People had just been communicating peacefully, and suddenly the intensity of passions increased sharply. There were no insults or mutual accusations, but the interlocutor resembled two infantry phalanxes, bristling with pikes and ready to rush into battle. And here is the battle itself, which broke out over some trivial issue... What happened? Did close people suddenly begin to hate each other for some reason? Of course, there are plenty of reasons for conflicts, be it family or just well-known people. But for now we will not consider extremes such as deliberate challenges that people sometimes throw at each other for whatever reason. Let us leave for now the “energy vampires” who supposedly feed on negative emanations. At this stage, everything is simple and complex at the same time: for some reason, the dialogue turned not just into a dispute, but into an obvious conflict of interest. It is noteworthy that initially there were no prerequisites for this - both people, in principle, are open to communication and ready to compromise. What is the reason? First, let's look at how our conflict develops. So, there are two people - let them just be good friends. Naturally, despite their common interests, their tastes and views on the world around them are somewhat different - we still rarely choose our own exact copies as friends. Naturally, both people, for this reason, directly or indirectly influence each other. This is especially evident in childhood, when we follow our peers, compete and try to surpass them in something. And this is the first level of influence of loved ones: they act as incentives for our development. On the other hand, those around them, especially women, tend to improve the world and those people who are close to them. It is for this reason that representatives of the fair sex can insist that their desk neighbor glue the appliqué correctly, and that their husband shave his mustache. So, let’s assume that two people are communicating on a topic that is closer to one of them than to the other. For example, a sofa thrill-seeker suddenly decided to test his knowledge in practice and go rafting down a mountain river. His interlocutor is sympathetic to his friend’s hobby, but, knowing also his physical form, critically perceives the idea itself. At the same time, in his comments he logically and consistently analyzes the route, points out weaknesses in preparation and equipment, and finally, concluding his speech with the fact that the future extreme sports enthusiast does not know how to swim, which means he should stay away from water tourism. At this stage, both interlocutors are within the framework of logic. And the future tourist accepts most of the arguments of the other side, because they are reasonable. However, out of the entire response speech, he could have been offended by the last phrase, which stood out from the general series. The fact is that the ability to swim well is an important, but not mandatory attribute, especially since our hero is ready to acquire a life jacket, which means the risk of drowning is minimal. That is, based on the results of the exchange of opinions, he can only doubt that he is right. For simplicity, we will assume that he is approximately 70% ready to abandon the risky undertaking. That is, after some time, he will most likely completely agree with the arguments and leave her. But most people make a fatal mistake: wanting to get a result right now, the opponent hopes to convince the interlocutor 100%. The most common method in this case is direct pressure, and the impact goes to the “enemy’s” weakest points. Women have achieved particular mastery in this area, although the stronger sex has recently been keeping up with them. The principle of operation in this case is simple. To begin with, there is a clear flaw that is difficult to dispute. Moreover, it should be obvious not only to the “attacker,” but also to the person he intends to “defeat.” Next, the disadvantage can be exaggerated, demonstrated how it looks from the outside, described long-term consequences, and so on. In our situation, the opponent will most likely focus on the topic of swimming, since he realizes thatthe absence of this skill is a gap that the opponent is unable to fill. Most likely, for illustration, a couple of accidents on the water will be given, the general physical condition of the future tourist will be indicated, his weakness and unpreparedness for extreme situations will be indicated. We perceive pokes in painful places accordingly, but discounts are usually made for close people, so that conflict does not yet arise. However, our tourist is already dissatisfied with the fact that he is compared to drunkards who drown after heavy drinking, and neither his caution, nor an adequate assessment of risks, nor his willingness to comply with safety precautions are taken into account. Therefore, at this stage of the conversation, he agrees with the interlocutor at best halfway. The opponent, sensing that victory is still far away, tries to increase the pressure. As a result, by the end of the third stage of its influence, the picture changes to the opposite: the interlocutor passionately desires to act contrary to the advice. Here is the reason for a quarrel. Putting pressure on your interlocutor in general is the most common mistake that we make from time to time when communicating with people. It is based on the understandable human desire to get as much as possible in the shortest possible time. In life, this sometimes takes the most bizarre forms. For example, one professional lifeguard told us about the behavior of his colleagues at departmental competitions. According to the rules, it was necessary to find the “victim” - a wooden doll the size of a person in a cluttered room in a minimum period of time. Rescuers could use tools to clear debris. At the same time, the judges cheated: when creating the maze, they used light but durable materials like large sheets of multi-layer plywood. And the rescuers all unanimously chose a heavier sledgehammer as the main means of dealing with the rubble. And so they hit the plywood walls with it, but they only bend and try to throw the tool at the person’s forehead. Roughly the same thing happens during communication, when we try to resolve an issue in one fell swoop. However, rescuers are taught by experience, why did