Generally speaking, the most common thing in intimate relationships is understanding.
Many people want to understand themselves when they are uncomfortable, or when they do something that might make others uncomfortable or feel strange.
This phenomenon is likely to be more prevalent in China.
Because of the social culture of collective control and stability that is greater than the sky.
But has anyone ever wondered what you need to do to make the other person understand?
You can't say that when I need the other person to understand, the other person can understand, right?
People must hope that the other party does not understand them.
If you are fully understood, you will feel that the space is lost.
For individuals, we usually want the other person to understand the parts we need the other person to make concessions (e.g., emotions, transactions), and for other parts we want to be more autonomous.
So, in terms of understanding, obviously you want you to be a disconnected individual and let the other person only understand what needs to be understood at the moment.
Even so, there will still be many conflicts.
Why? Because the other party thinks that your behavior is not completely beneficial to him and you in terms of his values, he will be confused.
There are two kinds of doubts, one is the doubt that stands in the hope of going on, which I call active understanding, and the other is the questioning doubt, which is likely to pave the way for cutting the relationship.
Let's just talk about the first one, in this kind of doubt that wants to maintain a relationship, can the other party really understand you as he wishes?
First of all, you need to know that many of your behaviors that are not understood fall into three main categories:
1.If you are wise, you need to do one thing, and even if you are asked, you can't say it clearly, so you seem stupid.
2.The matter itself is highly specialized and has a high threshold for understanding.
3.Unique behaviors based on an individual's personality, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder.
So, if you "explain yourself" to the other person in order to respond to the other person's desire to "understand you", then you must face the problem of explaining the cost and the explanation effect.
Explaining the cost means that if you explain twice at a time until you explain everything, then the cost of your explanation is very high.
In essence, explaining cost is actually teaching, and as I said in the previous article, learning must be systematic in order to be effective.
You have to think about it, if you explain individual behavior too one-sidedly, then the other party will most likely not understand it, and will only feel unreasonable; And if you really want the other party to understand, then you are bound to let the other party understand your behavior system, let him know that your behavior is the result of the influence of the three views in the surrounding environment.
Let's imagine the result of the explanation.
In the first case, if you explain and the other person does not understand and wants to continue to explain, then the cost of "being understood" will be very high.
In the second case, you keep explaining, but the other party thinks that you are asking for hardship, and starts complaining that you are making excuses by saying so much, and it is not over.
In the third case, you explain it clearly, but the other person is able to understand your three views, and then because of the conflict of the three views, they start to deny your personality, think that you need to change, and a quarrel breaks out.
Found out? Once you think that I want the other person to understand me, there is a good chance that this event will not end very well.
What I want to say is that the three views cannot withstand temptation.
The three views of different ages and the same environment, different ages in the same environment, and different strengths in the same age and environment are all very different.
Remember not to show your three views when passively seeking the understanding of the other party.
Because you are in a weak position at this time, the other party has the right to take this opportunity to criticize your three views, whether it is out of a sense of superiority (a rare opportunity to vent) or self-esteem (I am right, you are not the one who does not meet the correct standards).
In a conflict, not disclosing the three views is called talking about the facts, and disclosing the three views will definitely involve the denial of the person himself, and no matter what, the person cannot withstand the denial.
Especially for older people, there is almost no difference between you denying his three views and asking for his life.
The hardest thing in the world is to put your own thoughts into other people's heads.
So, I don't think understanding between people can ever be achieved.
In contrast, there is inclusion.
The word can also take other forms, such as "tacit agreement".
What does it mean?
Even if I don't understand your thoughts, I still think that I can accept the outcome of this matter.
Acceptance is not simply acceptance based on understanding.
The point of it is that it may be that I think you're doing the right thing, or I think you're not doing it right, but I can live with the result.
Why? Because inclusion is based on two sets of logic.
The first set of logic, because of your past experience, has taught me that even if the process of your actions is not understood by others, the result is still good.
The second set of logic, I think the result of your behavior may not be as good as its process, but people need to tolerate each other, and the purpose of my tolerance of your behavior is that you can tolerate similar behaviors of mine, and on the premise that we tolerate each other, our intimate relationship can produce benefits.
In other words, no matter which set of logic, the core appeal of inclusion is interests.
It's just that one is the current benefit, and the other is the long-term benefit.
Keeping in mind this view, only the relationship of interest is the strongest, because you know that it is good for both of you, so even if something goes wrong at the moment, as long as you think the benefits outweigh the negative emotions and actual losses caused by the bad thing, then the relationship can continue.
And what is the underlying logic of understanding?
It's a simple desire to control.
Whether it is someone who wants to be understood, or someone who wants to understand others, in essence they are not for profit, but for self-esteem and a sense of identity.
They want to be like me.
This view is externalized as "it's good that the other party is a normal person".
So people who are understanding-oriented, they will always have a thought, why are they not [normal people] when I meet them?
The formation of a person's three views is related to personality, experience, and environment.
Therefore, once he goes out and goes to a new environment, the three views of the people around him will change to a greater extent.
At this time, if the age difference is a little bigger, and the personality difference is a little bigger, you will feel that this person is not the [normal person] you think is not at all what you think is a normal person.
At this time, whether it is you or him, you both hope to correct each other's three views in your behavior, so the conflict will inevitably intensify.
With tolerance, you will find that utilitarianism is far more noble than cultivation.