Chapter 16 Chapter 12 Summary

Jack could also start his conversation with Mike from another angle. He explained that I figured that now that the manual issue was settled, there wouldn't be any problems between us. Months later, however, Mike remained cold toward him, and their friendship took an awkward turn. Jack knew he should talk to Mike, but what? And throughout , Jack's bottom line on this issue has never changed: Mike is really unreasonable. In order to prepare for this conversation with Mike, Jack settled down and began to sort out the three layers of dialogue. During this period, he examined Mike's possible attitude on this matter and their respective responsibilities (then attach Jack's Brief notes listed during preparation).Following this line of thought, Jack made some discoveries.He realized that Mike probably didn't even know that he had put away all his other work and worked late into the night on this manual.Also, it's not clear to Jack whether Mike is really forcing himself on purpose when he's dealing with this.He found that no matter when he was arguing with Mike or after he finished the manual, he didn't express his feelings to Mike, and this practice just made the misunderstanding and conflict between them further deepen.

Considering this, Jack was determined to change this situation, so he decided to express his feelings immediately. "When I re-examined everything that happened and my thoughts, my confidence was shaken a little, and I no longer insisted that I was right, and I no longer insisted that Mike was the root of everything. "Maybe my biggest discovery was realizing that I'd never tried to see the whole thing from Mike's point of view. Now, I want to try." It may sound ridiculous to start preparing for another conversation because of the wavering confidence in the conversation, but it is precisely because of this that Jack can listen to Mike's conversation more openly and learn more about what he doesn't know with a more curious attitude. Information (such as Mike's intentions, or the responsibilities Mike has set for Jack.) In fact, in a sense, Jack is more confident than before.After he accepted his role in the issue, he became more confident in his point of view.This time, he didn't say, as before, that his story was "right" and Mike's was "wrong"; because he was convinced that both of their stories mattered.

Emotions that affect my attributions and judgments: — things were not going well, and Mike had hired someone else to do the job. ——I really hope that I can do things better. ——I actually made such a low-level mistake! ——Mike's previous support for my work. — Our friendship has been severely damaged by this. How did everything happen to jeopardize my sense of self? That's right!It probably all has something to do with my self-perception, as I've always seen myself as a conscientious professional.However, it is really hard for me to accept the fact that I made such a stupid and low-level mistake.

Also, I wish I had done a better job of handling my conversation with Mike.In fact, I am still very good at solving this kind of problems - dealing with conflicts with customers. Now, whether it's work or personal relationships, I screw up.I didn't stand up for my principles, and at the same time, I lost Mike as a friend and client. The most important thing for Jack was that he felt more secure: he felt that, no matter how Mike reacted, it would be a good thing to talk about it. "In the beginning, whenever I thought about whether or not I should talk to Mike, I thought, 'What if Mike doesn't think it's a big deal? Or, what if he's forgotten about it? What should I do? Wouldn't I look stupid, or a failure?' I kept thinking about whether I should speak up, but I was worried that I would run away like a deserter, and I couldn't come up with any clear answers. solution."

"So, on the one hand, I wanted to speak out, but on the other hand, I was very nervous about it. At this point, I remembered your advice: don't try to control their reactions. The reason why I want to put Things come out because I think it's important. I'm going to do it and I can do it, and if Mike really isn't interested in it, or he just doesn't want to hear me, that's okay, at least, I worked hard and took action so that I don't have to feel bad about my inaction." In what follows, you'll see some of the conversations Jack and Mike might have had in real life—with one difference: in order for Jack's behavior, whether decent or not, to move the conversation forward. For a more supportive role, we provided him with a counselor to guide him through the difficulties encountered in the conversation.In addition, we gave Jack the opportunity to start and interrupt conversations, and allowed him to restart conversations if they weren't going well.

What follows is Jack's first attempt, and its results. Jack: Listen, Mike, let's have a good talk.The problem with the financial manual last time was that after I finished everything, you treated me very badly, and you know this very well! Mike: The problem with that incident last time was that I made a mistake in my own judgment and thought of entrusting you to do it first. I will never make that mistake again! Jack: Mike, I've been thinking a lot about the financial handbook last time.Every time I think back to that time, I feel depressed and sad. I think, you are probably the same as me.What worries me the most is that this matter seems to have affected our friendship. I wonder if we can have a good talk about this matter?I want to know more about your situation in this matter, how you feel about our partnership, and of course, tell you about the things that upset me.

Mike: Well, Jack, the problem with this one is that you weren't careful enough, and you knew you made a mistake, but you just didn't want to admit it, and you kept making excuses for yourself. very angry. Jack: You think I'm making excuses for myself by doing that?Speak all your thoughts. Mike: Jack, the truth is that you shouldn't be arguing with me about that chart.You should make a new chart for me immediately without saying a word. Jack: So you think that since I made the wrong diagram, I should make a correct one and reprint the manual?It sounds like you're so outraged and frustrated because I questioned your idea.

Mike: Yeah, it does feel a little disheartening.The client pressed for this manual, and she was already dissatisfied with our work. Jack: Why? Mike: Because this picture appeared in other publications before, at that time, she felt that the picture was wrong. In fact, the picture was not wrong, but in that case, how could you have a relationship with her? Who is right and wrong to argue?Jack, you know what, this thing hit me hard.The customer is God, so the customer is always right, but you just don't seem to understand this truth. Jake: So, at the time, this client was actually finding fault?

Mike: Of course, any mistake you make falls right into her hands, and she's sure to notice that little mistake on the income chart first.Her investors have expressed displeasure with some of her recent decisions.Yes, the whole chart is only a little bit wrong, and usually we don't redo the chart because of this, but this time it is different, we must ensure that every data is accurate. Jack: I didn't know there was such a complicated background to this incident.Hearing you say it, you seem to be under a lot of pressure on this matter. Jack: Mike, the problem with this whole thing, from my point of view, is that I took the job to help you, and instead of thanking me, you got mad at me.You are so mean.

