“Why doesn’t he say anything?”: How to solve the “change” in communication.
“Why doesn’t he say anything?”: “How to solve the change in communication?”
Getting rid of my problems: social skills.
Communication is about finding common ground, solving problems and building new common goals.
But in the process of communication, we often encounter a very bad situation: change.
You discussed one thing with each other, you set a goal, and you thought you’d move forward on the basis of consensus, and who would have thought that one day, the TA’s attitude had suddenly turned one hundred and eighty degrees.
You’re angry, you’re sad, you think they broke their deal. And the other side said that TA had its own reasons and did not necessarily want to go back to the past.
You think the TA’s done this to break up the deal, but it’s not willing to go straight out of the way, not knowing how to handle it, to get out of this negative state.
This is, in fact, one of the things that happens in communication: change.
In previous articles, we have discussed that communication is a two-way, mobile process.
Not only does it mean that the process of communication requires a joint effort by both sides, but it also emphasizes that the process of communication often changes.
Accepting changes and adapting them to them is part of our ability to improve communication.
Before making a concrete analysis of what should be done, we need to be clear: how should we look at consensus, commitment, etc. on a daily basis?
The ancients told us: “A promise.”
When promises are made, they must be honoured, and a person lacking credibility is socially difficult to build upon.
In reality, however, there is a pattern of “breach promises” and, in many cases, those who break agreements are not necessarily motivated by bad faith.
Why is there such a contradiction? Is it because the ancients are wrong?
Not really.
The reason is simple: in principle, we do need to abide scrupulously by what we have agreed and what we have said.
However, leaving aside some of the problems at the end of the line, with the development of the environment and changes in the individual mind, it is often, and very normal, that people change their perception and even fail to comply fully with their commitments.
A very simple example.
And ask a male friend here, if you had proposed to your wife, tell her, “I will never let you do housework.”
But when you get married, your wife really doesn’t touch the sun, even if you’re too tired to help.
At this point in time, do you think that “I made a promise that I had to live with it” or that I would be unhappy?
It is believed that many people will be uncomfortable, but that it does not mean that they are not willing to keep their promises, but rather that they will be expected to help with the changes in the environment and in their own minds.
That is why, while we very much hope that we can do things by consensus and that we can respect each other ‘ s promises, there are times when we do not have the means to do all of them.
Life is very complex, and once one problem is resolved, it is likely that another problem will emerge immediately.
When another problem arises, and we need to recalibrate, the shift is an approximate phenomenon.
At this point, communication becomes particularly important.
And the way we communicate, if we want to solve the problem in a practical way, rather than just exaggerating, is not just “you shouldn’t change,” but to explore more in-depth “why change” and “how to adjust next.”
Let’s give one example:
Known as one of the topics: “My parents say they got a 985 award, I got it, I don’t give me money, I can sue them for school fees. I’m sorry.
The principal ‘ s parents promised to give him $10,000 for taking the 985 university, at his discretion. The subject who received the promise began to study hard and to plan happily for what to do when he got $10,000: he wanted to buy a more fluid mobile phone, he wanted to have fun and he wanted to buy some money…
At the end of the examination, the subject did take 985, but at this point the parents changed their attitude: In their view, the subject matter is akin to spending money (the subject does not think that he spends money) and, therefore, while $10,000 is given on a regular basis, it is not left at the disposal of the subject, but is provided in the form of school fees.
The angry subject believes that parents hurt their trust and want to spend no cents on a good son. Or don’t give it, just say it for yourself.
So on the Internet, ask: Can you sue your parents and get back the $10,000 you deserve?
After the publication on the Internet, there was a great deal of excitement, and the views of the netizens were generally of two kinds:
“The child is wrong”: the way a child solves a problem is by pouring out and even scolding his parents.
“Parents are wrong”: when a son kills a pig, the saint knows that a child should be told what to do, told what to do, and that a parent who does not believe in will have a heartless child.
What is wrong with both points of view? Standing in each other’s perspective makes sense.
But both views share a common problem: there is no problem with reason, but in practice, there is a lack of a viable reference.
Let’s start over from the point of view of “communication”:
The child ‘ s claim: I hope that the parents will give themselves $10,000 as they wish and that they will manage it in the way they want.
Parents’ claims: Don’t mind paying their children, but fear that they will develop bad consumption habits.
In this way, it is clear that “should we give the child $10,000” is not the core contradiction of the debate. One of the key points of disagreement between the two sides is “how to manage large amounts of money”, which is the shaping of consumption.
