|
末日四騎士
為了挽救支離破碎的人際關係，每隔一段時間我都會貼出下面這篇文章來提醒大家，希望這篇文章的密技能改寫大家腦瓜子裡面一些內建的自毀程式。(看過的人也值得再次溫習)
文章內有一些專有名詞，翻譯上也有點卡卡不通順，但是請大家耐性看完，越後面越精彩。
希望這篇文章能讓大家有所覺醒，好好反省自己的率性是如何把幸福趕走的！
最後，我用一句簡單的話來總結：存好心，說好話，做好事！
我不求大家100%做到這三個【好】，我只拜託大家至少至少做到其中之一的【說好話】。沒錯！就從【說好話】開始吧！加油！
【末代四騎士】
西雅圖華盛頓大學裡有一個地方叫“愛實驗室”。在那裡，夫妻們同意接受心理學家約翰•戈特曼博士細緻的研究。一對夫妻互動接觸之際，攝影機會記錄下他們臉上閃過的最細微的奇怪表情，即使只持續十分之幾秒鐘。測量器會記錄他們的心率節奏和血壓變化。自從《關係治療》(The_Relationship_Cure)的作者戈特曼成立這所“愛實驗室”以來，已經有超過100對夫妻同意討論他們長期衝突課題：家務分擔、關於孩子的決定、家庭財務管理、和姻親的關係、關於吸菸和喝酒的分歧、等等。
戈特曼博士的第一個發現是：根本不存在沒有長期爭執的快樂夫妻這回事；事實上，沒有持久的情感關係是完全不發生爭執的。相反，真的沒有長期爭執的夫妻，才令人擔心。缺乏爭執表明兩人之間的感情距離十分遙遠，以致排斥了真誠的交流。第二令人驚訝的發現是：當一對夫妻發生爭論的時候，戈特曼博士可以只花僅僅5分鐘來分析，便能預測哪一段婚姻將會繼續，而哪一段夫妻會在數年內以離婚收場，而且準確度達90%，即使他們正處於蜜月期。
沒有什麼比感到和我們最親密的人(配偶、孩子、父母)中斷情感，更折磨我們的“情感腦”和生理機能了。在愛實驗室裡，一個苛刻的字眼，或者輕蔑或厭惡在臉上造成的細微的表情扭曲，可能連觀察者也看不見，但卻足以導致承受者心跳加速。面對打靶式的攻擊，再加上對方一點點的蔑視，承受者的心率會忽然攀升至110次以上。
一旦“情感腦”受了這種刺激，它就會關掉“認知腦”理性分析的能力。正如我們前面討論過的情況，前額葉皮層“斷了線”。男人尤其容易受戈特曼博士說的“情感洪峰”的影響。一旦他們的生理機能受到刺激，他們的情感就會“決堤”，而他們只會想到自衛或攻擊，他們不再尋找能平息爭端的處理方法。很多女人的反應也是一樣。戈特曼博士的研究記錄下這些交流，我們聽起來，會感到似曾相識的可怕：
丈夫：你有沒有取回我送去乾洗的衣服？
妻子(用諷刺的語調)：“你有沒有取回我送去乾洗的衣服？”你自己去拿那些見鬼的衣服吧。我是誰？你的女傭嗎？
丈夫：當然不是，如果你是女傭，起碼還會懂得怎樣搞清潔。
對話的時候，丈夫和妻子的生理狀態迅速變得混亂。(雖然愛實驗室沒有量心率變異性，但我能想像它們差不多是處於混亂的狀態。)這種情況會為一段關係帶來災難性的影響。
戈特曼提出了令人信服的證據，指出這種負面的處境具備了“末日四騎士”的特徵。〈註：《聖經啟示錄》裡描述世界末日時會出現的四個騎士〉這是四種態度，它們所向披靡，會對任何人際關係帶來嚴重的破壞。這些態度一旦傳遞出去，會大大啟動對方的“情感腦”，其嚴重程度迫使對方或者用惡劣的態度來回應，或者像一隻受傷的動物般退縮。如果我們依賴四騎士來溝通，我們幾乎可以肯定無法從這段關係裡得到我們想求的結果。可是我們卻幾乎總是指派這些戰士上情感戰場的前線。
1.批評：
第一個騎士是批評，批評他人的品行，而不只是表達委屈。一個例子是：“你又遲到了，你只關心自己。”表達委屈可以是：“已經9點了，你說你會8點鐘來，這已經是這個星期的第二次了，這樣等你我覺得孤獨和難過。”
