People Smart...How to get along with other people… Four step system…

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You can't to everything at the same time. In addition those two are fundamentally different strategies.

Having a lot of 'shoulds' in your mind reduces your flexibilty and authenticity.
I think that making the stategic decision to focus on authenticity and expressing your true core is very effective.
Asking "What can I do to make the other person forgive me?" leads to mental stress that reduces your authenticity.
It also gives your personal power in the situation away.
Taking responsiblity isn't easy to do. If you are not in the habit of taking responsiblity you are probably incongruent the few times you do it.
Incongruency causes you to lose some of those situations.
Congruency comes with choosing to stick to a strategy.

If you look at job ads you will see that a lot of employers want peope with leadership skills. Leadership is about excersing power over situations.

The rules you posted seem to be about being a follower.

Regardless what you do you will fail sometimes. Neither being a follower nor a leader means that you are secure from failure.

What would the rules of being a leader be? And how do they differentiate from the rules above? What exactly do you mean by "leadership"... like a management position?... so not my style. Can you still lead by being an underdog? If so how? (Sorry but I question everything.) I don't like being around lots of people because I have tourette like symptoms and major depressive disorder... can I still be a leader. What about with my family. I've always been underpinned as the go-to boy. How can I change this relationship so that I am more assertive?

[seanner689]

This whole thread seems a little paradoxical ... just the fact that you're stating rules about being agreeable, non-confrontational and apologetic, and stating reasons like

1. People like those who agree with them.
2. People dislike those who disagree with them.
3. People dislike being disagreed with.

makes it a little difficult to have an honest conversation about the topic. You asked for other people's thoughts ... but if someone disagrees with your original post, you'd be inclined to just agree with them (according to your rules), unless you qualify forum discussion as one of those times that are "absolutely necessary", (in which case you have an extremely loose version of absolutely necessary). So I think that not only are these rules characteristic of a spineless (ie you can be easily molded into any shape) "yes-man", but they don't pass any sort of logical scrutiny.

On the other hand, there's a saying among married men: "You can either be right or be happy" which shares the same sentiment as these rules. Ultimately, I guess it depends on the situation, though I'd imagine that being a human doormat gets old after a while.

Also, I personally find it annoying to be around someone whose views are so easily manipulated; disagreement is a great breeding grounds for growth. I don't think that all of my opinions are "correct" (and certainly not set in stone), and most things in life that people disagree over don't have a "right" or "wrong" ... but knowing people's views - especially differences of views - really gives you an idea of what that person is like. I love myself, no doubt, but I want to be around people who are DIFFERENT than me. If I'm going to be around people who all think the exact same way I do, I may as well just be alone.

Feel free to tell me if you disagree with any of this

[Brutha]

What would the rules of being a leader be?

1) Taking responsibilty for what happens around you and inside yourself.
2) Express your deep core in interactions with other people
3) Know what you stand for
4) Willingness to fail from time to time

I don't like being around lots of people because I have tourette like symptoms and major depressive disorder...

Your depression also might come from not knowing your own values.
Being around other people is also one of the best things against depression.

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by seanner689

This whole thread seems a little paradoxical ... just the fact that you're stating rules about being agreeable, non-confrontational and apologetic, and stating reasons like

1. People like those who agree with them.
2. People dislike those who disagree with them.
3. People dislike being disagreed with.

makes it a little difficult to have an honest conversation about the topic. You asked for other people's thoughts ... but if someone disagrees with your original post, you'd be inclined to just agree with them (according to your rules), unless you qualify forum discussion as one of those times that are "absolutely necessary", (in which case you have an extremely loose version of absolutely necessary). So I think that not only are these rules characteristic of a spineless (ie you can be easily molded into any shape) "yes-man", but they don't pass any sort of logical scrutiny.

On the other hand, there's a saying among married men: "You can either be right or be happy" which shares the same sentiment as these rules. Ultimately, I guess it depends on the situation, though I'd imagine that being a human doormat gets old after a while.

Also, I personally find it annoying to be around someone whose views are so easily manipulated; disagreement is a great breeding grounds for growth. I don't think that all of my opinions are "correct" (and certainly not set in stone), and most things in life that people disagree over don't have a "right" or "wrong" ... but knowing people's views - especially differences of views - really gives you an idea of what that person is like. I love myself, no doubt, but I want to be around people who are DIFFERENT than me. If I'm going to be around people who all think the exact same way I do, I may as well just be alone.

Feel free to tell me if you disagree with any of this

THESE AREN"T MY RULES< HONEY. JUST THE RULES IN THE BOOK MY THERAPIST GAVE ME. Sorry I had to yell. I want an open and honest discussion about this. I am ALL FOR DISCUSSION! FYI, I never stated these were MY RULES!

[air nomad]

Originally Posted by Chado2423

RULE THREE: Don't disagree unless it is absolutely necessary. (But my question with this one is If you do have a disagreement that needs to be made, how do you bring the subject up. What is the right way to resolve disagreements that are necessary to you [even if it isn't necessary to the other guy]?? How do you know when it is necessary or not?)

In my opinion I would pull the person away from whatever they where doing and tell them up front. I think it's better to get through disagreements then let them fester in the back of your mind.
If the disagreement seems like it's necessary for anyone, then I think it's worth while to have it, so the two can get past it and move on.
I think it's necessary to have an argument if something is really annoying you.

