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

[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?

[Matt Willard]

It honestly sounds like the book encourages you not to stand up for yourself.

[James45]

Originally Posted by Matt Willard

It honestly sounds like the book encourages you not to stand up for yourself.

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

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by James45

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

I wouldn't have admited it previously, but I agree.

[Chado2423]

There is a difference between standing up for yourself and making a fool of yourself (losing friends, losing jobs, etc. simply because you "stood up for yourself.) Trust the man who knows from experience.

[Brutha]

I think focusing on being authentic has a higher payoff than focusing on agreeing with people.

If you try to fake agreement to make people like you, you are seen as trying to hard or as weak.

If you want to influence other people, you won't get far when you agree with everything. When you don't agree with something, there no reason to hid your honest thoughts.

[eruso]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think focusing on being authentic has a higher payoff than focusing on agreeing with people.

If you try to fake agreement to make people like you, you are seen as trying to hard or as weak.

If you want to influence other people, you won't get far when you agree with everything. When you don't agree with something, there no reason to hid your honest thoughts.

I agree.

[mncz]

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*
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 seems like plain simple manipulation. Omitting ego and communicating authentically would give much better results, I believe.

[Sam988]

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?

Basic, subjective advice... hardly useful.

[Chado2423]

This seems like plain simple manipulation. Omitting ego and communicating authentically would give much better results, I believe.

That is why it says "naturally agreeable. THIS IsN"T ABOUT "FAKING AGREEMENT." How can it be natural, if it is faked? Sorry Brutha, just had to point that out. It means authentically agreeable" If you are naturally agreeable, you aren't coercing or manipulating. It states that if you do disagree, just don't do it out loud, unless absolutely necessary. (But then here is a conundrum... what if it is absolutely necesssary to you, and not necessary to the other person. How would you know?) So far the book is simplistic and hasn't reached heights like those that i wonder about. If you ask the person, there is always an innumerable ammount of responses they can choose, no? Even when you aren't manipulating and are natural, they may see it in a different light, right? Be naturally agreeable I can "almost" agree with. But it brings out some questions. Like what if they think I'm just trying to gunny up their friendship. e.g. at work, "being agreeable" with a boss, is often looked at as "brown nosing" by your co-workers. Even if you are natural about it, explaining that to your friends may be difficult.


So let's reword rule #1.

RULE ONE: When possible be authentically and naturally agreeable. Do not fake agreement for the mere sake of doing so. 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.

RULE TWO: Tell people when you do actually agree with them. Allow them to know that you have discovered a common bond. This will help bring forth a more natural positive response from the other person.

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 isd the right way to resolve disagreements that are necesssary to you [even if it isn't necessary to the other guy]?? How do you know when it is necessary or not?)

RULE FOUR: Admit it when you are wrong.




More thoughts?

[mncz]

Why can't you disagree out loud?
Why do you think that needs of other people to be right is any of your concern or have more value than what is right for you even if it means disagreement?
Why do you feel like a good relationship with your boss or any other person demands any explanations?

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by mncz

Why can't you disagree out loud?
Why do you think that needs of other people to be right is any of your concern or have more value than what is right for you even if it means disagreement?
Why do you feel like a good relationship with your boss or any other person demands any explanations?

Yes, let's try to answetr these.

How do we know if our needs and desires are more or less important than the other guys? If we have a disagreement that we keep quiet about; it could be damaging. (e.g. on a large scale there was a disagreement about whether the titanic was safe enough to leave port. We all know what happened there.) Unresolved disagreements cause wars, remember ... does it matter which war, come on? They all are based on disagreements! If we do have a disagreement that needs to be brought out into the open, how do we do it? What is the right way? And do we even know why it needs to be brought up? Do we know how to resolve it. Screw Lieberman's fantasy world, let's answer questions like these these for real.

[mncz]

Thats a lot of talk about world and very little about yourself.
Are you seeking to resolve the disagreements in all the world or just the ones in your experience?

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by mncz

Thats a lot of talk about world and very little about yourself.

Myself... doing better. But I'm tired of talking about myself... after a while it gets old. Its all I do in therapy and at home. I'm getting bored with it. Besides I like discussions like these. (If you want to talk about me, email me at wonder@inbox.com.) Otherwise let's stick to the topic, okay, sweetie?