批評的另一個例子是：“我替你收拾衣服都收拾煩了。你總是一團糟，簡直令人腦火！”可以這樣表達委屈：“你把東西堆滿廚房，給我添煩添亂。早上我在廚房喝咖啡的時候，要收拾一番才感到舒服。你可不可以晚上睡前把東西收拾好？”
如果把合情合理表達的委屈變得像批評，而且一定要惹起對方的憤恨、惡意和激烈的攻擊，戈特曼博士提供了一條保證成功的配方：你只要輕蔑地附加一句：“你哪裡出了毛病？”
這些觀察令人驚訝的是它們是多麼明顯。所有人都很清楚我們不希望人家怎樣對待我們。另一方面，我們希望人家怎樣對待我們的，恰恰是我們難以啟齒的話。而當人家和我們交談之時，如果對方的態度富於情感智力EQ，我們的感激之情立刻油然而生。
我記得有一天在電話裡，上了不期而遇的一課。我已經在電話線上等了20分鐘，另一邊的機票代理正在查看我的訂票情況。那一班飛機將於當天下午起飛，所以我既焦急又憂慮。當她終於承認她無法找出我所訂的票時，我衝口而出“什麼？簡直瘋了，找不到票你還有什麼用？”
我說的時候就已經後悔了。我很清楚我把一位我最需要、正在幫我解決問題的人推開，可是我不曉得怎樣走出這個困境，我想我道歉的話會很荒繆。(事實上，道歉永遠不會太早或太遲，可是當時的我還未學會這一點。)出乎我的意料，是她幫我解了困：“先生，你提高嗓門，會令我無法集中精神幫你。”
幸好她給了我絕佳的機會道歉而沒有丟臉，我立刻這樣做。不用多久，我們的談話態度又像兩個正在嘗試解決問題的成年人。當我解釋這次旅程多麼重要以後，她甚至變成一位真正的盟友，破例在理論上已經滿座的航班上替我找到了一個位置。
我是精神病學家，然而卻是她完全掌握我們之間談話的情感。那一天傍晚，我想像她回家的時候一定比我還要放鬆。這經驗引導我學習了“非暴力情感溝通”。事實上，在我多年的專業訓練理，從來沒有人認為它重要或者有用而向我傳授。
2.輕蔑：
戈特曼博士說的第二個騎士，也是對於我們的“邊緣葉腦”平衡最粗暴和危險的，就是輕蔑。程度由最輕微的(有些人會說得轉彎抹角)，例如：“你的行為不恰當”，到最常說且最暴力的，像“可憐的傢夥，你真笨透了”或者一般性的：“你是笨蛋”，或者簡單卻同樣具殺傷力的：“你真荒唐”。
嘲諷也可能很具傷害性。再聽一次前面丈夫對妻子說的話：“如果你是女傭，起碼還會懂得怎樣搞清潔。”嘲諷有時候在電影裡會很有趣(甚至在電影裡也要看情況而定)，可是在真實關係裡卻並不有趣。然而為了試圖表現得聰明或風趣(往往因而犧牲了他人)，我們經常利用嘲諷這個工具，有時還會興致勃勃。我認識一位出名的法國記者，她的話鋒很犀利。她花了15年時間接受精神分析，而且認為很成功。有一天，那已經是精神分析結束很久以後，我們在談論處理衝突的種種方式。她告訴我：“當我感受到攻擊的時候，我會嘗試毀滅對手。如果能夠把他轟得片甲不留，我會很高興”
傳遞蔑視往往只需要臉部表情：在聽人家說話時眼睛朝天，做出反應時嘴角向下拉眼睛變窄。如果傳遞這些輕蔑信號的人是和我們一起生活或工作的人，它們會直達我們的心底，使我們無法心平氣和地化解矛盾。試問當我們收到的資訊是對方的蔑視，我們怎可能還心平氣和地講理和討論呢？
3.反擊：
4.築起圍牆：
第三和第四個騎士是反擊和築起圍牆。當我們受到攻擊時，“情感腦”提供的兩個反應是“要嘛就打，不然就跑(fight_or_flight)”(這著名的選擇是偉大的美國心理學家瓦特•B•坎農在1929年提出的經典理論)經過千百萬年，這些反應已經刻銘在我們的基因上，而實際上他們是昆蟲和爬蟲類最有效的選擇。
反擊所引起的問題是，在所有的衝突情況下，它反過來只會導致兩種結果。最差的情況是觸發暴力升級。如果對方被我的反擊傷害了，他會押下更大得籌碼。這位騎士今天在中東非常活躍，當然，這位騎士也同樣活躍在全世界發生夫妻衝突的家庭裡。它使得暴力程度逐步升級，直至衝突兩派的肉體永遠分開而毀了關係：解散、離婚......甚至謀殺。