Jack: I think I've learned a little bit about your views and your position on this matter, and I've benefited from that.Now, I also want to tell you my views and feelings on this matter. Mike: OK. Jack: Well, I've never been very good at expressing my feelings, but I'll try.Actually, there are things you said that made me feel hurt. Mike: Jack, I never meant to hurt you, I just want you to get that manual done right and on time!Sometimes, I think, you are really too sensitive. Jack: Wait a minute, before we talk about how you feel about my feelings, I want to talk about how I feel about it.

Mike: Well, you say, except, what I'm trying to say is that we should keep things private, and you just put too much personal emotion into our work interactions. Jack: Mike, I can totally understand your idea that I don't separate my personal and public affairs, and we can have a good talk about it.Before I do that, though, I want to talk to you about how I feel about this matter. Jack: Excuse me.Well, here's the thing.When I got your call, I thought to myself, "Oh, God, I've got my hands full. Tomorrow, I have to get the materials that Anders asked for, and tonight I'm going to talk to you. Charlotte has an appointment for dinner." But then I thought, "I was going to call the Anders guys anyway and tell them that what they wanted might be a day late, and I could Call Charlotte to cancel tonight." And I do all this, Mike, do you know why?Because I can hear from the phone that you are anxious, and I really want to help you. Mike: For that, I am very grateful. Jack: But you never said anything like that to me in the whole thing.From my point of view, I made these sacrifices for you, and all I got was, "Look, Jack, you screwed this up!" Now, you can see why I feel so bad. Hit it? Mike: I really shouldn't have said that about you, Jack.I meant to thank you.However, at that time, I was distracted by the customers' pickiness, and I didn't care about it at all.Frankly speaking, although I understand all this now, I don't think you have done me a big favor in this matter.In fact, then, and now, I thought the whole thing was me helping you: I was taking care of your business, wasn't I?I could have found someone else, but I think you'd be very happy if I entrusted this job to you. Jack: Exactly.I think, at the time, I was so preoccupied with getting things done that it never occurred to me that you were taking care of my business.Obviously, though, I care about the work. Mike: Jack, there is one other thing I want to talk to you about.If we talk about this completely openly now, I want to tell you that you made a mistake in this matter, but you deny it, which really disappoints me. Jack: Mike, I'm not denying anything.I did nothing wrong at all! Jack: I heard you say that you were frustrated by my reaction. Mike: Yes.I don't want to be the bad guy.I just want to get things done. Jack: I want to explain a bit about my reaction.I'm not trying to pretend there's nothing wrong, or to place all the blame on you.I really just think that chart is fine, there's nothing wrong with it.As we've talked about before, now, I've learned that when I reacted, I didn't know the full picture of the whole thing.At this point, I'm not really sure what I think about this chart, but all I know is that if I thought I should redo this chart, I'd be the first to bring it up . Mike: I didn't know you thought so.Still, I feel like you're always trying to excuse and absolve yourself of the mistakes you make in your charts. Jack: Mike, there is some truth to what you say.In fact, when I think about it over and over again, I realize that, sometimes, I really don't want to admit that I made a mistake.It's hard for me to even say that fact like I'm doing now. Mike: Oh, I really appreciate it when you say that.It would have been nice if you had acknowledged this sooner so we could have invested in fixing this mistake. Jack: There are two things that I need to make clear so as not to cause confusion on both sides.I did make a mistake when making the chart, but, based on my experience, I really think it is unreasonable for you to ask me to redo it because of this. I don’t think this picture needs to be redone at all. Do. Jack: Mike, there is one more thing I want to talk to you about.I have the feeling that you think the manual is wrong because I am the only one at fault. Mike: Jack, we don't need to talk about this at all.I'm not trying to place all the blame on you.I understand that you have put a lot of effort into this work, and I really appreciate it. Jack: I know.I just want to look at this blame-related issue