Avoiding confrontation

[Frosty]

I generally like to avoid serious confrontation unless it is incredibly important to me. If anything, I'll usually resort to cowardly sarcastic barbs instead in smaller things. Really though I am fairly laid back, nothing day to day really much bothers me. I just don't care enough. It doesn't always penetrate, sometimes it does enough to make me question if there is something related to it to care about- but meh.

I can be fairly avoidant, but I've been trying not to be recently. Fairly difficult, when my first inclination is to do WHATEVER I can to not deal with conflict.

 

[GIjade]

Yes, if I care about the person very much. With strangers or acquaintances, I will avoid confrontation with them at all costs because it is awkward and because I simply don't care much about them. But if there's some sort of problem between me and a friend, and my friends are very important to me, but I take a deep breath and let it happen, because in that case it's better to talk it out with them and let us each explain ourselves and get it over with and come to some sort of conclusion/compromise so that everything will go back to normal.

I agree and that's the case here. I care about these people. Or at least I cared. I started letting go of them a while back, because it hurt too much to keep them in my life considering their behavior. Some of them don't matter anymore, but some do. Strangers and mere acquaintances, no, I really couldn't care less. I will engage in a confrontation with them, but only if it has something to do with my core values. This whole mess with my family and former friends is one I believe will never be resolved because not only are they conflict avoidant, they seem to want to hold on to family secrets that involve me, whether it hurts me or not.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't mind verbal confrontation at all. I am even completely ok with being "the attacker".

What most people see as confrontation I see as problem solving or dragging facts out to the open, so that something can be done about the whole situation.
However even my own parents say that spending time with me can be stressful at times.


On the other hand drama based confrontations are usually pretty annoying since they serve no real purpose and the source of problem will probably remain intact.


My 2 cents.

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be an attack.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be an attack.

Of course, but any too direct question that attacks status quo many people will see as some sort of attack. Especially if individual has a history of asking the hard questions.
I have been criticized for my behavior quite a bit but the bottom line is that I have to drag everthing out in order to feel complete. Lose ends make me uncomfortable, unproductive or even vulnerable.

 

[Kullervo]

Most of the people I know just cannot handle confrontation. I don't understand it, but I don't say much about it because I know that everyone is different and everyone has their own way of reacting to situations. Just frustrating to me, that's all. Why do you think they avoid it?

It can hurt to see someone you care about argue with you unnecessarily over trivia, and paradoxically, hearing something very personal and meaningful to you criticized hurts too...a lot. Also for some of us, the fear of rejection is very much in the background, all the time. Why make a stir if your girlfriend could just walk out, leave and never return?

But you need to consider that sometimes it really isn't worth arguing with someone. For the cost, sometimes acquisition make sense because you don't have anything to gain (save a sense of moral victory, which is often pyrrhic and passes quickly). Like you I struggle with this, because I loathe self-righteousness, but I'm trying to be better and know when to stand down or just ignore something that offends me.

Nobody is perfect though.

 

[GIjade]

It can hurt to see someone you care about argue with you unnecessarily over trivia, and paradoxically, hearing something very personal and meaningful to you criticized hurts too...a lot. Also for some of us, the fear of rejection is very much in the background, all the time. Why make a stir if your girlfriend could just walk out, leave and never return?

First, I wan't posting about arguing over something trivial. What I meant was confronting someone with something serious. As far as the girlfriend comment goes, it depends on what the confrontation with the girlfriend is about.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

This topic in particular conveys some important things about me to myself ("conflict"...it is only sensible). One, my MO is essentially a lack of an MO due to my inherent plight. Two, it is difficult for me to tell between what I hate and like because of counter-phobia. And three that is only two defined, it nearly doesn't matter how I feel about the thing itself but how I feel about what I feel is paramount. All aptly summarized as "it's convoluted".

To be a bit more directly germane to the topic, I do not fear conflict. My fears are however, adjacent.

Additionally, in my jaded old age I have come to see much value in discernment and the thoughtful allocation of importance whereas I would have earlier deemed it something unfavorable. And at that instantaneously, ha.

