Have you ever got an assignment at school or college that caused your discontent or even aggression? How did you cope with this and did you even try to do anything at all? If you do not have a clue what to do in such a situation, then just keep reading.
Why Not Take the Lead?
If it is known that we are still facing a collision, is it not better to get ahead of another by taking the lead? Would it not be much easier to subject yourself to self-criticism than to listen to someone else's accusations? Here this advice has been checked on one’s own experience: "Tell about yourself all offensive words that, as you know, your interlocutor has on the tip of his or her tongue or in the mind, and utter them before it will be made by him or her, and you will cut the ground out from under their feet. A hundred to one then they will come into a generous and indulgent position and reduce your mistakes to a minimum. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and decisively."
By the way, if you are worried about the prospect of writing another essay, which you do not have time for, visit papercheap.co.uk.
Carnegie believes that if the heart of a person is full of discontent and ill-will towards you, then no logic can persuade him or her to your opinion. "Grumbling parents, despotic masters and husbands, as well as quarrelsome wives, should understand that people do not want to change their views. They cannot be forced or encouraged to agree with you or with me. But, maybe, you will be able to lead them to this if you act softly and friendly, very softly and very friendly." From the very beginning, keep a friendly tone.
There is very interesting "method of affirmative answers." Talking with someone, do not start a conversation with the discussion of those issues in which you disagree with him or her. Immediately underline those aspects in respect of which you are unanimous. All the while, rest on the fact that you both strive for the same goal, that the difference between you is only in methods, and not in essence. Make sure that your interlocutor says "yes, yes" from the very beginning. Try not to give him or her the opportunity to answer "no".
Psychologically, the train of thought here is perfectly clear. If a person confidently says "no", then he or she does not just pronounce a word of two letters, but does something more. His or her whole body is adjusted to active resistance. It seems that a person, as it were, is physically recoiling or just about to recoil from you. In short, his or her entire neuromuscular system is alerted, preparing to give you a rebuff.
When, on the contrary, he or she says "yes", no reaction of counteraction occurs. Their body is openly determined to go to meet you and agree with you. Therefore, the more "yes" we can get from a person from the very beginning, the more likely that we will be able to persuade him or her to accept our final proposal.
The Socratic method was based on the desire to get an affirmative answer from an interlocutor. He asked such questions that forced his opponent to agree with him, and yet again he sought recognition of his rightness, and thus many affirmative answers. He continued to ask questions until, finally, his opponent, almost without realizing this, came to the very conclusion that he or she had vehemently disputed a few minutes earlier.
"Most people, when they try to persuade someone to their point of view, talk too much themselves," – Carnegie wrote. Let another person talk. People are better informed about their affairs and problems, so ask them questions. Let them tell you something. If you disagree, you may have a desire to interrupt them. Do not do this. It is dangerous. They will not pay any attention to you until they exhaust the whole stock of ideas they are full of. Therefore, listen to them patiently and without bias. Be sincere. Give them the opportunity to thoroughly explicate their thoughts. Let your interlocutor speak most of the time.
Thus, you will give people the opportunity to make sure that they are the leading party of this dispute, although it is not true in reality. You do not prevent them from saying anything they want, they do not feel any annoyance or alarm and calm down more and more, which turns your discussion into something more like an ordinary conversation, at the end of which you just shake hands, thank each other and peacefully bid farewell to each other. And who knows, maybe you will come each other’s way.
Your interlocutor may be completely wrong, but he or she does not think so. Do not judge them. This is the simplest thing that can be done, it is much more difficult to try to understand them. Only clever, patient, and uncommon people try to do it. Try to identify the hidden reason why another person thinks and acts exactly this way, and not otherwise – and you will have a key to his or her actions. Honestly try to put yourself in his or her place. Ask yourself: "What would I do if I were in his or her situation?" and you will save a lot of time and nerves, because if we are interested in the problem, it is less likely that we will be unhappy with the result. And besides, your skill in matters of relationships between people will increase dramatically. Sincerely strive to look at things from the point of view of your interlocutor.
Despite the fact that a dispute is an integral part of our life, we must give it the same comprehensive attention as other psychological aspects of everyday life. But we are not at all supporters of a dispute and we try to avoid it in every possible way. We are fully aware that a dispute can lead to undesirable consequences and, as such, is not safe at all. However, we must be able to minimize the possible damage caused by this phenomenon and extract as much benefit as possible from it.