This is very intriguing and insightful. And I also believe that this has a fairly global application.
I tend to think that reaction #1 is nearly unavoidable when the issues are about interpersonal dynamics, such as trust issues. Whether it becomes a problam or not tends to depend on how quickly the listener is able to move away from it and understand that this is Not About Them.
It's interesting that, to me, each of the reactions fall into one of two categories: the reaction is either about the listener or about the speaker. And all of the reacions that feel 'right' to me are the ones that are about the speaker.
Reactions #2-4 appear to be about the listener as advisor, really. How to talk the speaker around to the listener's perspective mainly. And there always seems to be an implied 'reward' for the listener -- "And you will show me how well my advice worked."
Reactions #5-7 are still about the listener but more personal, sometimes intensely so, sometimes destructively so. The issue becomse not just what the speaker is intending to say, but about how the listener hears it. The listener isn't hearing the speaker' tentative admission of vulnerability but instead sees a personal failure that the issue could exist between them. And then there's a twisting back and forth in placing blame, as if blame (or guilt, for that matter) is necessary.
#8-10 are reactions that are about the speaker. #8 is a good reaction, but it's only a starting point. It has to be combined with #9 and #10 -- and particularly #10 -- for it to work in the long run. Because once the listener tells the speaker s/he can be trusted, the only ways to prove it are to do what the speaker needs, but more importantly to be there regardless.
no subject
Date: 3 Jan 2009 06:02 pm (UTC)I tend to think that reaction #1 is nearly unavoidable when the issues are about interpersonal dynamics, such as trust issues. Whether it becomes a problam or not tends to depend on how quickly the listener is able to move away from it and understand that this is Not About Them.
It's interesting that, to me, each of the reactions fall into one of two categories: the reaction is either about the listener or about the speaker. And all of the reacions that feel 'right' to me are the ones that are about the speaker.
Reactions #2-4 appear to be about the listener as advisor, really. How to talk the speaker around to the listener's perspective mainly. And there always seems to be an implied 'reward' for the listener -- "And you will show me how well my advice worked."
Reactions #5-7 are still about the listener but more personal, sometimes intensely so, sometimes destructively so. The issue becomse not just what the speaker is intending to say, but about how the listener hears it. The listener isn't hearing the speaker' tentative admission of vulnerability but instead sees a personal failure that the issue could exist between them. And then there's a twisting back and forth in placing blame, as if blame (or guilt, for that matter) is necessary.
#8-10 are reactions that are about the speaker. #8 is a good reaction, but it's only a starting point. It has to be combined with #9 and #10 -- and particularly #10 -- for it to work in the long run. Because once the listener tells the speaker s/he can be trusted, the only ways to prove it are to do what the speaker needs, but more importantly to be there regardless.