在最好的情況裡，我們反擊成功，另一方被我們的氣勢打敗。或者人們會用一記耳光取得勝利(正如父母經常對孩子，男人經常對女人那樣)。弱肉強食的森林法則高唱入
雲，而我們裡面的爬蟲會因此感動滿足。可是這種勝利無可避免會使退縮者受傷和痛苦，而這傷口只會加深感情鴻溝，使大家更難以一起生活。暴力反擊永遠不會感動對手，使對方請求原諒，然後反過來擁抱侵犯者。然而，即使在四分五裂的關係裡，感動、諒解和擁抱仍是我們最渴求的事情。
另一種選擇是築起圍牆，這是男性的專門技術，尤其令女人難堪。築起圍牆往往預示了一段正在崩潰的關係處於最後階段，不管它是婚姻還是專業關係。
經過多個星期或多個月的批評、攻擊和反擊，其中參與演出的一方會選擇“逃避”而放棄戰場，起碼在感情上是如此。雖然另一方還在尋找接觸和對話，對方卻繃著臉，看著腳，或者躲在報紙後面，“等待風暴過去”。對手被這種完全無視她存在的策略觸怒，愈講愈大聲，最後開始辱罵。
築起圍牆會惹得另一方摔盤子，如果變成“磚牆”的一方是女性的話，她就可能挨打。肉體暴力是絕對的嘗試：一方試圖跟逃避的一方重新連接起來，嘗試讓她聽見我們感情上感受的一切，讓她感到我們的痛苦。可是這種策略顯然永然不會成功。雨果在《巴黎聖母院》裡出色地描寫了這種徒勞無功而且暴力的追求：對視若無睹的鍾情對象展開瘋狂的追求。小說裡埃斯梅達拉一直無視弗羅洛院長的存在，一直拒絕他的苦苦癡纏。弗羅洛為了感受她的認可，不斷地折磨她，最後把她送上黃泉之路。
情感退縮並不是處理衝突的有效方法。正如戈特曼博士的實驗室所揭示的，還有雨果所描述那樣，築起圍牆往往導致可悲的結果。
因為西雅圖愛實驗室的研究，我們現在比以前更清楚當人們發生衝突時，心和腦處於什麼狀態，以及他們如何經常碰壁。我們自然有理由相信，在婚姻之外的衝突裡，同樣的條件反射和同樣的錯誤也逐步侵害著人們之間的關係。
這些衝突可能牽涉到我們的孩子、父母、姻親、或者是我們的老闆和同事。然而，究竟什麼才是有效溝通的原則呢？所謂有效溝通，即是能夠傳遞資訊，卻不會使接收資訊者疏離的溝通方式。而且相反地，還會引起他人的尊重，使他們樂意幫助我們。
心理學家馬歇爾•羅森堡博士是一位有效情感溝通的大師，《非暴力溝通》(Nonviolent_Communication)的作者。他生於底特律一個貧窮而充滿暴力的社區。他年輕的時候開始熱衷於研究如何睿智地化解衝突，而無需暴力。他曾經在世界各地授課和執業。在這些地方，衝突管理是不可或缺的生活環節。它們包括某些環境惡劣的社區裡的學校和正進行重組的大企業。
非暴力肯定性溝通的第一個原則是用陳述客觀事實來取代判斷，取代批評。說：“你的表現真差勁”，甚至只是說：“這報告做得不好”，就立刻會使對方處於自我保護的狀態。只是保持客觀和具體，效果會好得多：“這份報告要傳遞我們的資訊，似乎還需要補充三個觀點。”
我們愈具體客觀，其他人就愈傾向於把我們的言詞視為合情合理的溝通嘗試，而不是在攻擊他或她的人格。羅森堡引用了一項研究，檢驗一個國家的文學及其公民的暴力程度之間的關係。根據這項研究，如果一個國家的文學作品裡把人稱為“好”或“壞”的陳述愈多，那麼它的司法系統裡面所記錄的暴力行為就愈頻繁。
第二個原則是避免對他人的判斷，而完全集中在自己的感受上。限制判斷，是情感溝通的主要關鍵。如果我說出自己的感受，無人可以和我爭論。例如，如果我說：“你永遠不會顧及我的感受，你就是一貫的自我中心”，那麼對方就會挑戰我的批判。反之，如果我說：“今天是我的生日，而你忘了，這讓我感到很孤獨”，聽的人不可能質疑我的感覺。他可能會認為我不應該有這些感覺，可是這不由他來決定，我的感覺正是我。