I would not say it is true that I am a calm person but being that I can understand avail, I do have a tendency to force myself in the direction.

Making my course of action thus far as follows: Natural-->Unnatural-->Natural take on the Unnatural.

 

[GIjade]

The thing that sucks most of all is when either feels the need to make the other feel bad for having an incompatible inclination, or tries shaming them into being different- as if the other's inclination is clearly the wrong/selfish way to be. It really bothers me when people actively/aggressively pursue interaction and try to bully/coerce/shame others into accommodating their own inclination.

How about this. My inclination is to be monogamous. You're might not be. Maybe you (not you personally) are a swinger. That's all fine. I don't care what kind of lifestyle you have... UNTIL you step over my boundaries and bring your free swinging ways into my backyard. Or bedroom. Then, I'll want to confront you about what you did. Yeah, I might "bully/coerce/shame others into accommodating" to my inclination, but only in this case. You KNEW my inclinations, you KNEW my boundaries, and yet you STILL did it. (And yes, the woman who breached my boundaries is on this forum, so read up , bitch.)

 

[Z Buck McFate]

How about this. My inclination is to be monogamous. You're might not be. Maybe you (not you personally) are a swinger. That's all fine. I don't care what kind of lifestyle you have... UNTIL you step over my boundaries and bring your free swinging ways into my backyard. Or bedroom. Then, I'll want to confront you about what you did. Yeah, I might "bully/coerce/shame others into accommodating" to my inclination, but only in this case. You KNEW my inclinations, you KNEW my boundaries, and yet you STILL did it. (And yes, the woman who breached my boundaries is on this forum, so read up , bitch.)

Well that's different. When a person agrees to enter into a monogamous relationship- and they didn't get bullied/coerced or in any way manipulated to enter into the agreement- urging them to keep their word/agreement is not the same thing as coercing them into an agreement.

The comment you quoted (I'm not sure if this is in response to that particular paragraph, or the bigger point of my posts) was in context to situations where someone doesn't allow for a longer processing time. But the larger point was that people have a tendency to crank up the volume on whatever means they have of communicating dissatisfaction or hurt or anger- if they don't feel heard, they do the same thing 'louder', instead of figuring out why they're not getting heard. They might be doing it to vent frustration, it might not be their intention to bully/coerce/manipulate others- but regardless, it can have the effect of bullying/coercing/manipulating others. <- And that is treating people like they are objects to be used, enlisting others into a reality you (not YOU specifically, "you" in general) expect to be able to dictate and get compliance for.

[Just like entering into an agreement with someone- and then breaking the terms of that agreement while expecting the other person to stay committed to the agreement- is similarly treating other people like they are objects to be used/belying an inflated sense of entitlement to dictate someone else's reality. And it really sucks to be treated that way. But this is kind of a digression.]

Even where the person in question has done something clearly 'wrong' (or thoughtless, inconsiderate, whatever)- like breaking a very important agreement that was made- the way communication about it is approached is important. If the goal is simply to vent, to purge hurt and frustration without regard for whether the connection can be repaired afterward- then by all means, cut loose and breathe as much fire on the person as you need to in order to feel relief. But if there's any hope of reconciling the different POVs- and one of the people in question has a deep seated fear of aggressive behavior, and they get avoidant at the slightest indication of it- then (even if they did something very, very hurtful or wrong) hurt and anger must be expressed in a more careful way (e.g. the "Seven Guidelines for Speaking Your Uncomfortable Truth" I copy/pasted into my last post).


The tl;dr version:

We don't get to dictate how much overt conflict other people can handle. If we want them around, we have to work with their threshold. If we can't accept their threshold, we need to accept that we don't actually want them around.

 

[GIjade]

We don't get to dictate how much overt conflict other people can handle. If we want them around, we have to work with their threshold. If we can't accept their threshold, we need to accept that we don't actually want them around.