they all make such a mistake? In the case of clearing debris, the choice was dictated by the realities of the job - most often such people have to deal with heavy debris that needs to be crushed with a crowbar or sledgehammer. They were simply not ready for thin and strong partitions. In communication, we choose pressure for a similar reason: we encounter it too often, and more often as a target. In this case, the principle “don’t do to others what you don’t wish for yourself” works exactly the opposite. The thing is that the morality on which it is based is an attribute of reason. In disputes, when we have little time to think and make a decision, the subconscious comes to the fore. For him, everything that brings results is good. We subconsciously consider pressure on our interlocutor to be one of the most effective tools. After all, it has been successfully used more than once in relation to ourselves - which means it works. “Because I said so, that’s why” is one of the parental expressions that has become an anecdote. “Orders are not discussed, they are carried out,” a representative of the stronger sex learns some time later. “You’re the boss, I’m the fool,” is a principle that can be conveniently followed throughout life. And, no matter how much we resent it, when we find ourselves in a specific situation, the first thing we do is remember the old, proven method. Since it worked on us, why not try it on others - a logical conclusion follows and another conflict breaks out. Why, in fact, does pressure bring the opposite effect? ​​And the whole point is that we, as a rule, look at the same object differently. Let's take a textbook family situation: the wife wants to buy a dress, and the husband is sure that this money should be spent on buying winter tires for the car. A situation like this is rich soil for the development of conflict, even if both family members are ready to negotiate. Simply due to the fact that in this case they use a different value system. And they mistakenly believe that the othera person not only has the same knowledge, but also perceives what is happening in exactly the same way as himself. That is, the husband, saying briefly, “You need to buy tires,” is actually saying that in the off-season the weather is unpredictable, and ice may begin suddenly. Therefore, it is better to take care of the purchase early, because on the weekend you can not only purchase new “shoes” for the wheels, but also mount them. Because after the ice sets in, tire shops will be overwhelmed with orders and you will have to wait in line. And only if the rubber is not swept off the shelves in one day. That is, the husband has already made the calculations and is trying to save time. Further, he knows how much easier it is to drive a car if the wheels have winter Velcro. This means that he cares about the safety of his family. In this case, a wife who insists on buying a dress will look like a short-sighted egoist in his eyes, unable to plan beyond the next party and not at all worried about the future. Meanwhile, let’s reveal a secret: the wife most likely does not see the difference between spare parts. And in her opinion, anything that has a round shape and is elastic in appearance is suitable as wheels for a car. Therefore, buying new tires before winter is perceived as a man’s whim. Whereas the desire for a dress is the desire to be attractive in men’s eyes – primarily in the eyes of a husband. This is an opportunity to stand out among your friends, because it is the external side that is usually paid attention to in women's society. Clothing for a woman is an item that is usually treated with special trepidation. In this case, going out to your friends in an old dress is tantamount to admitting that family relationships have deteriorated, the spouse does not pay enough attention to her, and therefore life as a whole has not been successful. That is, it turns out that the husband who is preventing the purchase seeks to humiliate his half in front of others. That is, it only seems to both parties that the dispute is about things. In fact, we are talking about a clash of established views on the world, two diametrically opposed points of view. As is easy to understand, with a sufficiently reverent attitude towards their own picture of the world, these two people can argue until they are hoarse and put as much pressure on each other as they like. At the same time, neither one nor the other will even understand what we are talking about. The reason for this is simple: it is extremely difficult for us to abandon the system of values ​​that we have developed over our lives. This is such a painful process that it’s difficult to even break away for a while to get an idea of ​​someone else’s. Moreover, within the framework of a dispute, attempts to change the interlocutor meet with even greater resistance. Which is quite understandable: our worldview is formed throughout our lives. Looking at the world differently is the same as recognizing the existence of elephants and turtles on which the flat Earth rests. What another person says may seem absolutely absurd to us, but at the same time we do not allow the thought that our arguments may seem just as erroneous to our opponent. As a result, a conversation that has turned into a conflict can end in several ways. In the first case, one manages to “push through” and subjugate the other person. He gets what he wants, be it giving up extreme sports from the first example or new tires from the second. At the same time, naturally, the second one does not agree with the results, but complied because he does not want to spoil the relationship (at best) or is depressed by blackmail (at worst). Be that as it may, we have what in legal practice is usually called a precedent. The “winner,” without even realizing it, will be convinced that the pressure method is working. The “defeated” one will feel dissatisfaction because his arguments were not heard, and he is in the position of a powerless being, deprived of freedom of choice. As you might guess, after a while the situation will repeat itself. And, most likely, the roles of the participants will remain the same: one will also put forward ideas, the second will destroy them. Now not only by force of conviction, but also by submitting to the role of dictator that had become familiar to him. In such situation.