from another angle.At the time, your reaction was, since I did the work, and if something goes wrong with the diagram, it must be my fault, no doubt.And my initial reaction was, since you've looked at the diagram and let me move on, you're responsible for this too. Mike: No, I never said I checked the charts.That's your job.I mean, if you think it's okay, you can deliver to print. Jack: That's exactly what I want to say.In this matter, both of us are responsible.We misunderstood each other.I'm not saying this to say who's right or who's wrong.It's just that if we had understood the meaning of the other person's words accurately, this problem might not have arisen, and we would not have made a mess of everything. Mike: Exactly.But so what? Jack: The point of the matter is that if we can express ourselves more clearly when communicating, we can avoid such problems as much as possible in our future work.I should have asked if you had checked the manual carefully, and you should have told me more clearly that you hadn't.As long as one of us does this, the situation will be greatly improved, and the same problem will definitely not happen again next time. Mike: I think you have a good point. Jack: Mike, let's think about it now. If we have different opinions on the same issue in the future, how should we deal with this disagreement?For example, does the manual need to be reworked? Mike: I think, in this matter, of course, as customers, we should do it my way.I don't think this is a decision that needs to be negotiated by both parties. Jack: As far as the final decision is concerned, I have no problem with it.In a situation like this, of course you should.But, I thought, what can I do to get you to listen to me before you make this decision?After all, there is always something to be gained from brainstorming and hearing more from others.I can imagine that sometimes, when you already have your own opinion, if you can talk to me, maybe your mind will change. Mike: Yeah.If we can be more clear about the purpose of this conversation before the conversation, maybe, I will understand that you just want to give your opinion, and not simply think that you want to be the final decision maker. Jack: Exactly. Mike: But sometimes, I just don't have time to have a long discussion about a thing. Jack: I understand.If you tell me you don't have time, I'll cut it short.Also, I still don't understand why you are always impatient with the conversation? Mike: So, can I just say, "I don't have time to talk about this right now"? Jack: Yes, of course, you also need to tell me why.For example, you can tell me that you have to finish all work by noon, or that this income figure is a sensitive topic, or simply tell me, we will talk about this later.It only takes you five seconds to make it all clear, and I won't be upset that you won't listen to me. Mike: Now, I understand why you're so upset. Jack: I'm really happy that we can work through these issues together.I think working with friends is really not an easy thing.In this regard, I have a question to ask you, do you think this matter will affect our friendship? Mike: Well, what do you think yourself? Jack: Tell the truth?After talking to you for so long, I feel much better now.And before that, I was really angry, and besides, I seemed to feel a little bit hurt.If we could have such a conversation earlier, I might not have the idea that we can't be friends, and I won't be entangled and sad about it. Mike: I'm a little surprised that you said that.I do have a different view than you on such matters.I'm not happy with our working relationship, however, I don't think it affects our friendship, I see them as two separate things.Obviously, though, you think differently than I do, so I'm glad we were able to talk about that today and have everyone figure out each other's perspectives. As the saying goes, "Life is unhappy nine out of ten times".This is true of life, but now you have mastered some skills to deal with these unsatisfactory. 1.Sort out what happened. ● Where did your story come from (information, past experiences, principles)?Where do their stories come from? ●How does this situation affect you now?What are their likely intentions? ●What responsibilities should both parties bear in this matter? 2.understand emotions. ●Explore your emotional footprints, and all your current emotions. 