This is not my wisdom but it’s my description of it!
A common example of how not to argue (that I have read in several places) is where a couple are rowing over the use of their car. They both want the car on Tuesday night.
Once they both realise there’s a double-booking, emotions are triggered (which ones depends upon expectations, past experiences, stress, perceived affront, previous neglect of needs being met, threat levels etc.) and an argument starts…
‘but I told you I would be using it on Tuesday evening,’ to which the other replies,
‘Well I made it perfectly clear I was going to use it.’
An argument could then unfold whereby both of them argue to win and the argument could almost become entirely about the disappointment/exasperation/irritation each has about the other not receiving the message they believe they made very clear about the car’s intended use on Tuesday night.
If it really escalates, some personal attacks could be thrown in such as,
‘You never listen to me,’
‘You’re always dismissive of what I ask for.’
‘You only think of yourself.’
The argument can become an intense locking of horns where the emotional response becomes so intense, there’s little capacity for thinking flexibly or cutting enough slack to shift away from a purely egoic battle with the rigid thinking that often induces. The need to ‘win’ and ‘be right’ overrides anything more sensible.
However, if both parties were able to approach this situation more objectively (which requires awareness and practice in avoiding any automated reactions) it could unfold in a far more resourceful way. The animosity could be avoided if both partners (once they realise there might be a problem), instead had started by acknowledging there’s a problem and then stating their need:
- I need the car to drop off a cake at Jim’s.
- I need it to get to badminton.
The needs are then acknowledged and the effort is put into solving the problem (such that insisting, righteousness, defending and attacking etc. don’t happen). ‘I can drop off the cake at Jim’s on my way to Badminton.’ It seems obvious but I think emotion and prejudice about the situation can easily prevent the exploration of straightforward solutions that bypass any need to engage in conflict and/or escalation.
This post also links to a previous post I wrote about working out what our needs are and how to get them met. If in childhood, our needs were not always acknowledged or met straightforwardly, we might:
1) struggle to work out clearly what our actual needs are
2) develop a slightly fearful anticipation about attempting to get our needs met and
3) develop indirect and unnecessarily complicated ways of attempting to get our needs met (e.g. sulking, passive aggression, drama, aggression, martyring etc).
So in order to argue in a better way, we also need to be able to clarify what our needs are, have a sense that they could and will be met and learn to ask more simply and directly!
Sometimes, of course, our needs are buried deep and we might feel too vulnerable to share them (e.g. I need reassurance or I feel unimportant and need to feel like you care more). It’s helpful to know that sharing vulnerabilities with most people has the opposite effect to that which we might anticipate. We connect more deeply with others when vulnerabilities are shared.
So before starting an argument, work out what your need is, and if you’re not sure – dig deep. It might just be that you have a need for calm, acceptance, love, understanding, reassurance and/or respect for your need to drop the cake off or go to badminton!