This, I totally agree with. And I'm always trying to find what that threshold is. But it's very difficult when someone has developed a passive-aggressive communication style to avoid any sort of responsibility for their behavior. To me, that's very frustrating because I'm a very direct, honest person. I wonder if anything can ever get resolved when these two types of communication styles engage in discussion.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Well that's different. When a person agrees to enter into a monogamous relationship- and they didn't get bullied/coerced or in any way manipulated to enter into the agreement- urging them to keep their word/agreement is not the same thing as coercing them into an agreement.

The comment you quoted (I'm not sure if this is in response to that particular paragraph, or the bigger point of my posts) was in context to situations where someone doesn't allow for a longer processing time. But the larger point was that people have a tendency to crank up the volume on whatever means they have of communicating dissatisfaction or hurt or anger- if they don't feel heard, they do the same thing 'louder', instead of figuring out why they're not getting heard. They might be doing it to vent frustration, it might not be their intention to bully/coerce/manipulate others- but regardless, it can have the effect of bullying/coercing/manipulating others. <- And that is treating people like they are objects to be used, enlisting others into a reality you (not YOU specifically, "you" in general) expect to be able to dictate and get compliance for.

[Just like entering into an agreement with someone- and then breaking the terms of that agreement while expecting the other person to stay committed to the agreement- is similarly treating other people like they are objects to be used/belying an inflated sense of entitlement to dictate someone else's reality. And it really sucks to be treated that way. But this is kind of a digression.]

Even where the person in question has done something clearly 'wrong' (or thoughtless, inconsiderate, whatever)- like breaking a very important agreement that was made- the way communication about it is approached is important. If the goal is simply to vent, to purge hurt and frustration without regard for whether the connection can be repaired afterward- then by all means, cut loose and breathe as much fire on the person as you need to in order to feel relief. But if there's any hope of reconciling the different POVs- and one of the people in question has a deep seated fear of aggressive behavior, and they get avoidant at the slightest indication of it- then (even if they did something very, very hurtful or wrong) hurt and anger must be expressed in a more careful way (e.g. the "Seven Guidelines for Speaking Your Uncomfortable Truth" I copy/pasted into my last post).


The tl;dr version:

We don't get to dictate how much overt conflict other people can handle. If we want them around, we have to work with their threshold. If we can't accept their threshold, we need to accept that we don't actually want them around.

I agree very much with this. Our communication depends not on how honest we are but how brave we are, and what we can handle. For if we feel that being honest is going to cause our partner to do the thing we fear most (mine is abandonment, others' might be aggression), then we may NOT be able to share; we may become stifled. And not sharing, not communicating, is not entirely (though mostly) the person's fault who is choosing not to communicate.

But it is also the fault of their partner for not creating a safe enough environment for communicating.

And within this realm there are many varieties and flavors of sharing/not sharing depending upon other issues at play (like learned passive-aggressive techniques, bad habits, etc).

 

[Zen_alpha]

I had some experience with people who avoid confrontation. I think confronting and being honest is the best thing to do in life.
I mean, what's the point if someone is avoiding confrontation and being passive-aggressive or give some hints? it's just a waste of time.

Sometime it up-scale and then turns into gossiping and starting meaningless rumors. In the end, he/she will have to confront you.
It's meaningless and waste of time, nothing more than that.

Maybe, it's just me, but I like things to be clear, instead of those annoying hints and passive-aggressiveness. Honesty might hurt, but you need it.
It's just like going to the doctor to have an injection, it hurts, but you need it.

 

[Yama]

It's just like going to the doctor to have an injection, it hurts, but you need it.

If the doctor is doing their job right, injections don't hurt--aka, tact is important. So while confrontation may sometimes be necessary, I think the best way to go about it is to be diplomatic rather than blunt.

(This isn't really directed just at you--I quoted you because I saw a good opportunity to make an allegory out of it.)

 

[Zen_alpha]

If the doctor is doing their job right, injections don't hurt--aka, tact is important. So while confrontation may sometimes be necessary, I think the best way to go about it is to be diplomatic rather than blunt.

(This isn't really directed just at you--I quoted you because I saw a good opportunity to make an allegory out of it.)

Well, that might be true too.