Disagreements and Conditional Motive

Disagreements and Conditional Motive

Generally the more aggressively we pursue an argument, the more resistant we find the other to be.  When the other is not receptive then our insistence on our point of view is experienced as a badgering by them. 

Someone who is receptive to our point of view is like a vessel with an opening into which our words and ideas can be poured.  In contrast, someone who is not open is like a closed a vessel and our attempts to get through to them are akin, metaphorically, to breaking them open so we can get through.  That is why we repeat ourselves, and become louder and more aggressive in our body language when we are in the middle of a heated disagreement.

The other person, generally, reacts with equal or more aggression or else withdraws into a closed-off, “cold” silence.  In either case, we are not getting through to them.  And we can feel it. Usually when we sense this, instead of backing off, we become more insistent and they in reaction, become more resistant.

If we are mindful, we can sense how receptive or closed off a person is.  And if they are not receptive to our words and ideas, then it is generally best not to impose them because this pursuit will benefit no one. 

In fact, what would be better is to check our own selves – how receptive are we to their point of view and experience?  Are we curious about what they are saying or have we made up our minds already?  Are we listening to them or to our own internal dialogue?  Are we judging them, waiting to respond just so we can prove them wrong?

Our own conditional motive – to be proved right, to fix the other – generally leads to conflict.  Even if we possess the truth and the remedy, it is no good to someone who is not willing to accept it.

photo: shahbano aliani