重點是用“我”開始的句子來描述情境，而不是“你”。談及自己，而且只是自己，我不是在批評他人，也不是在攻擊。我是在表達自己的感覺，因此我是真誠和開放的。如果我有技巧，並且真摯誠實，我甚至可以透過揭示對方怎樣傷害了我，而暴露出我的脆弱，因為我暴露了我的弱點，然而在大部分的情況裡，正是這種坦蕩可以解除對方的武裝。我的坦誠令他人願意合作，當然，前提是對方願意投入我們的關係裡。
這種技巧是那位元機票代理對我用的(“你提高嗓門，會令我無法集中精神幫你”)。她只說出了兩件事：剛剛發生的事情〈客觀、因此超越任何判斷〉，以及她的反應和感覺。她對“對手”，並沒有說出任何想法，因為那是沒有用的。
根據羅森堡博士，更有效的作法是不僅僅說出自己的感受，而且還表達我們落空了的需要。“我們約好一起去看電影，但你卻遲到，我感到失望，因為我真的想看電影的開始片段，這對我很重要。我要完整地看完一部電影才能享受它。”或者：“你隔一個星期才打電話告訴我你的情況，我一直害怕發生了什麼事。我需要知道一切正常。”或者在工作上：“你讓一份有錯字的文件流通，我感到很尷尬。我的形象和整個工作組的形象都受到影響。我們的名聲對我非常重要，尤其是我們一直全力以赴來贏取尊重。”
我把這溝通的方法教給年輕的醫師們，他們非常需要恰當的方法來處理難以討好的病人。實際上我給了他們一步一步的程式，他們往往會把它寫在卡片上，並放在口袋裡，以備萬一遇到脾氣不好的病人時可以派上用場。
羅森堡博士描述了一位參加他的培訓班的人給他講的故事：這個人開始參考一張卡片，就像我的學生那樣，把他學到的技巧應用在他的孩子身上。開始的時候，顯然會有點尷尬，有時甚至顯得荒謬。他的孩子曾經立刻指出他的方法矯揉做作而不自然。然而，他是一位認真貫徹的初學者，他看著卡片，用他學回來的步驟回應孩子對他的嘲笑：“當我努力改善我們的關係，想做一個更好的父親時，你卻說我荒謬，你傷了我的心。我希望改變我們一直以來的對話方式，我需要感到這對你來說也是重要的。”
他的心方法果然有效，孩子們開始願意聽他，而且他們的關係也在改善。他用這種方法試了幾個星期，事實上時間已經長得足以讓他拋開那卡片。有一天晚上，他和孩子在爭論看電視的問題時，他發了脾氣，一時忘掉他的非暴力化解法。他四歲的兒子急忙衝口而出；“爸爸，趕快去拿你的卡片！”
【The
Love Lab of Seattle】
At the University of Washington in Seattle, in a place called
the "Love Lab," married couples agree to be examined under the
microscope of emotions of psychologist John Gottman. Since Dr.
Gottman, author of The Relationship Cure, started his
Love Lab, more than 100 couples have agreed to talk about their
subjects of chronic conflict—the distribution of household
tasks, decisions about the children, the management of family
finances, relations with in-laws, disagreements over smoking and
drinking, and so on.