3.Defend your self-perception. ● What perceptions of yourself are threatened?What information, opinions, or facts do you need to accept in order to better defend your self-knowledge? ●Purpose: What do you hope to gain or achieve through this conversation?Transform your conversational posture to achieve the goal of learning to share and solve problems. ● Decide: Is this the best way to talk about this controversial topic and achieve your goals?Are controversial topics really lurking in your self-awareness conversations?Can you influence the issue by changing your responsibility for the event?If you don't bring up this controversial issue, what can you do to let it go and forget about it? 1.Think of conflict as the difference between the different stories you and the other person are holding.Bring both perspectives into the discussion and make them part of your conversation. 2.Tell the other person the purpose of your conversation. 3.Invite the other party to sort out the current situation and various information with you as a partner. ●Listen to understand their perspective on what happened.ask questions.Identify with their emotions behind arguments and accusations.Rephrase what the other person said to make sure you understand what the other person said.Try to figure out how exactly you got here. ● share your perspective, your past experiences, and your intentions and feelings ●Restructure, restructure, and restructure, so that the conversation will not deviate from the right track. The conversation will lead from the discussion of facts to the understanding of the perspectives of both parties' thinking, from accusations to blame, from accusations to each other to their own emotions recognition etc. ●Create options so that options meet the most important views and interests of both parties. ●Choose criteria to measure how things should work out.Always keep in mind the principle of caring for each other; relationships that give in one direction usually don't last. ●As the conversation progresses, discuss with the other party how to maintain an open communication. 1.It sounds like what you're trying to say is that everything is relative.Is it true that nothing is absolutely right and that no one is truly wrong? 2.What should I do if the other person is genuinely malicious—trying to get his way by lying, intimidating, or deliberately misleading or terminating the conversation? 3.What should I do if the other party is really difficult to communicate, or even has mental problems? 4.How do I have a difficult conversation with someone powerful - say, my boss? 5.As the boss/parent of the company, why can't I just tell my subordinates/children what to do? 6.Are the techniques and methods mentioned in the book only applicable to the United States?How can they function in other cultural contexts? 7.How do I handle difficult conversations that aren't face-to-face?What should I do differently if I'm communicating with the person by phone or email? 8.Why do you advise people to "work with emotion"?I am not a clinical psychologist, and I have no obligation to help them solve their emotional problems, and I think, shouldn't business decisions be based on the principle of supremacy of interests? 9.In the real world, who has the time to do all this? 10.My self-awareness conversations have become completely bogged down in either/or perspectives: Either I'm a perfect person or I'm a disgusting useless person.For me, I just can't seem to get out of this thought mode, what should I do in this situation? Some people have doubts after reading it. Does the author want to tell us through this book that there is no connection between the facts, or that all opinions have their reasons and are reasonable?Whether it's when we have specific discussions about a specific issue ("We should close the Newark factory"; "I should be lead author "Jasper should be grounded for a month" etc.), Questions like these arise all too often in discussions about abstract topics such as faith (“Health care is a human right”; “Abortion is murder”; “My God is the only God” etc.) . Facts are real, and people's views and cognitions about facts may be correct or wrong.Let us take a simple incident in our daily life as an example.If a meal costs $30 and you think a 15% tip is $6, you're wrong.According to the ratio of 15%, it should be 4.5 US dollars, but if you think that 15% is too low and 20% is the "reasonable" ratio, this is your judgment, not the fact—even if the actual survey data shows that, In the local area, according to the evaluation of the service provided by this restaurant, people usually pay a tip of 20%, which has become a habit of the locals.These are facts, but these facts do not mean that 20% is the correct percentage to tip. A critical first step in making conversations fruitful, especially when the parties involved are emotionally