Category: Getting to Know You
Whats your style when dealing with an argument or conflict with another person? Do you face it or run away from the situation? Do you share your feelings to other people or tell the person directly why your mad? How do you view an argument, do you see it as emotionally disturbing or do you view it as a way to understand another person’s reasoning?
Well, my strategy would be to think about it first, then to tell the person how I feel. Sometimes I like to express my feelings to others to hear their views on it, or to help me in thinking about the situation thoughroughly, but I always try to tell the other person how I feel as well.
It depends on the situation. I usually have a flexible approach so I can respond to the actions of my opponents, or the opponents of my allies if I deem it necessary to respond, and I can make decisions about whether and how to respond in an instant if the situation is changing very quickly. The form of my response is dependent on what I am responding to.
If the potential result of a discussion, debate, argument or any other exchanges of opinion is such that no decisions which could cause me or friends problems or harm are made, I may choose to or not to express my views and/or challenge the views of those who I oppose and leave it at that.
If somebody is physically harming me or my friends, I will physically respond. I may physically respond in a situation where somebody is continuing to cause problems and harm but nothing is being done to stop them and it is believed by their targets after all else has failed, that they cannot be stopped in any other way.
If the dispute is about something I deem very serious, something so serious that my failure to act may result in people's lives being indefinitely altered for the worse, I aim to respond in a manor which ensures that an outcome I consider desirable is achieved. Sometimes, situations like this have several stages. The first stage can be speculative, i.e preempting what a person is going to do, or it can be the expression of views by your opponents which indicate their intolerance of what is happening. The second stage is the diplomatic stage, during which opinions between the conflicting parties may be exchanged, policy (one or more of the party's intent) is stated, or direct or indirect threats are made. Things can move either in a direction which results in the two sides reaching an understanding (this may not prevent future conflict but will keep the peace for now), or towards the third stage of direct action which may be drastic and surprising. If the third stage occurs, I try to do all I can to achieve an outcome I deem desirable, and an outcome which is satisfactory to the people who I'm nhelping. My opponents will try to get what they want out of the situation. One side will achieve a total victory, one side may be completely defeated, and with that knowledge, I do everything I can to achieve victory, and my opponents do what they feel is necessary to achieve their ambitions.
This survey is so vague, it's very hard to answer, perhaps narrow it down. The word conflict is the problem as there are so many types of conflicts.