelling with your loved ones, or being unable to agree with your lover, or having trouble with your friends.
You may choose to be patient at first for your feelings, until the more you want to be angry, the more you want to be depressed.
This is when you find out from the information that you should communicate with them, tell them your grievances, tell them how you feel, and only through communication can your problems be resolved.
You’re happy to learn, to say nothing of your displeasure, who thought the next development would be completely different from what you thought.
You tell your parents that their practices hurt you so badly, that they do not show any understanding, but rather condemn you for being ignorant.
You tell your friends you’re not happy with the TA, and your friends look at you like shit and dump your head.
You tell your lovers what you don’t like about TA, and instead of apologizing and correcting what you think, you just choose to ignore you, and you have no idea what to do next.
You thought that communication would help you solve the problem, and who wanted to really communicate had instead created a new contradiction.
Why is this happening? Is it a communication problem? Or is he the one who is not worthy of communication?
Many have come to this point, either by refusing to communicate or simply defining groups that have failed to communicate, such as “do not talk to xx”.
In fact, the above questions have little to do with communication itself, or with the target.
It is because you do not understand the intrinsic logic of communication.
It’s like a mathematical question. If the formula was wrong at the beginning, how could it get the right answer?
“Inherent logic” is the formula for communication.
The following is the “inherent logic” of communication.
First of all, we need to understand: what is communication?
“The process of transmission and feedback of ideas and feelings between people and between people and groups, with a view to achieving a common understanding of ideas and feelings.”
In other words, the simplest communication is also divided into at least three steps:
Pass: Tell each other what you think, how you feel.
Feedback: You need to listen to each other’s thoughts and understand them.
Resonance: Both sides reached consensus on common objectives or approaches.
Thus, a person who is really trying to solve the problem through communication, in addition to “expressing his own courage” and with “hearing others’ feelings” and “the expectation of a win-win outcome”.
Communication is a process of expression, a process of listening and a process of compromise. A lack of listening or resonance is not, in essence, communication, but ” one-way output ” .
I don’t care what the other side thinks, I don’t want to solve the problem. How can I expect the other side to look good?
Take a realistic example:
Known as a question of being isolated by two dormitories in a row and denigrated behind their backs and bullied, what if it is particularly painful, hard to focus on learning, emotional indulging and depression?
The subject is a very confused girl. She found her roommate to have a lot of misunderstandings about herself, but no matter how hard she tried to get a chance to communicate, the roommate eventually chose to be cold-treated and even simply to ignore herself. She did not understand what she had done wrong, suffering from depression so much that she needed psychological help, even willing to swear to God that she had not done harm to her roommates and only sought an opportunity for reconciliation.
I felt very sorry for the subject when I saw it. I also found, however, that although she had tried to show good faith in her desire to communicate, the way she had communicated was problematic and did not show her sincerity.
There is a very representative paragraph:
In the final exam week, the mains were unable to sleep every day, and in order to take good grades, she was up early to study and learned about heart cramps and depression. But at the time, the subject’s roommates did not learn to study at night during the day, and the sound of her voice worsened her already poor sleep quality.
The questioner wanted to communicate, and said in the group, “I bought sleeping pills and earplugs, and you made concessions when I wanted to make concessions. I’m sorry.
Who would have thought that the roommate would not be willing to communicate with her, but would have simply left the group.
Let’s take this as an example of what’s wrong with the logic of communication at this point in time.
First, her content is a purely emotional expression. She’s using a simple and rude prayer, which seems so aggressive, that she doesn’t give her the chance to explain, that her roommate doesn’t know she’s sleeping well.
Second, in the title, it is not “in the hope of a consensus” but “what has happened to me, what has happened to you?” But why do you have to do what she wants to do when you’re in a roommate’s position? We’re all equals. How can we order ourselves?
One more thing, she’s off the hook. What is her claim? The discussion should focus on “a bit loud” or “silent.” But she put too much emphasis on “bought sleeping pills” and the nature of the matter went straight to “you’re forcing me to take pills,” so how does the roommate respond?
Without the logic of communication, it is easy to “make small things big.”
Imagine, if the subject changed the wording to:
“Friends, I’m a little light sleep, but I also know you’re going to have to study. I bought some sleeping pills and a steam eye mask today to try to get some sleep early, so would you mind if you could just read the book a little bit? I’m sorry.
The effect would be much better and the problem would not be so complicated.
Rewind:
Pass: I sleep light, need a quiet environment.
RESPONSE: I know you’re going to study, not intentionally (whether it’s a step or not).
Resonance: We all do so in order to learn, and I understand you to learn, so I try not to disturb you in the early hours, and I hope that you will not disturb me too much.
Other communication in real life is the same.
To express, listen to, and find a resonance that leads to win-win.
To make one-way output a two-way flow, the other is aware that their will is respected and naturally willing to communicate and solve problems together.
Word-based cooperation would inevitably lead to operational cooperation, which would be very useful for human interaction.
After understanding the three elements necessary for communication, we can continue our discussion of the “operational dimension”: How should we develop a mindset of communication rather than one-way output?
Here is a cognitive proposal: to change the perception of communication from “teaching for your own ends” to “the means to achieve a two-way compromise”. From the very beginning, I told myself that I had to give in to the moment I decided to communicate.
It is believed that you have seen many stories online: there are many advantages in a situation where you are not in a position to do so, but through the mouth of the person concerned, the disadvantage is in order to achieve your purpose.
This is indeed tempting and there are many examples. After all, who does not want to have the capacity to transform the situation?
But we have to make a distinction between “the existence of persuasion in communication” and “the ability to convince others through communication.”
Convincing and communicating is not one thing in essence.