charged, high-stakes topics are being discussed, and the speaker's perceptions of the matter are complex, is clearly distinguishing the facts while also Identify the perspectives, assumptions, values, interests, expectations, and judgments of both parties on the matter.Your five-year-old son spilled his food on the floor, whether he should, and whether he should take care of himself is a matter of judgment.When you arrived at the office this morning is a fact, your boss thinks you're late and based on that you have a bad attitude at work is an assumption.It is a fact that tens of thousands of people died in the Rwandan genocide, and whether the United States should intervene is the result of combined interests, values, and opinions. While it is sometimes difficult to draw firm conclusions about facts, it is perfectly possible to clarify, examine, and measure facts.In this regard, we can use the trial in the court as an example.A video of the evidence shows that no one was in a certain place at a certain time, but is the time in the video necessarily accurate?Has this video been edited?We can answer these questions based on facts, but it may be difficult for us to confirm these facts. Furthermore, when it comes to topics related to memory, this uncertainty is greatly increased. Studies have shown that, in general, human testimony is not reliable, and even the full attention of the witness cannot change this. fact.We often believe in what we remember, but the reality is not what our memories show.We even change our memories unconsciously, and even when the memories in our minds are vivid and vivid, we can still get the wrong place and time of an event, or even the wrong people involved in the event.Brain scientists have neurologically understood why this process occurs and have confirmed that it often happens.For example, some recent research has found that every time we recall or narrate our memories, we modify or rewrite them to some extent when we put them back into our brain memory bank.Only 24 hours after the incident, the memory you recalled from the memory bank is likely to be the 18th version that you modified, and the number of times you modify the memory is the number of times you recall the scene at that time. So, even when you're talking to the other person about the facts, you're going to have a disagreement, and whenever you do, you have to figure out what the other person's version of the fact looks like, and what they understand and think about it. Know.What exactly caused the disagreement: a simple error, or lack of information or misinformation; our own selective selection and modification of memories, or the fact that it is more important than you think? more obscure? The need to understand the basis of the other side's story becomes all the more urgent when the conversation's disagreement is about interpretation and judgment—that is, about what the facts really mean.And this is another area that tends to cause "problems of relativity" Do you mean that their explanations are as correct as mine, and both make sense?But in fact their explanation doesn't make sense at all! "We believe that most people have felt that way. I know where their expectations come from and I understand that, but in my opinion, their expectations are not reasonable. I think it just reflects them. It's never a fair and just view of where the 'problem' lies." We must make it clear that we do not mean that all interpretations and stories are created equal.Of course, there are some explanations for certain things that seem more plausible, or, at least, seem more plausible to most people.There are many reasons for this.Some stories do reflect the situation more fully—in other words, those who hold that version of the story incorporate more of the information available.Other versions of the story are based on less information or assumptions, or they are more connected to the situation, time or place at the time.However, in this way, these stories also have relatively fewer logical jumps and internal contradictions. However, in order to be able to compare versions of a story using these criteria—and to maximize your chances of changing the other person’s perspective—you first have to dive into a learning conversation, get to know each story in depth, and understand these The origin and foundation of the story, and how the two stories intersect.Whether you're trying to convince adversaries, co-workers, or sidelined bystanders, you have to do this first. Speaking of which, you may want to ask, what is your bottom line?When you think that the other person's point of view is "just