Do you blame, placate, distract, intellectualize, or level?

[ygolo]

How do you deal with conflict?

Communication skills: Personal courage and conflict resolution at work - Communication Skills - Helium

My opinion is that people on this forum do a lot of placating in discussions which (with as many differing points of view as we have) will naturally lead to conflict.

I tend to intellectualize, but I see the value of leveling as being a much more direct way to go.

 

[Maverick]

"Assertive"/"Level" style. It's the most effective way to deal with conflict.

 

[Athenian200]

I usually use the "levelling" style if I'm paying attention or being reasonable, but if I feel threatened, I tend to switch to the "distractor" style.

 

[tovlo]

Levelling is my aspirational style. My natural style is placating.

 

[Recluse]

"Assertive"/"Level" style. It's the most effective way to deal with conflict.

Yes, but it involves spilling one's emotions. (Yargh, what a mess!)


I'm here to observe more than to interact, so I haven't been in any arguments that I'm aware of. But I'll hazard a guess on which types would be most likely to employ each style:

Aggressive Style: obviously, forumites who start provocative threads (nothing wrong with that!); some NTJs, STJs, ENTPs, ESTPs, with a few FJs inadvertently slipping into this style at times

Placating Style: most Feelers, especially FPs, and probably also those TPs who don't have enough interest in--or sufficient information on--an issue (but displaying avoiding behavior more than people-pleasing, in this case)

Intellectual Style: Thinkers, particularly NTs, and especially those INTPs with well-developed Ti

Distracting Style: mostly impassioned Feeler types, but I can also think of a few stubborn TJs and vacillating/panicking TPs that employ this style to great avail

Leveling: well-balanced individuals of any type; i.e., not too many of us!

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Assertive/Intellectual for quality conversations, and I tend to start with that. Aggressive too sometimes, for a variety of reasons. I don't go for the top results in conversation quality if I choose that style in some situation.

 

[Natrushka]

My opinion is that people on this forum do a lot of placating in discussions which (with as many differing points of view as we have) will naturally lead to conflict.

I tend to intellectualize, but I see the value of leveling as being a much more direct way to go.

I hit the "back" arrow. A lot.

 

[Totenkindly]

Some conflicts need to be resolved.

Others need to be absorbed, because the situation either isn't bad enough yet to warrant the potential damage of conflict or the time/context simply is not right yet for people to respond in the most positive ways.

I think wise communication involves being able to discern between the two.

The article also deals more with workplace communication (where there is a tangible goal that often has to be met), so conflict can't be as easily avoided as it can in a social situation, at least not without the end product suffering. People have no choice but to resolve issues regardless of the difficulty, since otherwise the end result of everyone's efforts is being threatened.

Still, I enjoyed the article.

And the "leveling" behavior does seem to be useful. If you can simply approach someone and say, "Here's what's bugging me; here's what I'd like to see; what are your thoughts on the matter?" and the other person can respond appropriately and both be willing to find a compromise, then that seems very productive.

Still, sometimes people are not willing to compromise. Which leads to all the other styles of communication mentioned.

 

[Mempy]

I think the levelling approach solves more conflicts because it's kind of like approaching the situation as if it's no big deal - "Ok, this is how I feel, what about you?" I think Jen put it well.

If you approach the "conflict" with a reactive style, it means you're perturbed by something. If you have to "cope" in any way with the situation, you're probably taking it too seriously. The leveller seems ok with being who they are.

Honesty without reactivity is always appreciated, I think. It does take bravery and confidence to put yourself out there no matter what other people think. It's hard to bare yourself. People who know how to level, I think, are the first to level with themselves. They know what's important - them - and they don't have to please anybody or prove anything to anybody or show people that they're cool. They simply are who they are.

On my best days, I'm a good leveller. When I'm feeling underconfident I tend to get aggressive - extremely aggressive. I've played with all the conflict styles, but inside, deep down, I have very aggressive tendancies. And deeper still, I think everyone has an inner leveller - someone who's wise and brave enough to be honest because they're ok with themselves, truly ok.