Why can't some people deal with conflict?

There is also something else I need to point out.

I've experienced a specific issue with so called "Constructive Criticism". This ties into a passive aggressive or manipulative communication style. In that people use this term as a way cut down someone else without recourse. This ways its not someone being hurtful its constructive Criticism.

So again some people seem to not want to deal with conflict instead they push their own agenda without caring about what damage they do.
 
Harmony demands closure to unresolved issues. If conflict leads to that resolution, so be it.
 
alice144 said:
This confuses me. Isn't 'discussing the issues' always a good thing? What can go wrong with a 'blunt' approach?
Click to expand...

Depends on what the issues are and who you are talking to, IMO. Some things are clearly more important than others and demand a direct approach. Others do not. The latter category can safely be let go or ignored without causing any real harm. Being blunt can also be hurtful if the recipient is unused to it or if you don't know them well, it can alienate people and put them on the defensive, even if your intent is only to inquire into the truth. I think you gotta use your best discretion at such moments.
 
Cornerstone said:
It's like rain on your wedding day
Click to expand...

Hah! Well then, since we're ascribing to the Morisette definition of ironic, then the world all makes all the sense again!
 
alice144 said:
Excuse my bluntness, but, that's stupid.
Click to expand...

I take offense to that statement - just because you can't imagine reacting that way, it doesn't make it "stupid". The way I see it, there is always a reason behind behavior. I tend to avoid confrontations with people that aren't extremely close to me - not even in my family. In fact, for me, it comes through my family. We NEVER used to discuss things in my home. We never "talked things over" or "reasoned with each other". It was "shut up and do as you are told". Does that situation make me, or my family, stupid? The answer is no - it doesn't. It simply makes us people who don't like confrontations, or getting in each others faces.

alice144 said:
It seems to me that would only make the problem worse. I feel like 'real' niceness is managing social relations so that harmony may, over time, prevail, even if it requires a 'discussion' or two in the meanti
me.
Click to expand...

I agree that in the nature of relationships, it would be best to just tell people when something's wrong. I try to do that myself, but it's hard! I don't come from a family where being open is the norm - and I think many people think the same way as I do.
 
Because sometimes my retorts are so sharp they cut people!
Ahahahaha.

No really, I suspect it's a simple matter of genetics and deranged personalities.

Some people want to go about pushing their own opinions and impressions on people, and others just want to get on with things their own way...quietly. Certainly I've never met a conflict-happy person that I liked.
 
I believe that conflict is uncomfortable but part of life. For me, resolving conflict depends on the parties involved having a win/win approach as opposed to a win/lose approach. If I sense that a person is coming from a place of win/lose I feel that I am wasting my time trying to resolve a conflict with them. If on the other hand, I sense that a person is coming from a place of win/win, then the most important thing for all parties has become about resolving the conflict as opposed to each persons personal interests - this is when true compromise and resolution can be found.

A win/win approach is an optimal situation though and not always feasible. Unfortunately some situations require mediators to assist people in finding a place of compromise and resolution. One example might be when all parties have a win/win approach but have very different communication styles. In this case enlisting the help of a skilled mediator can be very productive to help bridge the communication gap. Another possibility is that people may have a win/win approach to some things and a win/lose approach to others, so each situation really needs to be evaluated individually.
 
Last edited:
I think most of people's inability to deal with conflict stems from the inability to communicate. And communication is not only about expressing yourself, but also listening to the person you are in conflict with and understanding what they are trying to say.


Sounds like two simple things to achieve, but they are both arts that require mastery and very few invest time and effort in learning how to talk and listen. I think listening is harder because it requires one to step outside of their own perspective and forget about their own interests for a second.
 
uberrogo said:
Seems like there is a story behind this post the OP isnt sharing.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to know?

I've finally met someone who is offended by dialectical reasoning within the context of a conversation. It confuses the hell out of me.


Odyne said:
I think most of people's inability to deal with conflict stems from the inability to communicate.
Click to expand...

Or an inability to realize that disagreement is not a condemnation of one's character...
 
vandyke said:
We never "talked things over" or "reasoned with each other". It was "shut up and do as you are told". Does that situation make me, or my family, stupid? The answer is no - it doesn't.
Click to expand...

No, but it certainly makes them dysfunctional... How can you make other people aware of your needs if you can't tell them?
 
alice144 said:
Or an inability to realize that disagreement is not a condemnation of one's character...
Click to expand...

Yeah, this falls under "listening"; inability to step outside oneself and truly pay attention to what is being said.
 
Dealing with conflict requires quite a bit of skill and the process can be broken down into several processes:

1) Accurately taking in the information provided.
2) Condensing the information and translating it into the key points. (@Odyne mentioned "stepping outside oneself" in a conversation.)
3) Understanding the current environment
4) Responding in a way that is familiar to the other person.