wrong", you need to take a moment to re-examine your point of view and starting point.Usually, the other party is likely to know something that you don't know, and you just need to use this missing information to test your point of view, so as to find a way to understand the other party's point of view.Generally speaking, different versions of explanations about a certain situation often have their place of burial. This is like, when faced with Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece "Mona Lisa", some people say that the painting is a an elderly woman, and some believe it to be a young woman.Therefore, in the process of understanding the other party's story, your attention should be focused on the "meaning" of the other party's story, rather than trying to prove that it is just "nonsense".Then, you can re-interpret your opinion, tell the other party your different views on this matter or situation, and the reasons why you have these different opinions, and ask for the other party's response.Finding different sources, looking for different interpretations of ambiguous information, or gathering different perspectives on missing information will help you explain to the other party why you have a different perspective from his. Maybe, no matter how you conduct this learning conversation, you can't convince the other person to accept your point of view, or the other person still can't admit that there is some truth to your or the other person's point of view. At this time, all you need to do is look at yourself The story, thinking about what angle to start from can promote the process of the conversation.In real life, however, most of us are often too quick to give up, even when our story is not understood by the other side, and we ourselves are not given the opportunity to understand and weigh the other side's point of view. Before we give up, here's a tip that might help move the conversation forward: Ask yourself, what letters and things do you need to let the other person know in order to persuade him to change or reconsider his point of view?If they say that nothing will convince them, you have at least acquired a valuable message: you know that any attempt to persuade them will be in vain.On the other hand, if there's a slight shift in their answers, it's a sign that your hard work has paid off and you've seen the challenge for what it really is, and the next thing you need to do is do a self-assessment, See if you can complete this challenge. (At the same time, of course, you may want to ask yourself what kind of information would make you change your mind.) Now we come at last to the question of how to deal with people--with ourselves, and with other people--and each of us usually holds a certain point of view and regards that point of view as a definite, absolute fact .Some people are devout believers who believe in religious teachings based on sacred resources, such as the "Bible", "Five Books of Moses", and so on.Some people are outright atheists who resolutely resist this kind of religious belief based on doctrine, and only believe in objectively existing facts and evidence that can be observed and measured. Whether we are religious or not, and whatever our religious affiliation is, we all need to confront the burning question of how to bridge the religious divide and have productive conversation.Religious belief may be a difficult communication barrier to break through, but no matter what kind of learning conversation, we have only one answer: respect the other person and try to find ways to understand the other person's perspective and point of view.Maybe there are things you don't know that you need to know, and knowing the other person's story will help them understand you and your point of view better. When we assert our views as absolute truths, we tend to think, "There is no doubt that this is an exception to the rule of mutual understanding. If the facts were absolute, everything would be simple, as long as Let them see that fact too, and it's going to work out?" Unfortunately, the answer is no.我们根本无法让其他人完全依照我们的思维模式去看待任何人或事，如果我们迫不及待地将这种一厢情愿的想法付诸行动，其结果往往会事与愿违，因为这只会加剧对方的抵制心理。 当然，所有问题的关键就在于人们无法对什么是事实达成一致意见。一方面我们笃定这就是事实，而另一方面，持有不同观点的对方也同样如此。即便是在一个团体内部，哪怕所有成员都有着相同的信仰，每个成员对于执行和理解信仰的观点也不完全相同。我们曾经亲身参与过某一神学院的讨论活动，这次经历使我们见证了一名精神导师的伟大之处，一方面，他必须具备应对深沉且复杂的沟通挑战的能力，另一方面，他还必须允许并接受其他人用他们自己的方式去理解上帝。“尽管上帝按照自己的模样创造了人类，可是，作为人类，我们的理解能力却是有限的。”一位神学家指出，“人就好比是灯泡，虽然其内心拥有1000瓦的强大功率，可是他能够发出光明的能力却只有40瓦。” 对此，科学家们也表示出了相同的观点。尽管科学家们声称事实和命题是能够被观察到的，譬如说物理“定理”，然而绝大多数科学家们在面对现有的知识状态时都持有一种健康的怀疑论。他们知道，无论是在哪个领域——航空、医学，粒子物理学领域等一下一个科学发现很有可能会彻底颠覆我们现有的科学观点。 