Dr. Gottman's first discovery is that there are no happy
couples—in fact, there are no lasting emotional
relationships—without chronic conflict. To the contrary: Couples
that have no chronic subjects of dispute should be worried. The
absence of conflict is a sign of an emotional distance so great
as to preclude an authentic relationship.
The second—astonishing—discovery is that Dr. Gottman can analyze
a mere 5 minutes—5 minutes!—of an argument between a husband and
wife and predict with more than 90% accuracy who will remain
married and who will divorce within a few years—even if the
couple is still in the midst of their honeymoon. Nothing
afflicts our emotional brain and our physiology more than
feeling emotionally cut off from those to whom we are most
attached—our spouse, our children, our parents. In the Love Lab,
a harsh word or a tiny facial contortion of contempt or
disgust—hardly visible to an observer—is enough to speed up the
heartbeat in the person to whom the comment is targeted. After a
well-aimed jab combined with a bit of disdain, the heart rate
will suddenly climb to more than 110.
Once the emotional brain is aroused in this way, it turns off
the cognitive brain's ability to reason rationally. The
prefrontal cortex is "off-line." Men, in particular, are very
sensitive to what Dr. Gottman calls "emotional flooding." Once
their physiology is aroused, they are "flooded" by their
emotions and they think only in terms of defense and attack.
They no longer look for responses that will restore calm to the
situation. Many women also react the same way. When we hear this
exchange—from one of Dr. Gottman's studies—it sounds terribly
familiar:
Fred: Did
you pick up my dry cleaning?
Ingrid (in a mocking tone): "Did
you pick up my dry cleaning?" Pick up your own damn dry
cleaning. What am I, your maid?
Fred: Hardly.
If you were a maid, at least you'd know how to clean.
During that exchange, Fred's and Ingrid's physiology quickly
becomes disorganized. (I imagine that their heart rate
variability would also be very chaotic, though this was not
measured in the Love Lab.) The effects on the relationship are
disastrous.
With compelling arguments, Dr. Gottman defines this type of
negative situation as featuring the "four horsemen of the
apocalypse," four attitudes that wreak havoc in all the
relationships that they encounter on their passage. These
conveyed attitudes activate the emotional brain of the other
person to such an extent that the other party can only respond
with meanness or else withdraw like a wounded animal. If we rely
on the four horsemen for communication, we are literally assured
of not getting what we desire out of the relationship, yet we
almost always call these warriors up to the front of our
emotional battles.
Attitude 1: Criticism
The first horseman is criticism, criticizing someone's character
instead of simply stating a grievance. An example of a
criticism: "You're late again. You only think of yourself." A
grievance would be: "It's nine o'clock. You said you would be
here at eight. It's the second time this week. I'm lonely and
upset when I wait for you like this."Criticism: "I'm fed up with
picking up your clothes. Your messiness is exasperating!"
Grievance: "When you leave your things all over the kitchen, it
bothers me. In the morning when I'm having my coffee, I need
order around me to feel good. Could you try to pick up at night
before you go to bed?"
Dr. Gottman gives an infallible recipe for changing a legitimate
grievance with a good chance of being heard into a criticism
certain to spark resentment, ill will, and a virulent
counterattack. All you need to do is tack on a scornful, "What's
wrong with you?"
What is so surprising about these observations is how obvious
they are. We all know exactly how we don't like to be treated.
It is hard for us, on the other hand, to say exactly how we
would like to be treated. Yet, our gratitude immediately
overflows when someone addresses us in an emotionally
intelligent manner.
I remember an unexpected lesson I received one day over the
telephone. I had been waiting over 20 minutes while an airline
ticket agent looked into the status of my reservation. The
flight was for that same afternoon, and I was impatient and
worried. When she finally admitted that she could not find my
reservation, I burst out, "What!? But that's crazy. What use are
you if you can't find a reservation?" As I was speaking these
words, I was already sorry. I knew very well that I was
alienating the person I most needed to solve my problem. But I
did not know how to get out of this jam. I thought it would be
ridiculous to apologize. (In fact, it is never too early or too
late to apologize, but that was something I had not yet
learned.) To my great surprise, she was the one who saved me:
"When you raise your voice, sir, I can't concentrate on helping
you."