[Brutha]

That is why it says "naturally agreeable. THIS IsN"T ABOUT "FAKING AGREEMENT." How can it be natural, if it is faked? Sorry Brutha, just had to point that out. It means authentically agreeable"

I read it as making it your natural position to agree.
But you still forget your third point.
You state that one shouldn't disagree unless their is necessity. That means that you should surpress your own opinion if it's in disagreement with the other person.

Disagreements aren't bad. The are natural.

Most disagreements are not about who is "right" or "wrong". That a bad frame to take.

If both sides take 100% responsibility for their position and accept that other people are free to disagree there is no need to "win" arguments or disagreements.
You can simply explore the disagreement together.

Focusing on agreeing also other gives power away. Your rules sound like they are designed to be a perfect follower.

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I read it as making it your natural position to agree.
But you still forget your third point.
You state that one shouldn't disagree unless their is necessity. That means that you should surpress your own opinion if it's in disagreement with the other person.

Disagreements aren't bad. The are natural.

Most disagreements are not about who is "right" or "wrong". That a bad frame to take.


You can simply explore the disagreement together.

Focusing on agreeing also other gives power away. Your rules sound like they are designed to be a perfect follower.

Sorry if I mis-informed.... Dearest Brutha, these aren't my rules, these are the rules given to me by my therapist in a book I am supposed to go through.

If both sides take 100% responsibility for their position and accept that other people are free to disagree there is no need to "win" arguments or disagreements. This would be true, except that it isn't ENTIRELY feasible to occur. Also, the reality factor is that people don't take 100% responsibility for their position. That is a fantasy world. So the question now becomes "Since people don't take 100% responsibility for their position in disagreements, what do we do (AS INDIVIDUALS) about it?

[Brutha]

Sorry if I mis-informed.... Dearest Brutha, these aren't my rules,

You defend them here which makes them your rules. The fact that you didn't come up with them originally doesn't change much about it.

So the question now becomes "Since people don't take 100% responsibility for their position in disagreements, what do we do (AS INDIVIDUALS) about it?

Start with being the first who takes 100% responsibility.

The blueprint decoded is a video product that goes into specific detail on how that concept relates to male/female relationships. I think that the same approach is the right one for all kind of relationships, there a few threads in this forum about that product like Blueprint Decoded Appreciation Thread .

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You defend them here which makes them your rules. The fact that you didn't come up with them originally doesn't change much about it.
Start with being the first who takes 100% responsibility.



The blueprint decoded is a video product that goes into specific detail on how that concept relates to male/female relationships. I think that the same approach is the right one for all kind of relationships, there a few threads in this forum about that product like Blueprint Decoded Appreciation Thread .

I'm sorry, I should have made it more obvious that I wasn't necessarily "pro-" these rules. Who said I defended these rules? I merely mentioned them and questioned them. If you don't believe me read the top posts over agaian. You'll see that I question a rule in there. I take 100% responsibility for not making that clear to everyone. All I am trying to do is open up a discussion about them, that's all. However, I did somewhat defend one rule, the "natural agreement" one. If you already agree with someone what would be wrong with telling them that?? (I don't see why my defence on this rule, is thwarted.) Perhaps it was in the wording, or just a misunderstanding. Again I apologize for not making that blatantly clear.

Becoming the person who is 100% responsible sounds good doesn't it. But we're human, we're going to fail. And I've even found out that sometimes when you do this you get fired from your job (lol). So what do we do when we take responsibilty and it isn;t accepted?

[igmistro]

May I suggest that perhaps we are reading too much into these rules.

Here is what I read.
Rule 1: Everyone has the right to their opinion. Unless you are asked (or they are in danger, etc.) it's not your place to correct the other person. I.e Just because I'm raw food vegan, doesn't mean every time I see someone eating a burger I have to give them a lecture on animal cruelty.

Rule 2: I think this one is obvious to everyone thus far.

Rule 3: I think it's the same as rule 1. But too comment a little farther. Disagreements are not necessarily bad. Disagreements at the wrong time are. I relish a spirited debate and as some people who read my posts may have noticed love contrarian points of view. Yet I also learned that there are times where it's not my place to speak. If I'm a guest in your house, you better believe I'm not about to comment on lack of Feng Shui in your living room. I will honor your hospitality and keep my mouth shut.

Rule 4: I think everyone here agrees on this one as well.

[Chado2423]

PEOPLE SMART

BEING AGREEABLE (I added one, but it just felt right to do so.)

