3 ms·

It's weird how he talks about 'winning' a fight. The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement, and when it's resolved both have won. If one feels disadvant

by zupatol 18y ago

It's weird how he talks about 'winning' a fight. The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement, and when it's resolved both have won. If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again. One advice he could have given is that competitiveness is completely out of place. A strategy he does not mention is refusing the fight by not listening, or going for a walk, and later pretend that nothing happened. A friend did this to me recently. It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. Still, I think the problem could have been solved faster and with less grudges by a discussion on the spot. I prefer to call it a discussion. If you avoid broken furniture, insulting generalizations, off the topic accusations, threats, and all the mistakes Crichton points to, you can hardly call it a fight.

Create 18y ago
It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. If it was just a friend, it may no longer matter, being similar enough to you. Anything more involved (the $SUBJ of the article) implies that everything else is secondary, and nothing else matters: it could very well be, that causing pain and grudges is the last thing the "friend" would have wanted -- in any shape or form: be it fight or discussion (or rather dispute). Actually, the article mentions this, when putting off the fight/discussion for a time, when "on the spot" discussions would be too heated. This will bring you right back to "If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again." Or discussed, as you prefer.
randallsquared 18y ago
"The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement" I disagree. If all that's involved is a disagreement, that's almost always resolved by a discussion, as you allude to later. If someone is spoiling for a fight, the disagreement is merely a pretext, though the person wanting to fight will refuse to acknowledge that. In this case, you can refuse, as your friend did, to have the fight, or win, or lose. In a relationship, though, not having some mix of winning and losing fights, assuming that they happen frequently, will usually have deleterious effects on the relationship, and refusing to participate will eventually be seen as loss.
- zupatol 18y ago
  Maybe I'm too optimistic. If someone close is spoiling for a fight using a pretext, I believe there must be some reason that person wants to fight, other than pure spontaneous hate. The fight is an opportunity to find out what this reason is, and if something can be done about it. Disagreement is not exactly the right word for what I meant. It's too specific and makes it sound like a matter of opinion. Often it's not clear why animosity sparks up, it might be some feeling that you only discover by expressing it in a fight. Let's use the word 'problem' instead. The fight I started with that friend could have been a discussion, but became a fight because I found it too hard to keep my self-control. As a result we made some of the mistakes Crichton describes. Still, it was an attempt at solving a problem. It was not a disagreement about facts or opinions, the problem was that I felt insulted by some of his behavior. What I wanted was either that he showed some kind of regret, or that he explained why I was wrong to feel insulted. I would have considered both of these outcomes a win. I'm not sure what you mean by losing a fight.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    Most people are not you. :) In fact, it might be that you aren't really like this except while dispassionately considering things after the fact: I know that I, personally, like nothing more when I'm angry or depressed than to continue to be angry or depressed, and there's an emotional bonus if I can feel justified in my anger or depression. Someone (Sandra Tayler, I believe) once said that you can't argue someone out of being upset; the best you can accomplish by arguing is to make them also feel stupid for feeling upset. For most people, "explained why I was wrong to feel insulted" could go either way. If the friend explained that he hadn't meant to offend, then it might be that the upset would go away. This is a win for the relationship, but as the argument just evaporates, there's no win or loss for either party (unless you can manage to feel like a winner anyway, I guess). If he pointed out that you'd totally blown this out of proportion, and if you'd only paid attention / thought about it / cared enough, then you'd not have felt insulted, then this could easily seem like a loss for you, and a win for him. In my (sadly, ended) marriage, it seemed rare that an argument we had was really about what the words were about, though I often didn't know until later what the argument had really been started by. Arguments seemed pretty rare, though, and only at the end did I find out that she thought we'd argued all the time, and that I never budged or was willing to lose an argument. Had I known we were having these arguments (which seemed like discussions to me), I could have easily arranged to lose enough of them to keep the balance -- it wasn't that I wanted to win; I just didn't understand she was losing. Hence my statement about either winning or losing arguments too much putting strain on a relationship. All this stuff seems clearer from a distance, to me. :/

by zupatol 18y ago

Create 18y ago

It may even be justified, because I was mad at him for things that no longer matter. If it was just a friend, it may no longer matter, being similar enough to you. Anything more involved (the $SUBJ of the article) implies that everything else is secondary, and nothing else matters: it could very well be, that causing pain and grudges is the last thing the "friend" would have wanted -- in any shape or form: be it fight or discussion (or rather dispute). Actually, the article mentions this, when putting off the fight/discussion for a time, when "on the spot" discussions would be too heated. This will bring you right back to "If one feels disadvantaged at the end, both have lost, since the same fight will probably have to be fought again." Or discussed, as you prefer.

randallsquared 18y ago

"The point of a fight is to resolve a disagreement" I disagree. If all that's involved is a disagreement, that's almost always resolved by a discussion, as you allude to later. If someone is spoiling for a fight, the disagreement is merely a pretext, though the person wanting to fight will refuse to acknowledge that. In this case, you can refuse, as your friend did, to have the fight, or win, or lose. In a relationship, though, not having some mix of winning and losing fights, assuming that they happen frequently, will usually have deleterious effects on the relationship, and refusing to participate will eventually be seen as loss.

zupatol 18y ago
Maybe I'm too optimistic. If someone close is spoiling for a fight using a pretext, I believe there must be some reason that person wants to fight, other than pure spontaneous hate. The fight is an opportunity to find out what this reason is, and if something can be done about it. Disagreement is not exactly the right word for what I meant. It's too specific and makes it sound like a matter of opinion. Often it's not clear why animosity sparks up, it might be some feeling that you only discover by expressing it in a fight. Let's use the word 'problem' instead. The fight I started with that friend could have been a discussion, but became a fight because I found it too hard to keep my self-control. As a result we made some of the mistakes Crichton describes. Still, it was an attempt at solving a problem. It was not a disagreement about facts or opinions, the problem was that I felt insulted by some of his behavior. What I wanted was either that he showed some kind of regret, or that he explained why I was wrong to feel insulted. I would have considered both of these outcomes a win. I'm not sure what you mean by losing a fight.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  Most people are not you. :) In fact, it might be that you aren't really like this except while dispassionately considering things after the fact: I know that I, personally, like nothing more when I'm angry or depressed than to continue to be angry or depressed, and there's an emotional bonus if I can feel justified in my anger or depression. Someone (Sandra Tayler, I believe) once said that you can't argue someone out of being upset; the best you can accomplish by arguing is to make them also feel stupid for feeling upset. For most people, "explained why I was wrong to feel insulted" could go either way. If the friend explained that he hadn't meant to offend, then it might be that the upset would go away. This is a win for the relationship, but as the argument just evaporates, there's no win or loss for either party (unless you can manage to feel like a winner anyway, I guess). If he pointed out that you'd totally blown this out of proportion, and if you'd only paid attention / thought about it / cared enough, then you'd not have felt insulted, then this could easily seem like a loss for you, and a win for him. In my (sadly, ended) marriage, it seemed rare that an argument we had was really about what the words were about, though I often didn't know until later what the argument had really been started by. Arguments seemed pretty rare, though, and only at the end did I find out that she thought we'd argued all the time, and that I never budged or was willing to lose an argument. Had I known we were having these arguments (which seemed like discussions to me), I could have easily arranged to lose enough of them to keep the balance -- it wasn't that I wanted to win; I just didn't understand she was losing. Hence my statement about either winning or losing arguments too much putting strain on a relationship. All this stuff seems clearer from a distance, to me. :/