I was lucky; she had just given me the perfect opportunity to
apologize without losing face. I did so immediately. A few
moments later, we were once again talking like two adults trying
to solve a problem. When I explained how much the trip mattered
to me, she even changed into a real ally; she broke a rule by
giving me a seat on a flight that was theoretically blocked.I
was the psychiatrist, but she was the one who had completely
mastered the emotions of the conversation. That evening, I
imagined her on her way home, undoubtedly more relaxed than I
was. That experience led me to learn about nonviolent emotional
communication. In fact, in my years of training, nobody had
considered it important or useful to teach it to me.
2. Contempt
Dr. Gottman's second horseman, the most violent and dangerous
for our limbic balance, is contempt. Contempt shows its face in
insults, of course. From the mildest—some would say
underhanded—such as "your behavior is inappropriate," to the
most conventional and violent like "poor thing, you really are
dumb," or the common "you're a jerk," or the simple but no less
deadly "you're ridiculous."
Sarcasm can also be very hurtful. Listen again to Fred's
response to Ingrid: "If you were a maid, at least you'd know how
to clean."
Sarcasm can sometimes be funny at the movies (and even there, it
all depends). But it is not funny at all in a real relationship.
Yet, in an attempt to be clever or witty—often at the expense of
others—sarcasm is precisely the tool to which we often turn,
sometimes with relish.
I know a major French journalist with a very sharp wit who spent
more than 15 years in what she considers to be a very successful
course of psychoanalysis. One day, long after her analysis was
over, we were talking about ways of dealing with conflict. She
told me, "When I feel attacked, I try to destroy my adversary.
If I manage to smash him to smithereens, I'm happy." Facial
expressions are often all it takes to communicate contempt: eyes
rolling toward the ceiling in response to what has just been
said, the corners of the mouth turned down with eyes narrowing
in reaction to the other person. When the disparager who sends
us these signals is someone we live or work with, they go
straight to the heart. And that makes a peaceful resolution of
the situation practically impossible. How can we reason or speak
peaceably when the message we receive is that we inspire
disdain?
3. Counterattack and 4. Stonewalling
The third and fourth horsemen are counterattack and
stonewalling. When we are attacked, the two responses the
emotional brain offers us are fight and flight (these are the
famous alternatives described by the great American
physiologist, Walter B. Cannon, in a classical description in
1929). These responses have been engraved in our genes over
millions of years of evolution, and they are, indeed, the most
effective choices for insects or reptiles.
Now, in all conflicts, the problem of counterattack is that it
leads, in turn, to only two possible outcomes. In the worst of
cases, it provokes an escalation of violence. Wounded by my
counterattack, the other person will raise the stakes. This
horseman is very active in the Middle East, of course, but also
in all the kitchens of the world where couples clash. Escalation
usually carries on until there is a permanent physical
separation between the warring factions—the destruction of the
relationship by dismissal, divorce, or murder.
In the best of cases, the counterattack "succeeds" and the other
party is defeated by our verve. Or victory is obtained—as
parents often do with their children, and men sometimes do with
women—with a slap. The law of the jungle has spoken, and the
reptile in us is satisfied. But that kind of victory inevitably
leaves the vanquished wounded and sore, and this wound only
widens the emotional gap and only makes living together more
difficult. A violent counterattack has never inspired an
opponent to beg forgiveness and take the aggressor in her arms.
Yet, even in torn relationships, this outcome is precisely what
we are yearning for.
The other option—stonewalling—is a masculine specialty that's
particularly upsetting to women. Stonewalling often foreshadows
the final phase of a disintegrating relationship, be it a
marriage or a professional association.
After weeks or months of criticism, of attacks and
counterattacks, one of the protagonists will choose "flight" and
abandon the battlefield, at least emotionally. While the other
person still seeks contact and offers to talk, the second party
scowls, looks at his feet, or hides behind his newspaper,
"waiting for the storm to blow over." The antagonist,
exasperated by this tactic that supposes to ignore her
completely, talks louder and louder and eventually starts
shouting.
Stonewalling is the stage of the flying plate or—when the person
who turns into a "brick wall" is a woman—of possibly getting
beaten up. Physical violence is a desperate attempt to reconnect
with the other who has left the scene, to try to make her hear
what we are experiencing emotionally, to make her feel our pain.