It is true that the choice of the parents to break the agreement was an erroneous decision that harmed the trust of the child.
But objectively: even with the money given to them by their parents, as a child, they can spend as they please, simply because their parents agreed to “use it as they please”.
Think a little deeper: is it healthy and profitable to grow up in a way that is at your disposal and that no one else can object?
Obviously not.
Parents have the responsibility to say what they have to say and the responsibility to monitor the healthy development of their children. From this perspective, it is not surprising that, as a parent, breaking a promise from a worrying point of view, if the child truly believes that he or she can dispose of money at his or her own free will and not consider his or her own development.
Of course, from another angle: if the child itself has a healthy and reasonable consumption view, then it is natural that parents do not have such concerns, let alone destroy the treaty.
It is clear, therefore, that it is not strong enough to be a child in the face of a “break of contract” such as that of a parent, if it is simply to stress that “parents should say what they want to do.”
On the one hand, the parents can totally rebut it by saying, “Did you do everything you did when you were a child?” On the other hand, this direction of communication does not include “the core of the parents’ claims” and is likely to fail to communicate, but rather causes conflict between parents.
It goes without saying that the children in the subject matter are not exclusively for pleasure, but they also have a claim to control money and learn to manage it.
This is a very unfortunate thing, as the child’s efforts to learn and the parents’ encouragement of the child’s advancement are clearly not based on malicious decisions. But because both sides do not know how to communicate, it turns two-way goodwill into two-way pain.
After identifying the core claims, we can now rethink how to resolve such “faults” through communication:
Parents ‘ perspective:
It is not necessary to adopt a non-payment approach in the hope that children will be able to build a healthy view of consumption.
There is also a two-size-fits-all approach, whereby additional conditions are imposed when the child is paid.
For example: maximum consumption per term/specific consumption distribution/to buy a mobile phone, yes, but how much is the most expensive …
The child is told that it is not free from his free will, that it is truly healthy “discretion” and that it is guided by a healthy view of consumption, and that it is calculated to enjoy the good of life through money.
The child’s angle:
It is clear that there is a problem with the approach of the subject. Parents may suffer from a fat beating if they are unlucky.
Moreover, as adults, there is still much to be faced with, and it is difficult to achieve real maturity if everything is resolved through “crazy and squawking”.
If I were a client, I might say to my parents:
“I didn’t just lose my temper because I didn’t get the $10,000, but you gave me a promise, and then you gave me that way. On the one hand, I feel like I’m being tricked, and on the other hand, you lied to me, and you behaved badly, and I can’t help but wonder if something like this will happen next time. I’m sorry.
– To express their anger.
“It’s my fault to be angry with you, after all, you’re my parents, and I want you to take the 985 test and I want you to be okay. I’m sorry.
– Admit your problems, give your parents steps.
“Standing from a parent’s point of view, a child learns for his or her own sake, and I do study for your sake. Maybe I’ll get into society later, but now I don’t like to learn, and I want to tear it out every time I make a paper. The motivation for me to persevere is not just the ten thousand dollars, but the way you proudly compliment me.
I want to be a child that you are proud of, and I have worked hard for it, and I hope that as I try to move forward, you can trust me and think about things from my perspective.
I know you’re worried about my bad consumption habits, but I’m always trying to try, not just to spend money for fun, but to learn to manage money and even to study how to make money and see how long it takes. I’m sorry.
– Make your own claim.
“You can write me a bank card, give me $5,000 in the first semester, and save the rest for me, and I’ll see if I can really make money or just consume it. If my consumer perception really does improve, I hope Mom and Dad can trust me. I’m sorry.
— Step back and give concrete solutions.
This is a detailed version of the expression, which can be simplified when used in real situations.
Imagine which of you would believe if you were parents (the ones who are particularly unreasonable and who play their children as monkeys), faced with a child who cries out in a conflict and a child who seriously explains, actively solves the problem and offers a programme in a conflict?
This is a very typical case of how to adjust the way we communicate in the face of “change,” and it often happens in our lives.
I have guided a child with similar claims in real life. After careful communication with his parents, the child not only recovered his own reward, but also gave him a new mobile phone as an incentive to remain self-restraint when he reached university.
Once each other’s claims have been clarified, even in the case of ” backsliding ” , communication can solve problems and mitigate conflict.
It cannot be denied, of course, that communication requires a joint effort by both sides, and if the other side is an unreasonable person, then even communication has little meaning. But if, at the outset, there must have been an uncommunicative, unreasonable person and a refusal to think, what is it that you are doing?