[freshwala]

Originally Posted by James45

99.9% of the time whats referred to 'standing up for yourself' is derived from ego-based fears.

i totally agree

alot of times people get into a conflict with nothing to gain, or the cost of the conflict out weighs the benifits of winning, so why the hell would somebody get themselves in a situation like this?...

EGO.

i learnt that lesson from the art of war and life obviusly.

or even when people argue things they know they can never win, like athiests arguing with religious people, seriusly whens the last time a christian argued an athiest into converting his beliefs or vice versa? but ego prevents people from walking away, and keeps them arguing.

peace.

[Brutha]

i learnt that lesson from the art of war and life obviusly.

I don't think that it is effective see arguments as wars that have to be won.
It's ego based to be that attached to your position, but it isn't to be in conflict.

[oldbiker]

some of my own rules:
* do not show people your weaknesses
* try to look intreseted in what they care about
* take the lead without showing pride
* every thing has a price, if you want to get someone to do something for you, you have to make sure there is something in return ( it could be anything, not just money)

[InterfaceLeader]

To be honest, I think it's saying "only disagree about things worth disagreeing about".

An awful lot of people just like being confrontational (I should know ) and the energy expended isn't worth it. But being a human doormat isn't good either.

I think that generally it is better to keep disagreements non-personal (e.g: "The bible has been through many translations" rather than "If you believe the bible is 100% accurate you must be stupid")

Keep it from descending into trolling, and keep it on the level of debate...

[Brutha]

An awful lot of people just like being confrontational (I should know ) and the energy expended isn't worth it.

You don't have to expend energy to get into disagreement. You have to expend much more energy to hide from the other person that you are dosagree,emt-

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You don't have to expend energy to get into disagreement. You have to expend much more energy to hide from the other person that you are dosagree,emt-

It depends. Like; if I decide to take issue with the way a flat-mate cooks their potatoes. I might disagree with them entirely on how they do it, but frankly - it isn't important. And the fight will take far more energy than just letting them cook and eat their potatoes!

But if they are an adamant meat eater, and keep trying to tell you how pointless vegetarianism is, then yes - hiding your disagreement would be silly, and ultimately take more energy.

[makessense]

Originally Posted by InterfaceLeader

It depends. Like; if I decide to take issue with the way a flat-mate cooks their potatoes. I might disagree with them entirely on how they do it, but frankly - it isn't important. And the fight will take far more energy than just letting them cook and eat their potatoes!

But if they are an adamant meat eater, and keep trying to tell you how pointless vegetarianism is, then yes - hiding your disagreement would be silly, and ultimately take more energy.

Yes, I agree here. There doesn't have to be fight, though. It's all in the way we say something. If we can present our own way of making something without sounding judgmental, then we're fine. Agreeing to disagree is extremely important in any relationship.

[hkalchemy]

Originally Posted by Chado2423

This is from my therapy lessons. I find the book itself rather simplistic, but perhaps it is supposed to be that way.

The Four Step System of Being People Smart
(regardless of who you are!)


1. Be naturally agreeable *when possible*
*of course there are many times when it is not possible or practical to agree. None the less, most disagreements are completely unnecessary, and are usually are more a clash of egos than ideas.

2. Tell people *when you agree with them*

3. Don’t disagree (out loud) unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Admit it when you are wrong.

There are three reasons for the art of being agreeable:

1. People like those who agree with them.
2. People dislike those who disagree with them.
3. People dislike being disagreed with.


Your thoughts?

This is excellent, excellent advice. How little we empathize with others! Of course people want you to agree with them, so why not do so and make them feel good? Then they'll be more likely to help you and be on your side. If you can make people feel good, they'll associate you with this feeling and you'll have a friend. And that can be very useful!

This is basically what Dale Carnegie wrote in 'How to Win Friends and Influence People.' I recently wrote a blog article about this. Check it out if you have time.

[medaille]

Here is my perspective.

*All people's perspectives are true if given the right circumstances.
*If a person is being authentic, then what they say is true for them and their perspective and their circumstances.
*To disagree with someone is to deny the truth in their statements, to deny the validity of their perspectives and of their circumstances. To disagree with someone is to deny truth.
*Being authentic is being true to the truth that is valid for your circumstances, and from your perspective.
*By being authentic, you have to accept the authenticity of others, and thusly you have to accept what is true for them.
*Fear and Love both lead to growth, eventually and are equally valid paths.
*Focus on finding the truths you share to establish agreement and to confirm the validity and love you have for their existence/perspective.
*Share the love your perspective brings you, so that they may have the opportunity to see if it brings love to them as well, so that they may have more love.

[Susie]

I think those who disagree with the guidelines may be missing the point. The point is, you use these "rules" when you are in a situation where the objective is: to be liked. Not when the objective is to influence or to dominate. Then you can pull out another list of guidelines if you so choose.

These are a list of guidelines you use when you have the specific goal of being generally liked by a person. That's it. If you don't care if a person likes you, then by all means don't use these rules. These rules don't guarantee a person will like you of course, but I think it tilts the odds in your favor, especially when you are first getting to know someone.