E10 Conflict Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

You must fight what you know is right by championing your side against another’s.

OR

You will come closer to resolving conflicts the better you respect all the affected needs.

Anankelogy

The better you can you distinguish between each other’s inflexible needs and each other’s responses to them, the closer you can resolve conflicts. Those who conflate inflexible needs with flexible responses tend to perpetuate conflicts, needlessly. While you can possibly change how you want others to respond to your needs, your natural reflex is to challenge any who dare to oppose the inflexible needs themselves.

For example, those who fight for “free speech” carte blanche, by opposing wholesale any “censorship” from those genuinely traumatized from carefree public rhetoric, risk provoking the very restrictions they ostensibly oppose. The more the other’s inflexible need to avoid damaging retraumatization gets limited by unlimited speech, the more the resisted need to fully function—free of limiting trauma—prompts them to push back against generalizations about free speech. Their tendency to impose too many limits of public expression can be challenged without overgeneralizing that all limits to public rhetoric is bad for free speech.

Likewise, those who fight for “respectful speech” carte blanche, by opposing wholesale the “privileged insensitive speech” of others who genuinely need to publicly express themselves, risk provoking the very traumatizing public rhetoric they ostensibly oppose. The more the other’s inflexible need to freely express themselves publicly gets limited by restrictions on public speech, the more the resisted need to fully function—by publicly expressing themselves—prompts them to push back against ideological generalizations that constrict free speech. Their tendency to unleash too many constraints can be challenged without overgeneralizing that all free speech risks a threat of retraumatization.

You can apply this to any issue, especially politicized issue. Each side digs in their heels when opposition triggers their inflexible needs. This generalized defense typically includes remaining guarded on how they flexibly address the inflexible need. And herein lies the problem, ignored by surface level debating. After all, opposing what others need does not extinguish moral conflict, but enflames it.

The more each side stays glued to their overgeneralized opposition, the more they reinforce conditions to produce more of what they claim to oppose. Some may prefer the fight over a reachable solution. Some may enjoy such “conflict porn” and their “outrage porn” for the feeling they are at least doing something about the pain of the conflict.

Reinforcing what you oppose lets you cling to what you already know you can handle. The familiar pain of staying stuck in conflict may be preferable to the pain of uncomfortably engaging each other on a more vulnerable level. Instead of risking the pain of the unknown, of possible rejection, you may prefer—at least subconsciously—to internally reinforce what you externally resist. That way, you end up getting more of what you’re comfortable opposing. You already know how to handle that more than how to handle the unknown of gaining what you claim to seek.

Meanwhile, your attention stays of the actual consequences.

            What you reactively resist

                  you reflexively reinforce.

            The problems then persist

                 down a different course.

As the other side asserts their inflexible needs or inflexible priority of needs, you likely characterize their pushback as something they could easily choose not to do. The more you provoke their defenses into creating more of what you outwardly oppose, the more you slide into oppo culture of remaining ignorantly perpetuating problems through mishandled conflicts.

Need-response

You typically face conflict in either a feel-reactive or need-responsive way.

• feel-reactive: seeking to minimize discomfort while seeking to indulge own desires, with little if any regard for the needs prompting such discomfort and desire.

• need-responsive: prioritizing resolution of needs that prompt discomfort and desires, in a way that respects the needs of others.

You’re either feel-reactive or need-responsivewhen confronted by a conflict. You either react to what you see opposing you by remaining guarded, or you respond by staying open to learning about each other’s affected needs. This presents your conflict orientation.

Reactive Problem

Let’s get to the problem that this principle is set to address. . For now, this serves as placeholder text. When I find the time, I will post the full deal here.The more you react to your feelings, the more you serve your feelings instead of letting your feelings serve you. Instead of responding to the needs conveyed by your feelings, you react to those feelings in ways that prompts more of what you hoped to avoid.

Reacting to your pain tends to leave you in more pain. Perhaps this is your norm. You know how to handle what you find most familiar. You simply keep doing what you’ve been doing, even if resulting in more problems and pain.

Instead of a personal moral failing, this typically occurs in situations when repeatedly coerced into choosing a les favorable option. Eating table scraps may feel better than getting nothing at all. You might prefer getting some reaction from those you oppose than getting no response at all.

Responsive Solution

To avoid needlessly provoking other’s defensiveness, use a “praise sandwich”. It’s a communication format to convey your opposition to other’s negative impact on your inflexible needs. You sandwich a piece of unpleasant news between two positive items. P-N-P.

Negate the toxicity of oppo culture by

• first affirming the other’s side’s inflexible needs. Positive opener.

• then you challenge their actions that undesirably impacts your inflexible needs. Negative middle.

• Finally, you pledge to mutually support the full resolution of each other’s affected needs. Positive closing.

To illustrate, consider these examples. The first from a progressive. The second from a libertarian.

A progressive parent opposing a conservative’s stonewalling of gun safety measures:

• P: I respect your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm for your self-protection.

• N: I’m concerned about how easy it is for anyone to get a gun, including those young people who bring firearms into schools.

• P: Surely there must be a way to balance your rights with our need to keep our children safe at school.

A conservative gun owner opposing onerous gun safety laws:

• P: I empathize with your anxiety about your child’s safety at school because of gun violence.

• N; I get alarmed when the push to keep schools safe may cost me my own self-defense.

• P: Let’s find a way to keep all of kids safe from gun violence without punishing legit gun ownership.

Notice how both stay clear of triggering the other side’s defensiveness. Instead of provoking more of that’s being opposed, both pave a way for a mutually beneficial dialogue to respond to each other’s inflexible priority, each other’s inflexible needs.

This reconciling approach can preserve the rapport needed to resolve just about any conflict. Instead of provoking more of what you oppose, your “stay-open” conflict orientation lets you distinguish between the needs they cannot change and their responses to them that they could change.

And you, in kind, can assert your inflexible needs while adjusting how you to respond to them. You put cooperation over rhetorical fighting. You work through the challenges to let each side come closer to resolving their inflexible needs.

Need-response offers tools that can make it easier to turn each conflict into an opportunity to better appreciate each other’s needs. And improve your chances to produce much better outcomes than continually provoking more of the mess you say you oppose. Nobody opposes being better respected.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• What if it there is some overlap between an inflexible need and a normal response to it?

• If I want to reverse this habit, what would be my next step?

• What about those who seem to want the fight more than a peaceful resolution?

• Is it possible to slide into the opposite extreme of being too conciliatory then exploited?

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.