Many suffer for “change” because they believe that “the consensus that has been reached will be achieved and will not change”.
The problem is that the plan has not kept pace, let alone the consensus and commitment that emerges from daily communication.
Even for the best, there is no guarantee that changes in life and self can be contained.
How to deal with “changes” in dialogue is an important step in our ability to improve communication and solve problems.
In conclusion, what should we do in the face of “change” in communication?
First, identify the reasons for the change.
As we said earlier, “change” is a frequent occurrence.
However, there are different reasons for this:
Some are based on change of heart. For example, young people who were unsure of school premises and who were seeking a happy education decided to change their attitudes and impose strict requirements on their children after seeing harsh educational competition in large cities.
Some are based on environmental change. For example, you promised to go out, but you had to stop for weather reasons.
There have been new claims. For example, in the above cases, parents, once they have resolved the issue of their children’s advanced examinations, are beginning to worry about their children’s consumption perception — their fear of the children will never stop.
There are also, indeed, paintings that are deceptive and deliberate.
When the reasons for “change” are clear, we can split up, and we can deal with the problem in a different way, with what’s “reversible” as cheating, drawings, and what’s in mind, changing circumstances.
In the face of malicious ‘change’, of course, a heavy punch, but can there be a more moderate, win-win solution if there is no malice?
Second, to refine its own “most critical claims”.
One can easily make a mistake in the face of the other party’s “rebel”: in an emotional situation, neglecting its core needs, shifting the key to the problem, and creating new contradictions.
A simple example is that of a small couple who chooses the jewels of marriage. When the husband saw that the diamond ring was expensive, he tried to persuade his wife to give up the diamond ring and to buy gold, emphasizing that “diamonds are an IQ tax”.
The wife replied with anger: “Why is the diamond ring an IQ tax, even if it is, why can’t it be bought to make me happy? “Slowly, the conversation has become a fight, even online, and it has hurt a lot.
In fact, if we reset it, the core claim of the two people is simply “how to distribute the expenses of the wedding jewels”. Whether or not the diamond ring is preserved or gold is not at the heart of the problem.
You think it’s expensive? Then buy a small one, and the rest of it will be gold, or simply give up the diamond ring, buy a match, and the rest of it. If she likes it, she can step back and offer to buy a cheap one.
The most taboo part of the fight is running the issue, and the more you want to achieve your goals, the less you can be led.
Now, think, “Are my demands right?”
It is as if the subject matter of the above example is that, in theory, when he does get the money, he can do whatever he wants and what he wants to buy, because the parents promised.
But in real life, can we really just spend our parents’ blood and sweat? Especially at the reading stage, the most important self-improvement?
While it may not be possible to solve all the problems immediately after trying to understand the problem, it must ease the “many discomforts” in the argument.
Don’t take non-principle commitments too seriously.
As has already been said, change is an important part of dialogue and indeed of life, and many people actually find it difficult to actually do everything they promise.
So smart people, in the face of consensus and commitment from the other side, do not take those words too seriously and give the other side some room for adjustment, unless they are extremely principled. It would be natural if the other party could do it as a whole, and if there were minor changes in the middle, it could be accepted and adapted to the circumstances.
A very brief example:
Meet a friend, talk to a girlfriend.
The girl has repeatedly emphasized, during her obscurity, that she is a reasonable person and that she is not angry.
Once the relationship was established, the girl was in most cases very reasonable.
But there are times when you get angry.
Friends don’t think she cheated on herself because of a girl’s occasional temper. She, when she calms down, two people talk, and finally, she gets better and better.
Before the next communication, think about what’s possible.
It is important to look more at what the other party owns, what can be provided at the moment, and not just what the other party promises.
Communication is aimed at reaching consensus.
But “change” is also one of the main rhythms of dialogue.
To deal with “changes” in dialogue and, through communication, to further clarify their purpose and reach consensus with others. This not only contributes to our communication capacity, but also represents a great challenge to resilience and common sense.
Learning to understand exactly what it wants, learning to understand why others change, which seems to be a “compromise” that in fact gives both sides a better understanding of each other and allows us to look at things more comprehensively and from a different perspective. It can be of great help to oneself, whether it be to treat a loved one, a lover or to work.
Case number: YXX1Emmaw26HRRRJ1ZrTQR1B
Examples of failure to communicate: focus on “how to counter”
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.