Convincing, of course, requires communication, but persuasion can be “one-way out”, and if you have a good plan and a good approach, then you can have the other side accept your opinion. There are many examples of this in the National War Policy, which interested friends can see for themselves.
Communication is a two-way, mobile process. There may be a situation where “who wins who,” “who convinces who”, but if you look at it for a long time, the two sides must have come to me to compromise with each other, or else it will not be called communication.
You don’t believe me, my friend, when you were a child, your parents pulled you on their knees, and you didn’t take your will into account, and you criticized and ordered the “communication” that’s what you think it is? Do you really want to do what they do?
So, “after communicating, you’re right, you’re right, and deciding to do what you do” is not the end, but a temporary, relatively ideal situation.
And what really happens is that those of you who are completely willing to do what you want/do not want to do, you don’t have to do it through communication, you really need to do it, which means you have to replace some of the other’s concessions through your own concessions.
When we want to communicate, we need to think at the same time:
What are our demands?
What’s his claim?
Are our claims in common?
What can I give in exchange for the other?
At the outset, psychological expectations have been reduced, with little concern for partial compromise, so that even if there is a point of convergence in communication, one does not think that the other is “involved in good faith ” , but rather that it is understood as a “normal phenomenon in communication” that does not collapse.
At the same time, to clarify what one needs most, one can speak more precisely, thus avoiding misunderstandings.
Take the example of what’s so hot: the diamond ring.
Many men have strong claims: how to talk to their wives and convince them not to sell the diamond ring?
The contradiction between the parties is that:
Men: Considering the reality, seeking to preserve value, diamonds are considered to be of little use other than ritualism.
Women: Hope to have a sense of ritualism, hope to feel loved and like the beauty of diamonds.
Imagine that if the man’s claim is to find a common ground and how to preserve enough value while satisfying the ritual sense, the problem will be much less difficult, after all, most women, though fond of the ritual, know that they need to live well.
However, if the man rejects any compromise communication and insists that “the communication is for girls to give up the diamond ring and the sense of ritual ” , the woman does not have any steps at all, and the will to communicate naturally does not go far, even with misunderstandings and quarrels.
Effective communication over time must be accompanied by listening, acceptance and resonance.
Compromise is one of those processes.
In that case, one might say, “No, no, no one will compromise, no one will compromise, but every kind will squeeze the other.”
Here’s a good one: people are used to glorification of their own experiences and their words and deeds, and smart people will never believe when they hear words that clearly appear like pies.
A simple example.
I have a very good friend, a woman who’s very good at communicating and who’s been married to her husband for years. She had never been overstretched to me that her husband had never refused her request, and that he would listen and become a true princess.
Looks pretty high, doesn’t it? I thought so, too. After all, I’ve seen her husband myself, and I really love her very much, as she said.
So, with the idea of breaking the casserole, I went on to ask, “How did you get the other side to accept even your unreasonable demands?”
Who would have thought that at that point, she responded with a shock:
“Huh? Why should I make unreasonable demands? No one in the ordinary will agree to unreasonable demands.
All I have to do is ask him, and I think he can do it, and it’s reasonable, and if he can’t do it, I won’t even mention it if it makes me feel unreasonable. I’m sorry.
There are many similar cases, all in common and without exception: those who appear to have taken advantage of them, in fact, pay and compromise.
Like this friend of mine, she has been treated with all the love of her husband, and she has had an efficient and sweet dialogue, but this has been achieved because she herself is demanding.
Communication can of course solve problems, but whatever form of communication, listening, concombining and understanding of acceptance are essential links, and both sides are equal and there is no real price for nothing.
I often see the question on the Internet: “Why can’t they appreciate the fact that they’ve already communicated?”
The question is, why would someone have to appreciate it? And who’s gonna have to listen to you for the favor?
Too much self-aware, too much self-righteous, not only to influence communication, but also to cause so much unhappiness. Imagine that if the original expectations were not as high, knowing that people have their own claims, then when negotiations are negotiated, they can be relatively more peaceful and think from the perspective of each other, so that they can find a point of convergence more quickly.
So, after telling you what to do, let’s remind you that when you get good at your mouth and the other side really has feelings for yourself, there are circumstances in which you can do so through communication.
But we must remember that it is not natural for a situation like this to happen that is by its very nature not so good as to have so-called “emotional value” — more because the other side is willing to give up on its own, which is not natural.
Communication can generate emotional value.
But emotional value is not the trick of running water.
It is the habit of people to know that they are loved by the world and to become grateful.
If this mentality were to flow to the surface and simply thought that it was “communicative”, it would sooner or later collapse, even if it were not a problem. After all, the world does not have the obligation to be accustomed to itself (and not to parents).
Psychological expectations have become too high and, in the face of inevitable setbacks, mentalities have to fall faster and problems have to change.
That is the intrinsic logic of communication and some of the things we need to look at.
It’s not “art,” it’s “do.” In a specific environment, we need to translate into different languages.
But after learning “do” it’s not that hard: Imagine a man who does not speak in his own right, but rather in his own words, thinking of the points of convergence between himself and the other, leading him and himself to a win-win goal. Where can he speak, even if he is not fluent?
Inherent logic, the first solution was the core of communication, as it was directly linked to the mentalities of the parties.
Many people feel that their passion for communication is nowhere to go precisely because the intrinsic logic of communication has not been understood, to the point where inappropriate psychological expectations are set at the outset, which in turn affect the expression of TA, creating a vicious circle.
Therefore, the focus of this paper is on how to develop good cognitive habits at the level of Dow.
To learn more about the good stuff about communication, other articles on the column are welcome.
Record number: YXX1jpp OlK2cOOXEPZTPM3Y
Give up the “sniffing mind” and make it work.
Getting rid of my problems: social skills.
It’s not like you’re a fairy.
x
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
