[...] When you find the correct filter you are better able to navigate life. The kicker is that every person requires a different filter. We all have our issues. So we can choose some stereotypical filters used across the board and aim for the highest percent possible to not offend. People try this alot and vet frustrated with results. I have said things to my GF that a counselor woupd say..never say that to a woman. But i know her and i have fine tuned my filters to balance what i am after and who she is.
When you get into the realm of personal there is no "this is how things are". Its interesting that people try to create a single path instead of constantly building multiple paths. I realize its confusing, its complicated, its time consuming, and its never ends. But at least recognize it so you can ask questions and not assume. Or even if you assume, know that you just pushed a possibility and not a fact.
The best way to understand people in my honest opinion is to recognize there is alot of overlap, but exactly what that overlap is, is not static. Its all based on statistics which is nothing more then possibility and chance.
Yes, I agree with everything you said here. Basically, this portion of your post deals with the negotiation process, and I kind of blew that off in my previous post. My previous post was mostly about the part that happens before one gets to the negotiation table. But I agree with the points you raised: The negotiation process has pitfalls of its own.
Putting it all together:
*My* post was about
moving from anger to the negotiation table. That is:
--Do a self-inventory of why you're upset.
--Figure out which issues you want/need to raise with the other party.
--Decide on an initial negotiating position
--And then finally confront the other person and actually begin negotiations. And then I kind of blew off the actual negotiation process by saying, "then you sit down with the other party as two articulate adults and negotiate how exactly that change will take place."
Anyway, to put it in the language of the thread: *My* post (moving from anger to the negotiation table) is about
the rider getting in touch with his inner elephant: The rider knows that his inner elephant is stirred up (the rider feels anger bubbling around), so he has to sit with the elephant a bit in order to understand where the anger is coming from, figure out what needs are not being met, and then decide how to discuss those needs with the other party.
After all that happens, then we get to
the negotiation process, which is actually a fairly huge process and is fraught with pitfalls and miscommunications. The negotiation process is ideally
a "rider" process, but often the "elephants" of both parties end up getting involved. The "elephants" may prove divisive when the parties turn out to have clashing values or "languages." Or the elephants may help smooth the way when values and languages are shared.
Anyway, concerning the pitfalls of the negotiation process, just a couple examples:
Let's say you're trying to work out a difference of opinions with a spouse.
--The spouse may simply refuse to negotiate or communicate. They may say something like, "I shouldn't have to spell these things out for you. If you really loved me, you would pay attention to me and just automatically know what I need from you."
--The spouse may reject the idea of turning the relationship into a series of negotiations: "Love isn't a quid pro quo. We shouldn't have to give something in order to get something. Our love for each other should be given and received freely without a lot of haggling and bartering."
--The spouse may muddy the water and pull in a lot of related issues and turn the issue into a unsolvable tangle of contentious issues and demand solutions for everything at once. Or they may dwell on incidentals, like "I don't mind what you said, but I don't like the tone of voice you used when you said it."
And so on. And even after a deal is worked out, one party or another may backslide and not hold up their end of the bargain.
These things may happen without any ill will involved; it may just be that the spouses have different values and different "love languages." Or maybe one or both are narcissists and just want to tangle things up so that no progress can be made, in the interests of maintaining a privileged position in the relationship. Time will tell which is the issue.
In any case, there are some tools one can use to facilitate the negotiation process.
1)
Common-knowledge self-help tools
There are some traditional self-help tools for dealing with misunderstandings. The most familiar: When you want to negotiate a problem, use the formula "When you do X, I feel Y."
The downside of that formula is that it's kind of a guilt trip. It says, "You're responsible for my feelings, and it's up to you to make me feel good by changing your ways."
But the upside of the formula is that it sets up a successful negotiation process. It clears away any other old baggage and other old arguments and puts them off to the side. It says, "I just want to focus on this one simple interaction that's bugging me; is there some way we could interact differently?" It gets rid of the "muddying the water problem" and boils the process down to two clearly defined elements.
It's like going into a car dealership and saying, "I have money and you have cars. Let's do a deal. I don't care what your politics are; I don't even care if I like you or hate you. It's just about about money and cars. So let's do a deal."
So simple self-help tools can be an aid by getting the parties past sloppy thinking and helping to clarify and crystallize exactly what needs to be negotiated.
2)
Deeper study of the negotiation process
There are a gazillion books on how to manage conflict and negotiate. Negotiation is the cornerstone of capitalism. Donald Trump put out a book entitled, "The Art of the Deal." (I haven't read it, but I intend to someday. Like him or hate him, there's no denying that he knows the business world and business negotiations better than most.)
Anyway, one of the best overall guides on negotiation styles that I've seen so far is in Chapter 4 of "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey. He identifies a number of different argumentation styles: Win/Win, Win/Lose, Lose/Win, Lose/Lose, Win, and No Deal. He describes each and notes that they all have their legitimate uses, depending on the kind of negotiation underway. But he says that in personal relations, usually the best two are Win/Win and No Deal.
I won't bother going into the details. Basically I'm just pointing out that these things have been analyzed and described, and tools exist for handling the process. For example, if your partner or spouse consistently uses a Win/Lose argumentation style, you can point that out with the help of one of these books and insist that it's not fair that every domestic disagreement be turned into a zero-sum, winner-take-all slugfest.
By studying more about the process of negotiation, you (and your partner as well) can become more effective at moving through the negotiation process quickly and "getting a deal done" that you can both live with.
3)
Relationship counselor
If things are really in a tangle, you call in a pro. Ideally the pro is familiar with all the issues and material I've raised, and they can spot areas of compromise or can act as a tiebreaker when compromise is impossible. If one spouse wants to work out a quid pro quo and the other partner doesn't believe in quid pro quos in love (difference in love languages), hopefully the counselor can spot that and either work out a compromise language or persuade one or both partners to bend a bit on important issues.
A counselor can clarify contentious issues, create "safe zones" where the parties can express their needs, and point out when the water is getting muddied and the parties need to focus their arguments better. The counselor should also be educating the parties on good negotiation techniques.
Finally, the counselor should also be able to spot narcissists and abusers who just use the negotiation tools to tangle things up and impede process toward a fair outcome. They can point out ways that the parties may be unintentionally or intentionally sabotaging the negotiation process.