Chapter 4--Part 3

one of the topics that stuck out in my mind was the “I-Statement.” I thought it was really interesting how it talks about word choice in matters concerning conflict. The book talks about “owning” our feelings, which I thought was interesting. I know I sometimes find myself putting the blame on other people without realizing I am doing it. For example, to avoid feeling vulnerable, I will tell someone that they DID something in a situation instead of telling them how I actually FEEL regarding the issue. I do this because I don’t like the feeling of letting people know that something that happened made me feel a certain way, so it’s easier (and, frankly, it sort of makes me feel like I am the one who is dominant in the situation because I am assigning the blame) to ignore how I am truly feeling. I think the way the text describes the effects of not actually explaining your emotions has on an argument. For example, the book says, “accepting responsibility linguistically to result in defensiveness from the other person,” (77), which made a lot of sense. If one person is assigning all the blame and one person won’t accept any of it, the conversation won’t get far.

CHAPTER 4--Post One

In regards to how easy it is for me to stop an argument, it honesty varies, depending on the argument.

There have been a ton of arguments I have been in where I am able to listen, calmly, and really make an attempt to understand where the other person is coming from. My advice for this, is to kind of follow in the footsteps of the book. If you are able to just bite your tongue (and there have been MANY times where I have literally done so) and listen to what they’re saying, it ends up benefiting you tremendously. If you REALLY pay attention to what they’re saying, and you really HEAR them (because to me there is a huge difference between listening and hearing) it is going to end up making a difference to you both in the end. Odds are if you are arguing with someone, you must respect them on some level (or else you probably wouldn’t waste your time...I hope), so have enough respect to try to really understand their “I-Statements” like you’d want them to hear yours. I know it sounds corny, but it’s true. Also, you never know if maybe you previously misconstrued something that was said, and it could clear up the issue pretty quickly.

If I cannot actually stop and listen to someone because I am so upset with them, I typically just take a break from them. I’ll tell them that I can’t have a conversation with them and that I need some time. However, I will typically avoid talking to them about a topic I know will spark an issue until I have already calmed down.

CH 11--- Managing Others' Conflicts

As I was reading about the different ways in which people can be involved in other people's conflicts, I couldn't help but think how we already ARE, in a sense, mediators.  For example, how many times (this is probably more with the ladies) have two of your mutual friends gotten into a fight and they come to you to vent about it? I know for me, I am really good at seeing issues in a neutral manner, so typically when both of these people tell me what's going on, I will listen, and then give my opinion on where their fault was in the situation. This typically allows for people to see how THEY could have reacted differently and how that might of had an impact on the overall problem because they have an unbiased, outsider view of what is going on. Also, sometimes people just need to hear how dumb and immature they're being, which coincides with  how the text talks about how it is being viewed by others.

This also made me think of my dad when it said, "Competitive communication is self-serving because it serves as a vehicle through which individuals attempt to distort the other's perceptions of the situation in order to gain an advantage," (pg 198) because he used to always tell me, "there are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth." I think this is great to keep in mind while being a mediator because I think no matter how much you might attempt to tell your side of the story honestly, you're still going to be biased because you are automatically going to see most of the fault on the other party. 

I think knowing how to effectively be a mediator is an important trait because it is natural for us to get involved in other peoples' affairs, and it is unlikely that we can totally remove ourselves from hostile and undesirable situations. 

CHAPTER 3

I thought it was interesting reading about the different types of options and their effects when dealing with conflict.

In my family, we're very assertive communicators, so, initially, it was odd for me to read about people who are not able to say their opinion and get their message across because there is no such thing as passive-aggressive behavior or nonassertive behavior in my family, and I must say that as I was reading I was sort of smug because I was thinking to myself, "we must be pretty good communicators because we don't neglect to give our opinions."

I was wrong.

In my family, we don't always use effective means of communication because often times we feel that if we are able to hurt the other person, we can "win" the argument (side note: In another class I am taking they make a point that Aristotle believed that the point of communication was to discover the truth rather than to win an argument. I thought this was relevant because it doesn't make a different if you are the "winner" if you still leave not knowing the origins of the issues or have a definite conclusion).

Something that I thought of was what my dad used to tell me when I would get into fights with my mom because I thought she was wrong: "Would you rather be happy or right?" and, though I used to tell him being right WOULD make me happy, he had a great point. By meeting her half way and seeing her point of view, it would allow her to see mine and we could both be happy.

Back to the original point I was making (I know I talk a lot..now you can see why I am studying communications), My family is typically more focused on "winning" than resolving, which is why patterns are consistent, and we very frequently verbally attack each other in doing this.

One sentence from the text that stuck out to me was [relating to managing conflict]: "it requires that a person believe that the concerns of the other person are as important as one's own and adopt the goal of finding mutually satisfying solutions to problems and resolutions of issues, which takes time and effort," (pg 57). I really liked this because it reminded me of what we discussed previously about meeting people half-way and seeing their view. People need to realize that they can get more bees with honey than vinegar, so if they are able to try to make someone else happy, it can often lead to good things for them.

Chapter 2

I thought this chapter had a lot of great information and insight.

For example, it talks about the ways in which to examine a situation and be dynamic, which is very important. I think most people would agree that there as been a time when someone confronts them and views them in a non-processual light. This could include holding them accountable for things that they did a long time ago as if they haven't changed (i'm not saying people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions). To the contrary, I do think it is important, like later stated, to realize when someone is unwilling to communicate effectively with you, and attain a real solution (the Competitive arguer), and perhaps cut your losses.

I have always considered myself to be a person who is able to see the opposing viewpoint, but when reading, I realized I can sometimes make the situation about myself. The example about telling the person who expected a phone call that, "I know exactly how you feel. I missed a call last week," DOES take the focus off the person who was initially upset and turns the situation around.

I think all of the tips in the book are great and effective ways to get your point across, keep your cool, deliver your message, and attain real results.

Chapter 1

I thought this was a really interesting chapter. As I was going through it, I was realizing that much of what I thought to be true about conflict wasn't, or was ineffective. For example, I have pretty much always seen conflict as a bad thing: you get into a HUGE fight with someone and then your relationship can often be altered, depending on how far the fight escalates instead of being something that allows for people to express their feelings and make permanent and effective changes for their relationships.

I thought it was interesting how it talked about the Linear Model of Communication and how people tend to focus on BLAMING someone else for the problem instantaneously instead of also realizing their role in it.

It's true, too, that people often let a conflict escalate to the point where the original issues isn't even key; people will get worked up over something, and then soon enough low blows are being thrown all around.

Furthermore, you cannot have a functional relationship if you cannot have productive conflicts. For example, a friendship of mine recently ended because she was unable to ATTEMPT to see my point of view, despite how much I was willing to see hers.

I think there actually might be an environmental factor that has a role in how much people are able to meet others half-way.

For example, I think a lot of people who are native to the Bay Area have a much more open view of certain political hotspots due to how liberal it is here. However, my aunt who is from the South will not meet anyone half-way on issues she does not agree with. This has to do with the environment in which she was raised.

Hi,

I know I'm late but I wanted to introduce myself!

Sara