Text: Old Friend Handbook General Psychological Counselor
If you and others have a disagreement and rise to the level of right or wrong, how would you deal with the current situation?
may have "obviously he is wrong, why can't I point it out", "I am right, he is wrong, so he has to listen to me", "If we can't reach unity, then we will separate. What, can’t you meet new friends yet", "Cold War, each chose to wait for the other to apologize and the other to contact themselves", or "After the quarrel, the two of them quickly turned over the story and reconciled. "...Z1z
Of course, in the face of situations that everyone will encounter in real life, the processing methods and results must not be limited to the just mentioned.
And there may be friends who have such a question in their hearts, "What do you want to say about this situation that we have become accustomed to and it is difficult to distinguish between right and wrong."
Yes, because everyone will experience it, and have experienced it many times, so we have become accustomed to this situation, and because the result is often "two people never contact again", "two people become strangers "I don’t think it’s weird to "divide because of differences of opinion."
When we get used to this situation and accept the result of "separation", there is a high probability that we will not worry about improving this situation.
Of course, sometimes separation is indeed unavoidable, but I feel that “inevitability” cannot be used as an excuse for making mistakes, or as an excuse for the behavior of “doing but not doing”.
And the reason why I want to mention this situation again is because I know that although some friends have indeed accepted separation and regard separation as the norm, in fact, they still desire stability, stability and firmness in their hearts. , I still hope that the people around me can stay with me for a long time, and I will still burst into tears during the separation, but it is a bit more stubborn than before, and the raw tears are suffocated back.
So I think, in their hearts, they still want to do more.
In addition to my usual consulting work, I also encounter similar situations in real life, so I can be called "relatively experienced".
Whether it is my own experience or the situation mentioned by other friends, there is actually a very interesting contradiction involved, that is, "We express our ideas, in fact, we hope that we can get the other party’s approval. I didn’t agree with me, but accused me of being wrong, so I started the cold war. Even so, I still hope in my heart that we can continue to be friends, the other side can apologize, and choose to identify with me.”
You see, it was me who chose the Cold War, and it was me who wanted the other side to change their attitude.
“There is indeed such a contradictory situation. Maybe we still value each other very much, so we can’t be cruel.” After all,
have been together for some years, after all, they were also good friends. The good memories of the past are closely related to the psychological level Naturally, it does not mean that we give up and give up, so this emphasis does exist.
At the same time, "we hope the other party can identify with ourselves" also exists.
"Because we are good friends, so as my good friends, I hope you can identify with me, and I also feel that you have a responsibility to do so, who makes you my good friend?" I mentioned "what kind of friend do you want", or when I asked the other person "what do you think of his insistence on himself", many friends will mention it.
I think in their eyes, the so-called "good friends" are a clone of them. Not only do they have very similar hobbies and many common topics, but they can also uphold a common attitude in many aspects, and beyond that All others can only become ordinary friends or strangers.
may see such a description, the first thing you think of is "this standard is too ideal and basically impossible to achieve". Indeed, this standard is a bit too high, because even if two people are 70% similar, there are still 30% differences, or 30% differences.
So, why use such an "over-idealized" standard to define good friends.
think from another angle, if there is such a person in the world, and he happens to become his own good friend, then someone will share the burden when he is sad, someone will comfort him when he is upset, and when he is happy, one can When sharing and doubting, there is a person who can discuss, and because the two people are similar, he will also share his happiness with us, let us gain happiness, and share doubts with us, let us and The other party gains a sense of value in the process of solving problems together. At the same time, the most important thing is that because the two people are highly similar, they can speak their thoughts calmly, even if they don’t express themselves straightforwardly. The other party can also instantly understand that two people will always be comfortable together, and there will be no other negative things.
Do you think such a state and such a relationship is very enviable?
If you have such a state and such a relationship, can you have a strong sense of security and a lot of happiness?
If you have these, can you better face the ups and downs in life?
"You said that, didn’t you make good friends instrumentalized?"
If I really regard each other as my own good friend, I need to respect each other and respect each other's ideas, instead of asking the other party not to have their own Ideas must be based on our "right" and must become our spiritual vassal.
Of course, it is not appropriate to use the word vassal. Because when it is difficult to face the unsatisfactory things in life with personal ability, we really hope that there is such a person, such a relationship, and such a place that can support us and bring us happiness.
And as you can see, there is really no problem with the starting point, but the form does not take into account the characteristics and demands of both parties.
I think this is also one of the main reasons for the birth of the contradiction mentioned above, that is, in the past period of time, the other party did play such a role, so it makes it difficult for me to give up now.
However, while we need such a "tool man" to exist, we also need "our own right." This is not only because we need to do "right" things due to our survival instinct, and we have habitually done what we think are right, but also because once "I am wrong", it is tantamount to denying ourselves in disguise The meaning and value of existence. As for how much impact this will bring, we can understand by looking at friends around us who are busy shirking responsibilities and refuse to admit their mistakes.
In fact, whether it is a "tool person" or whether we need to "be right", they all exist as a spiritual and psychological self-protection/defense mechanism.
So the above contradiction becomes: admit that I am wrong, I am hurting myself and losing each other, but in fact I am hurting myself.
Face the two options with "harm", although "choose the lighter" is the answer most friends will give, but not all friends can face pain, injury and loss, so "Neither admit that they have Wrong, and hope that the other party can actively identify with themselves" has become a situation with high probability.
And I think there is actually another pair of contradictions here, that is, "right or wrong" and "other."
If we insist on what we are right or wrong, it is like saying "Either you agree with me, or we will part ways." At this time, the other party is not so important anymore, what is important is my "right or wrong".
I know you can list a lot of situations where "right or wrong is more important than the other", such as many principles. But if the point of disagreement is not really important, is it worth it to lose a better friend because of your persistence?
The word "persistence" may add some reasonable and just color to one's stubbornness. But in fact, as we mentioned earlier, the reason why we need "we are right" and the existence of "tool man" is because we are using these two to protect ourselves on a spiritual and psychological level.
Then if it is self-protection, it means there is a certain threat. The threats here are: unsatisfactory, unhappy, failure, blows, mistakes, etc. Or to be more blunt, because we don't yet have the ability to face these independently, so we are so sensitive to "right or wrong" and so insistent on "I am right."
And if we:
can accept the difference, allow different existence, can use the difference as a reference, from which we can harvest things that are beneficial to ourselves, can face and admit "our imperfection", can allow ourselves to be "wrong", You can not regard the other party as your own vassal, but as an independent personality who has the same personal consciousness as yourself, can respect each other more, can face some negative aspects in life independently, and have the ability to survive the negative blow and come out alone Experiences and abilities, can empathize thinking, and have a certain degree of empathy, so many of the fate that was finally harvested will survive.
Of course, as I have said before, some separation is indeed unavoidable. But although this is a fact, we still have to have the ability to "allow fate to survive". After all, "the other party" is often more important than "right or wrong", what do you think?
Thank you friends for reading.