从这一点来说，问题的关键就在于，与其说世界上是否存在绝对的事实，倒不如说我们是否能够看到或理解它，以及我们对它的理解和认知究竟有多透彻。也许，对于人类而言，我们惟一能够确定的就是没有谁能够完全地确定某件事情。无论你是否信仰上帝，你都必须接受这一来自上帝的信条。 当然，这并不意味着我们不能怀着满腔的热情和深信不疑的态度，就某件我们极度关心的事情与他人展开讨论。只不过，当我们这样做的时候，我们应当避免流露出傲慢的情绪，尽量保持谦逊，同时对他人表示出足够的尊敬。毕竟，哪怕是我们自己的观点，有时候也会随着时间的推移而改变。同样地，我们也无需把那些与我们意见有分歧的人当成是坏人、头脑简单的人，或是看问题想事情不够全面的人。 如果说，寻找“事实”更像是一段旅途，而不是终点，那么，与那些和我们观点不一致的人开展热烈的探讨则正是我们在这段旅途中所需要的路灯，他们能够为我们送来光明，照亮前方的道路，同时也使得我们能够更加透彻地认识并检验自己的观点，扩展和加深我们的理解。 2010年春天，当我们写下这部分内容的时候，我们这个地球正面临着一系列综合了社会、政治、宗教及道德界限等多重因素的巨大挑战——这些挑战包括找到合适的政府规模及职能、医疗保健改革、教育改革、堕胎、同性恋婚姻、移民政策、本土安全以及气候和能源政策等。在面对这些挑战的同时，人们至少在同一个问题上达成了共识，即保持中庸之道的人越来越少，而人与人之间的观点差异则变得越来越大。愤怒的情绪以及暴力行为开始在分歧双方大范围地蔓延。在我们看来，这个世界上需要担心的问题很多，令我们感到恐惧的事情也很多，与此同时，我们也厌倦了对方对我们的观念和感受不闻不问的消极态度。于是，我们开始觉得只有自己才是正直的，只有自己的观点才能代表正义。面对社会上的腐败现象、屡禁不止的谎言、人们的愚蠢行径，却被大众误认为是详尽确切的信息和公共政策，我们着实感到深恶痛绝。 作为读者，你也许有这样的疑问：面对这些丑恶现象，本书的作者难道真的能做到袖手旁观吗？当然，对于围绕这些问题所展开的争辩，我们的态度和观点都是坚决的，可是，相对于最后的辩论结果，我们更加关注辩论的过程。随着辩论双方之间分歧的扩大，以及辩论者情绪越来越激动，沟通会变得越来越困难，可与此同时，良好的沟通的重要性也会变得越来越明显。伴随着充满激情的观点而到来的是聆听者的一种贵任：了解所涉及事件的信息，以及聆听持有不同意见的人又是如何看待这一事件的。当然，这种聆听并非一定要以同意对方观点或是寻找双方观点的共同之处为目的。只不过，在聆听的同时，你至少应当试图去了解为何对方会如此看待这一事件，为何他的观点会不同于你。切记，你需要了解的是和你进行谈话的那个人的观点——无论他是和你只有一街之隔的邻居，还是远隔千山万水的另一个同家的人——而不是媒体的评论，互联网上的消息，也不是博客上公布的内容，更不是便签条或布告上所展示的信息。 其实，当你与人交谈的对候，你不妨先考虑一下这样一个事实：在谈论那些我们极其关注的事件时，我们的情绪越激动，我们在心中丑化和讽刺那些与我们意见相左的人的可能性就越大。对方的陈述可能会令你感到怒不可遏。你可能会发现自己的耐心和修养已经完全被对方那荒谬可笑的概括和归纳消耗殆尽。每当这时，你都应该告诫自己退一步来就看待整件事情：如果对方认为你的观点肤浅空洞，自私自利，你的思想低劣卑那，甚至充满恶意，你能接受这样的观点吗？作为“受害者”，你觉得他们对你本人的看法是透彻且公正的吗？他们听到和看到的一切是不是和你看到和感觉到的完全一致呢？No, of course not.他们丝毫不在乎你和你的观点，所以他们便自然而然地忽略了那些你认为很重要的事实以及你深信不疑的观点，与此同时，他们也根本就没有考虑到你是一个很有原则的人，所以，他们自然也就想不到尽管你和其他所有人一样，都拥有人类所共有的局限性，但是你却一直在为了自己认为正确的事情而努力和奋斗。 而事实上，他们也同样如此，只不过，你和他们一样，也没有意识到这一点。 我们无法确定另一个人的意图究竟如何。一些在我们看来似乎是深思熟虑，颇具战略意义的意图也许只是对方在面对某个话题或事件时一时兴起的仓促回应，或是某人因为个人能力的局限性而做出的欠思考的即时反应。很多时候，我们常常会惊讶地发现，一个“显而易见”是自私的谎言竟然是对方的真实想法。 不过，不管怎样，人们在谈话中的确是会撒谎，而且有的时候，与我们谈话的人也的确是居心叵测。而且，我们也都曾遇到过这样的情况，对方——也许是有意识地，也许是无意识地——为了达到自己的目的而试图在谈话当中控制和威胁我们，甚至推迟谈话时间，混淆视听，误导我们。 面对这种情况，我们通常都会给出三条最基本的建议。 第一，谨言慎行，以免出现鼓励对方不良行为的情况。如果你过早地放弃，仅仅为了“避免激战的发生”而向对方妥协，使其如愿以偿，那么，你的这一行为无异于是在告诉对方，他们的恶劣行为奏效了。如此一来，在今后的交往当中，他们还会用同样的方式来逼迫你就范。 第二，时刻提醒自己，在与对方的接触中，应当心存善意，或是有选择地“按照他们的方式出牌”。你应当牢记，你的行为的影响力绝不仅限于某一次交往行为，它们将会对你的声誉产生深远的影响。因此，哪怕对方向你撒谎，你也不应该“以牙还牙”，因为你的撒谎行为不仅无法像你预期的那样达到报复和反击的目的，而且还会对你的名誉造成长久的消极影响，使你在他人心目中的正直度大打折扣。 对此，有一点我们必须提醒大家注意，“值得信赖”与“深信不疑”绝不能同日而语。如果对方尚未取得你的信任，你并没有任何义务无条件地相信对方。如果对方向你“挑衅”，你必须牢记“和”姿态原则你难道不信任我吗？”“事实上，我对你的了解并不深，所以无法肯定你说的话是否属实，而如果你说的是真话，我想你应该能够提供检验你话语真实性的证据，或是为自己说过的话做出担保。”与其毫无城府地向对方表示友善，你不如将注意力集中在自己的谈话目标，以及如何才能实现这一目标之上。 第三，努力地去了解为何他们会认为自己的意图和行为是正当的。在日常生活中，我们往往倾向于将他人的不良行为归咎于其卑劣的品性：他们之所以会撒谎，就是因为他们本身就是坏人。不幸的是，一旦我们接受了这一假设，一切就几乎已经成了定局——他们已经不可救药了。在现实生活当中，人们往往会觉得自己的意图，从某种程度上来说，都是正当的（譬如说，在关于你对待他们的态度这一问题上，他们就认为自己没有错），在这种情况下，对方只有采取一定的行动才能避免自己吃亏。虽然我们也许并不认同他们的这一观点，但是如果我们能够理解他们的这一思维逻辑，这也许会对打破谈话的僵局大有裨益。因为只有在逻辑存在的情况下，你才有可能根据某种逻辑来说服他们：除了他们的观点，别的观点也有其存在的意义。 让我们来看以下这个例子。 科林和马特合伙经营一家网页设计公司，两人各占公司50%的股份。科林解释道： 通常情况下，马特都是一个通情达理的人，可是当他非常迫切地想要达成某个目的，或得到某件物品的时候，他往往会利用发火和威胁的手段来达到自己的目的。最近，我们一直在讨论公司的品牌宣传问商谈期间，他突然就发作起来。“我们不过是在重复劳动！对于你那套安全至上的原则，我已经厌倦了！我受够了这一切！”我对他说，我很满意公司目前的发展方向。对此，他立刻去出一句恶狠狠的话：“如果公司不能按照我的方式经营的话，我就撤股，把我的股份权都卖给合伙人。”一开始，当他威胁或恐吓我的时候，我往往都会选择放弃，而我的妥协则会换来暂时的安宁，可是，正如你们可以想见的那样，当下一次他想按照自己的方式行事时，他又会立刻变得火冒三丈，而我则越来越讨厌他的这种行为方式。所以，最近我一直都在努力地争取自己的权益：每当他冲我怒吼，我都会以更响亮的声音冲着他咆哮回去。可是，这种以毒攻毒的方式根本无助于解决问题，反而只会令我们之间的矛盾迅速升级，现在，我觉得几乎所有的事情都已经失控了。 在处理这一沟通问题的过程中，科林曾经试图用妥协来维持和平，后来，他又选择了一种无恶意但却同样激进的方式。可是，最终的结果却都一样。 有时候，我们的确需要放弃——当你被对方说服，接受了他才是正确的观点时；当对方相对于自己而言更关心事件的发展和结果时；当有解决方案总好过没有方案，而你又需要立刻得到答复的时候。不过，在处理高难度谈话的过程中，从长远策略来看，放弃和妥协根本无济于事。放弃只会鼓励不良的行为，而这种鼓励的结果往往是不良行为愈演愈烈。 有的人际关系是以互惠互利为基础的——这是一种令关系双方都满意的平等关系。有时候，人们会对我们说我和我的丈夫成天吵吵闹闹，不过，事后我们很快就忘了。你的意思是说我们这种相处模式不好？”对此，我们的回答是，如果你们夫妻能够接受这种相处的模式，那就无所谓“好”与“不好”。不同的人对于吵架、提高嗓门的容忍程度不同，其事后处理这种争论的方式也不同。因此，问题的关键就在于双方是否都能够接受这种相处的状态和模式，并且能够借此来解决双方的问题。 当然，这种相处模式可能会让有些人觉得不自在。他们的理由是他们这样对我说明他们对我缺乏应有的尊重，因为他们明明知道这样做会令我感到难过、沮丧。”科林就属于这一类人，这种人往往需要用几个小时，甚至几天的时间才能从这种激烈的对话或人身攻击中恢复过来。 我们能够明白为什么科林会觉得进退两难。如果放弃无法达到解决问题的效果，而按照他们的方式出牌又无助于从根本上缓解紧张的局势，那我们到底该怎么办？ 如果我们能够设身处地地从马特的角度出发来看待这一问题，并且找出可能导致双方这种行为的因果关系，那无疑对解决问题会有很大的帮助。例如，马特也许觉得科林在利用自己手中的反对权来威逼自己。更有甚者，马特还有可能认为这是一种蓄意的——也正是因为如此，他才会勃然大怒——以退为进的策略。 这些不同于我们的视角和观点为谈话的继续铺设了一条前景颇为乐观的新的道路。不过，从我们现有的立场出发，我们不妨假设马特就是执著于自己的观点和想法——无论他的这一行为是刻意的，还是无意识的——并且认为只要坚持就能有成效。如果是这样，科林还能做些什么来化解这一矛盾呢？ 在第十一章当中，我们已经向大家详细地阐述了这一技巧的强大能量。当持之以恒的聆听和耐心的努力宣告失败之后，我们就应该将注意力的焦点转移到为对抗性势态命名的技巧上来。 这一技巧要求你“将在谈话时发现的问题摆到桌面上来与对方进行探讨”。在这一过程中，尤其重要的一环就是弄清楚存在于对方内心却尚未表达出来的决策原则。在上文的案例当中，马特想要科林采纳的原则似乎就是：“当我感到不悦时，我就能达到自己的目的。”从这一点来说，很显然，无论是从经营公司的角度来看，还是从维系双方的工作关系的立场来说，这都不是种可取的方式，更确切地说，这样做只会引起对方的反感。当你利用互惠的原则来检验这一观点时，问题立刻就变得更加清楚了：如果我们双方都采取这一战略，情况又会如何呢？如果说一间公司的资源分配和营销方案的选择全都取决于经营者在开会时哭闹或咆哮的能力，那么这家公司必然无法获得成功，更确切地说，它根本无法生存下来。 当科林在了解这一对抗性势态的时候，他必须提高警惕，以免陷入指责的思维模式当中无法自拔。他不应该说，“你试图利用发火的方式来达到自己的目的”。