As people have said above "listening" is obviously very important, one of the most obvious mistakes a person and can quite easily escalate the situation, listening to everything the other person is very important because in essence; you WILL be tested on it later :P

Since people communicate in very different ways you should try and take in all that has been said and condense it into the key conversational points that you as the listener can understand, from there you have to take into account the current conversational environment; is the person your boss? is the person your child? did you just kill their dog? and adjust the way you communicate appropriately. Once you have taken the key points and the environmental factors you must then shape your response in a manner that the other person is accustomed to, try and use the same/similar words and avoid words like "you" and "I"' when "you"/"I" is used in a response and the conversation is already heated what is said is automatically seen as aggressive and your the majority of the content in what you've said will be lost. Use what they've said to you in your response, it'll take less energy for the other person to translate and it'll seem less aggressive and almost welcomed as a response, not only that but it will actively show that you have listened to what they've said which is always appreciated.

One thing that is difficult to factor in is ones ability to handle stress and how well they can think during these periods, often you find you'll return to a "child-like" mentality during these periods. I struggle to handle conflict under stress because my earlier years were in a stressful environment and keeping quiet and closing down was my defence to it, although it would be extremely easy to deal with it if I were an "outsider" to the situation but when I'm involved throughout it I have to fight off that automatic reaction. Other similar reactions would be to physically confront, to shout and to run away and learning how to change your "go to" response is quite difficult but it's usually done by placing yourself in a low stress situation and acting it out that way when you are in the high stressed version your responses are far more natural and easier to execute.
 
It hurts.

In the end, beneath all the theories and reasoning, the core is something simple.

Paraphrasing something that has been said before by [MENTION=5623]SilverFire[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1360]TheDaringHatTrick[/MENTION], in the end it goes back to how much pain are you willing to suffer for the sake of the issue / the person / both.

For further explanation, read posts above me. They are very adequate in explaining that.
 
What do you mean by conflict?

...Because its uncomfortable and confronting. Because they do not have self love and acceptance. They are scared to be wrong because its tied to their identity and validity as a person. They lack self awarenes. They lack empathy. They can not see why the issue means to another and how it may be effecting them. They are unwilling to communicate or engage. Its too difficult. They dont know if they can handle it.

Some people also create unecessary conflict for the same reason as others may avoid it. By lashing out, being rude, attacking and defending, rather than listening and communicating.
Being rude or discourteous, or making personal attacks is completely unecessary, ignorant and immature. When people judge others that they dont know and think they are right all the time, it just indicates that they are fragile and ignorant. This kind if behaviour is not conducive to communication and this kind of conflict is counterproductive

There is a difference between straightfoward, honest, frank, blunt and then being rude or discourteous, inconsiderate, and unwilling to learn and engage. Sometimes 'bluntness' is accompanied with an undertone of emotionalism and wish to attack another. Or perhaps sometimes that kind of bluntness is simply stemming from a place of being unmaliciously and innocently ignorant to others feelings.

Communication is hard. It requires that you genuinely want to learn and arent just interested in making yourself look good and others look foolish. You have to prepared to be wrong, compromise and change your position.

All conflict is valuable in some way, as we learn from it. But the end goal should be to learn how to communicate so all that 'conflict' is no longer necessary. I think its absolutely possible to communicate without conflcit, provided that people are self aware and coming from a position of love and learning.
 
You can't make progress and drive change unless you make it worth peoples time.

You make it worth their time by generating discomfort and then removing the discomfort when they improve.

Carrots and sticks.
 
I'm not sure what's the goal? To have a conflict or use it to achieve something? Isn't that the underlying question that be answered? What's the purpose of the conflict? If it's to hash it out, and get out all those feelings of anger about a problem or situation and express them, and both parties feel better about "getting it all out" in a verbal duel, then maybe it's a benefit or help for them, possibly cathartic. But someone who wants to argue for the sake of tearing down the other person, and goes into the conflict without considering how what they're saying or doing affects the perception of the conflict, the feelings, and the outcome, is not likely to benefit. It simply becomes a war of words. No one listens and both sides believe they are right. It seems there's some suggestion in the OP of superiority over those who don't like conflict or those who don't want to confront conflicts head on. As @Sadie said, if it's a win-lose, why participate? Many people don't listen as @Odyne said, nor do they want to listen. Their goal is not is not to have an open and honest dialogue about a subject. Rather it is to simply impose or argue their pov without considering the other side. In any case, it depends on the person and their arguing style. I mean, if you're going to insult me, one may question, why should I spend any time or effort in listening? If you can explain your reasoning, then I'm game. But if anger or demeaning comments are the only way someone can argue, then I'd rather be that passive individual who "can't deal with conflict" and avoids it because at that point, it's all you. At that point, I'll simply watch you and hope you get bored arguing at me rather than with me, and hopefully leave me alone . . . eventually :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top