Obviously, it never succeeds. In The Hunchback of
Notre-Dame, Victor Hugo magnificently illustrated this vain
and violent pursuit of the love object who ignores you. To feel
recognized by Esmeralda, who persisted in ignoring him and
rejecting his advances, Abbé Frollo ended up torturing her and
sending her to her death. Emotional withdrawal is not an
effective way to deal with conflicts. As Dr. Gottman has shown
in the lab, and Hugo described before him, stonewalling often
leads to a sorry end.
Saying It All While Doing No Harm
Thanks to the Seattle Love Lab, we now understand, to an
unprecedented extent, what is going on in the heads and hearts
of people in conflict, and how they often head straight into a
wall. Naturally, we have every reason to believe that the same
reflexes and same mistakes undermine the course of conflicts
outside of marriages as well.
These conflicts may involve our children, our parents, our
in-laws, or, most often, our boss and our colleagues in the
office. But what, then, are the principles of effective
communication?
One of the masters of effective emotional communication is the
psychologist Marshall Rosenberg, PhD, author of the book Nonviolent
Communication. Born in a poor and violent neighborhood of
Detroit, he was very young when he became passionately
interested in intelligent ways to solve conflict without
violence. He has taught and practiced in many circumstances and
parts of the world where conflict management is indispensable.
The first principle of nonviolent communication is to replace
judgment—that is, criticism—by an objective statement of facts.
Saying, "You are doing a poor job," or even "This report isn't
good" immediately puts the other person on the defensive. Being
simply objective and specific is much better: "In this report,
there are three ideas needed in order to communicate our message
that seem to be missing." The more specific and objective we
are, the more likely the other person will be to react to our
words as a legitimate attempt to communicate rather than as an
attack on his or her being.
The second principle is to avoid any judgment of the other while
concentrating entirely on what we feel. This reservation of
judgment is the master key to emotional communication. If I talk
about what I feel, nobody can argue with me. For example, if I
say, "You never think about me; it's your usual
self-centeredness," the person I am talking to can only
challenge what I have said. If, on the other hand, I say, "Today
was my birthday and you didn't remember it. When you do that, I
feel lonely," the person cannot question my feelings. She may
think I should not have them, but that is not for her to decide;
they are who I am.
The whole point is to describe the situation with sentences
beginning with "I" rather than "you." By talking about myself,
and only myself, I am no longer criticizing the other person; I
am not attacking either. I am expressing my feelings, and
therefore, I am being authentic and open. If I'm skilled and
really honest with myself, I can even go so far as to expose my
vulnerability by showing how the other person has hurt me. I may
be vulnerable because I have exposed one of my weaknesses, but
in most cases, it is precisely this honesty that will disarm the
adversary. My candor will make the other person want to
cooperate—insofar, of course, as that person is invested in our
relationship.
This technique is exactly what the ticket agent used with me.
("When you raise your voice, I can't concentrate on helping
you.") She talked about only two things: what had just taken
place—objectively, and therefore beyond judgment—and what
feelings she experienced in response.
According to Dr. Rosenberg, what's even more effective is not
only to say what we feel, but also to express the disappointed
needs we had. "When you arrive late for a movie date, I feel
frustrated because I really like to see the beginning of the
film. It's important for me to see the whole show in order to
enjoy it." Dr. Rosenberg talks about a participant in his
workshop who told him the following story: This man had started
to refer to a card, on which he put what he had learned into
practice with his children. At the beginning, it was obviously a
little embarrassing, sometimes even ridiculous. His children had
immediately pointed out how stilted his approach was. But, as a
conscientious beginner, he had looked at his card and addressed
that very scorn with the procedure he was learning: "When you
tell me I'm ridiculous, just as I'm trying to improve our
relationship and be a better father to you, you make me sad. I
need to feel that it also matters to you that we change the way
we've been talking to each other."
His new approach worked; the kids began to listen, and their
relationship was improving. He went on in the same vein for
several weeks--long enough, in fact, to dispense with the card.
Then one day, while he was arguing with his children over
television, he lost his temper and forgot about his nonviolent
resolutions. His four-year-old son burst out with some urgency
in his voice, "Daddy, go get your card!"
回到頁首 |