因为马特很有可能会对这一说法坚决予以否认，又或者他自己根本就没有意识到这一点，而作为反击，他很可能会为自己的大发雷霆寻找借口，逃避你对他的这一指责。于是，这场谈话极有可能会偏离原有的主题，转而就马特的真实意图展开激烈的辩论。 因此，科林应该从第三个故事的角度来描述眼前这一进退两难的局面，并且向对方发出邀请，请他和自己共同来解决这一问题：“你坚持要从提高产品的原材料入手，而我则希望从改变品牌经营的方式开始。在这一问题上，我们的意见出现严藥的分歧，这时候，我们该如何决策呢？”如果马特回答：“不管怎样，如果公司不能按照我的要求经营下去，我就撤股。”科林就可以将这一对抗性问题摆上桌面来谈论那么，为了不让你撤股，我最后只能选择接受你的方案，而这就意味着公司最后的决定是根据那个更想撤股的人的原则来制定的。如此看来，这种制定决策的方式和过程似乎不是长久之策，而这个决定似乎也并不是一个理智的决策。我想，就目前的形势来看，我们最好能够各退一步，策新审视我们的目标，然后再……” 清楚地言明对抗性势态可以立刻令谈话回归到中立的立场（第三个故事），而且能够迅速地平息谈话一方的怒火，使紧张的局面恢复平和（科林不能强迫马特接受那些他并不认可的观点，同样地，马特也无法迫使科林接受他的意见）。如此一来，科林原来的立场便得到了巩固，同时也成功地将双方谈论的焦点集中在了核心问题上：“只要你能够拿出客观合理的证据证明你是正确的，我就愿意接受你的意见，可是现在我仍然坚持自己的观点。而且我是一个说一不二的人。你的怒火让我知道此时的你情绪异常激动，可是你的愤怒情绪无法影响客观存在的数据，也无法影响我的思维逻辑和原则，所以我不会因为你发脾气而被你说服。” 从他的陈述当中，我们无法确切地知道科林内心究竟有多难过。在他看来，马特的行为究竟是令人觉得讨厌，还是使他觉得自己只是一个发泄的受气沙包呢？如果情况属于后者，科林很有可能会在忍无可忍的情况下发表一番“我受够了”的言论，这时，他一定会直言不讳地要求马特改变这种喜怒无常的行事风格：“你已经对我咆哮和威胁过无数次了。我再也受不了你这种野蛮的沟通方式了！我受够了！” 当你在自己的脑海中设想这一幕的时候，一定会觉得大快人心。然而，如果让你从解决问题的角度来仔细思考这一行为，检验其效率，你很快就会发现问题。你是否考虑过当科林畅所欲言，一吐为快的时候，马特心里又会怎么想呢？他也许会认为，“情绪失控的那个人是你不是我，我根本就没有发火，”或者，他会觉得，“已经有足够的证据证明是你过于敏感，过于保守了，”又或者，他会这样想，“不要告诉我我该怎么做，”或“我比你更富有激情——可那又如何呢？”请注意，从马特的角度出发，当他告诉科林自己已经厌倦了他那种安全至上的经营策略的时候，他就已经向对方发表了“自己受够了”的言论。然而，他的这番言论并没有对科林产生任何积极的影响，由此我们不难想见当科林重蹈覆辙的时候，其结果自然也是大同小异。 所以，我们建议大家采取一些不同于科林上述做法的行为。科林可以在心里对自己说“我已经受够了”——有这种感受并没有错。不过，与其试图借此来控制马特（通过把自己的这一想法大声地说出来），他不如将精力和时间放到他能够看到的信息上，仔细思考他想得到什么，他会怎样去做这些问题。在这一过程中，科林必须考虑到几个关键的要索： ●这是我所看到的。 ●这是这些事情对我所产生的影响。 ●你可以不同意我对事情的认知和理解，也可以认为自己的行为是正当的。 ●我们当中谁对谁错并不重要。只不过，我并不接受我们目前的这种沟通方式。 ●我要求你改变这种行为方式。 ●如果你继续我行我素，我将会采取以下行动。 在整个过程当中，科林并没有坚称自己才是正确的，他无法知道自己到底是否正确。他能够肯定的就是自己并不喜欢目前的这种工作状况和沟通方式。科林需要做的是让马特明内这一点，而不是控制马特，只不过，为了让对方明白这一点，他需要给对方以选择，使他意识到他是否需要修正自己的行为，以及如何改正。当然，为了实现这一目标，科林也必须仔细地思考如果对方不做出改变会产生怎样的后果，并且将这一后果清楚无误地告诉马特。 以上这些策略也同样适用于其他那些令你感到难堪或无法忍受的行为。如果对方总是转变话题，或是总是将谈话演变为对你的人身攻击，你首先需要做的就是努力了解对方的立场和观点，并且始终保持开放的心态，愿意接纳任何有利于解决问题的方案或方法。不过，如果对方继续转移话题，对你展开攻击，从而使你觉得他们意欲误导你，或威吓你，你可以开门见山地将存在于你们之间的对抗性问题摆上桌面（在本书的第十一章里，你将会找到更多类似的案例），当然，如果有必要的话，你也可以清楚无误地告诉对方，如果他们不及时改正自己的言行，事情将会出现什么样的结果。 本书的主旨就是想告诉各位读者，人与人之间的交往是非常复杂的。人际交往之所以会产生这样那样的问题大都是因为双方交流方式、行为、观念以及利益存在差异，而不是因为交际中的一方是好人，而另一方居心不良。 不过，相对而言，有些人的确是非常难沟通。 在人际交往当中，可能导致双方遭遇交际挑战的因素有很多且五花八门，例如，忧郁症、焦虑、狂躁与抑郁并发、对某种事物或药物上瘾、强迫症、自恋、多动症，以及其他可能存在的精神病症（这些病症的强烈程度可能会从轻微到严重不等）。如果处理不当，这些出现在人际交往中的挑战往往会令交际者的朋友和同事感到忧虑、沮丧、失望，他们甚至还会觉得自己很无能。当我们与精神疾病患者共同生活或工作的时候，我们往往会很清楚自己在与对方的交往中会遭遇哪些问题和挑战。各种沟通技巧将会助我们一臂之力，尤其是在你掌握了许多能够化解这些挑战的谈话类型的情况下，当然，更重要的是，在此期间，我们还会得到来自家人、同事、伙伴以及从事精神辅导的专业人员的帮助和支持。 当你遇到这一棘手的情况时，掌握至少以下两点将会帮助你解决难题。 第一，尽管我们常常会用“疯子”或“不可理喻”之类的词语来描述那些精神有问题的人，但是实际上，许多精神疾病患者都有一套自己的内部逻辑。患有强迫症的人会觉得自己必须遵循某一种程序或方法，不然，他们就需要面对一些潜在的极其不利的后果（只不过，这些后果通常都是他们想象出来的）。虽然这些程序或方法看起来显得不可理喻，有时甚至令人觉得难以接受，但是它们也是患者用来缓解压力和焦虑情绪的自我治疗的一种形式。 第二，对某一事物或药物上瘾的人也同样有一套自己的逻辑：瘾君子选择用短暂的快感（或疼痛感的暂时消失或缓解）来使自己暂时忘却疼痛。尽管事实上，这样做的结果只会令你在即将到来的第二天感到更加痛苦，但是如果你的目标就是熬过今天的话，这也不失为一种解决方案。当然，这并不意味着瘾君子的这种逻辑就是正确的、理智的、好的。不过，如果我们能够深入地了解这一病症，我们就会明白为何自己的爱人或同事会做出让我们无法理解的行为，同时，我们也能知道自己是否能够帮助他们，以及如何帮助。此外，我们还能意识到自己的哪些无意识的行为会令他们的病症进一步恶化。 毕竟，这些正在与这些精神和情感病症作斗争的人并非有意加大沟通的难度，也不是刻意地想伤害或打击自己身边的人。通常来说，他们也只能竭尽全力地来应付疾病所强加在自己身上的被扭曲了的世界观，以及由此所引发的一系列问题。当然，他们并不能因此就可以对自己的行为不负责任，肆意妄为。不过，在与他们进行交往的过程中，如果我们能够适时地提醒自己，他们之所以会做出种种令人不悦的行为是因为疾病所致，如此一来，我们就能大大削减其行为对我们自身所造成的不良影响了。 除此以外，我们还应当谨记，除了那些经医学确诊的精神疾病所引起的沟通障碍以外，我们与他人的人际关系还会受到来自其他挑战的冲击——哪怕这些挑战并不像前者那么极端、明显有些人的确是喜怒无常，上一秒还和颜悦色，下一秒就暴跳如雷了，有些人很脆弱，有些人则根本只以自我为中心，还有些人非常固执，就是不愿意接受与自己不同的观点。你关切地询问同事假期过得如何，结果她没好气地丢出一句话，说她“不过就休息了三天而已！”她这种自卫式的回答令你觉得很奇怪，直到你意识到在她听来，你的询问无异于是对她的一种指责：“你为什么休假休了这么长时间？！”你这才恍然大悟。我们都曾经做过这种“以小人之心度君子之腹”的事情。这也是我们在本书的第三章里所表达的观点。只不过，相对于大多数人而言，有些人这样做的频率更高，而且更加笃定。（“我就知道这是对我的指责！”）这种自说话的行为只会让对方觉得你很疯狂，而你自己也很难突破这一思维模式。 当我们面对此类挑战时，关键的一点就是牢记谁也无法确保事情会如何演变，也没有谁能够担保一定会出现什么样的结果。你不可能强迫另一个人改变自我，也无法令他完全按照你的想法去做。而且，如果你认为，只有当你令对方乖乖听话，完全按照你的要求去做的时候，你才算是取得了成功，那么，当你不得不向对方妥协，让他掌控谈话的结果时，你自然会变得恼羞成怒，、谈话时，你的目标应当是竭尽所能地推动谈话向良性的方向发展，谈话双方能够顺利地交换信息和观念，同时确保自己的行为不会引起任何形式的沟通障碍，从而激发对方的反抗或防御心理。 只要你能够牢记这一告诫，通常情况下，你都能找到有效的方法来缓和谈话气氛，改变对话中出现的对抗性势态。至于你应当采用何种方式，这完全取决于具体的语境，不过，这首先都是从你深入了解对方的视角和立场开始的，惟有如此，你才能理解对方的观点和情绪——哪怕在你看来，这样做显得有些奇怪或是你自己无法适应这一做法。对此，我们不妨来看看以下这个案例。 长期以来，艾迪的母亲和姨妈罗宾一直不和，作为她们的亲人，艾迪感到有些左右为难： 罗宾姨妈告诉我，我的妈妈是一个极其自私且可怕的人，并且还想尽一切办法来说服我认同她的这一想法。在过去的五年当中，我一直都在小心翼翼地替妈妈辩解，同时也试图通过我的努力来改变罗宾姨妈的观点。可是，每当这时，电话那头就会传来姨妈的尖叫声。她会喋喋不休地把所有陈年琐事都说一遍，譬如说，她会向我抱怨：“你妈总是说我从来都不记得给她的孙子孙女寄生日贺卡！可是，其实她自己就是一个该死的骗子！”我心平气和地向她解释我妈的观点，可是这一点用也没有。我也曾试过换个兔度，从自己的切身感受来劝她：“罗宾，当你这样说我妈妈的时候，我真的觉得很难过。”可这也同样无济于事。于是，我试着向她表达我对她的同情，承认她这些年的日子的确不好过，然而还是没有用。我也曾经直言不讳地指出了她对这场姐妹纷争负有不可推卸的责任，可是她仍然无动于衷。有时候，我甚至会被她惹火：“你怎么能够这样说我的母亲！”可悲的是，哪怕是发怒，我也无法改变她的想法。 艾迪知道姨妈很孤独，也知道她不是一个很好沟通的人，而她之所以会与自己联系，有一部分原因是因为她想借此排解这些消极情绪。至少，如果你问艾迪，她会这样说，而这也是她对此事的看法。吋是，当她进一步思考此事的时候，艾迪发现她其实不仅仅是想帮助罗宾姨妈，而且还想改变她，从而使她的行为与自己关于人们应该如何谈话和交流的观点保持一致。 然而，这种改变却超出了艾迪的能力范围。在艾迪看来，自己就像是《野兽家园》（Where the Wild Things Are）当中的马克思。马克思是一个喜爱航海的孩子王，有一次，他