My take on what I believe we are closer in agreement on, with these rules.

1. Be fundamentally naturally and genuinely agreeable when possible. I.e., when possible be authentically and naturally agreeable. Do not fake agreement for the mere sake of doing so. 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. There is a difference between standing up for yourself and making a fool of yourself. You have the right to disagree, but don't let disagreements get in the way of you living a happier lifestyle. As much as humanly possible take 100% responsibility for your position and accept that other people are free to disagree with you. Everyone has the right to their opinion. But you can't beat genuine agreement when it is there. Don't give up your values (see #2) for the sake of agreement, however.

2. Tell people when you do agree with them. Allow the other person to understand that you agree with them when you do actually agree.

3. Don’t make it a habit of disagreeing out loud. Conflicts can be good and healthy or they can be detrimental and damaging. Disagreements in themselves are not necessarily bad. How they are handled determines the final result. Only disagree outlout so when you must make your concerns known. It isn;t always impotant to point out all of your disagreements. However, be patient with the other person, and be patient with yourself, what is important to you isn't always important to the other person.

4. When practical, when you are wrong admit it. This doesn't mean you have to lose face with the other person. Arguing your point well may seem like a great way to "win" the respect of your peers. But sometimes you will be forced to admit defeat. A dignified withdrawl can command as much respect as winning the argument. If you have discovered you are in disagrement, try to relax. It doesn't have to be a big deal. When you have discovered you are wrong you may try to bluster your way out of it, or make excuses. Avoid this at all costs. This will only make matters worse. Apologize in a dignified manner, and then back down. Also, raising your voice or using sarcasm will seem unreasonably confrontational and may make people less likely to respect your opinion in the future. Being wrong is nothing to be ashamed about. Don't allow being wrong to dent your confidence. After the disagreement has lapsed you might feel embarrassed for a while, but it is absolutely necessary to move on from such a disagreement.

5. Apologize, quickly and often when you do make mistakes. We all do things that require an apology from time to time. It will be necessary to take time to consider your apology. What exactly are you apologizing for? What effect did your actions have on the other person? How can you make ammends for what you have done? Depending the gravity of the situation its often a good idea to apologize one on one. In your apology don't be looking for an argument. Instead, remain non-confrontational, speak clearly and gently. Don't be aggressive. It is best to be as naturally calm as possible. Also, be sincere in your apology. Be specific, and don't beat around the bush. Remember that the other person may still be angry with you. And in order to clear the air, they might need to communicate this. If so, you need to do your best to face the music. Allow them to express their anger, and don't fight back. Finish on a positive. Close the conversation by looking toward the future. Finsih with a handshake, a hug, or whatever seems appropiate.

Any thoughts?

[Brutha]

And in order to clear the air, they might need to communicate this.

I don't think that the goal of an apology should be to clear the air but to express that you are sorry.
Don't have expectations that the other person will do something like forgiving you afterwards.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I read it as making it your natural position to agree.
But you still forget your third point.
You state that one shouldn't disagree unless their is necessity. That means that you should surpress your own opinion if it's in disagreement with the other person.

Disagreements aren't bad. The are natural.

Most disagreements are not about who is "right" or "wrong". That a bad frame to take.

If both sides take 100% responsibility for their position and accept that other people are free to disagree there is no need to "win" arguments or disagreements.
You can simply explore the disagreement together.

Focusing on agreeing also other gives power away. Your rules sound like they are designed to be a perfect follower.

Totally agreed. I don't think disagreements are the problem, but when both sides think they need to be right. Then it goes on and on, in circles usually, and both sides introduce ad hominems left and right. State your points clearly, trying to defuse it of negative emotion as much as possible, and admit defeat if you are proven wrong. if it's a matter of opinion, agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Chado2423

Becoming the person who is 100% responsible sounds good doesn't it. But we're human, we're going to fail. And I've even found out that sometimes when you do this you get fired from your job (lol). So what do we do when we take responsibilty and it isn;t accepted?

That's the other person's problem. If you're fired for it, then you probably don't want to be in that environment, anyway.

[Kaspian]

Two thoughts:

1 - One of my closest friendships was based on the agreement to disagree. We'd spend hours discussing our different view points, and it was invigorating. The respect we had for each other only grew as we got to know each other and our opinions better.

2 - There are ways to express honest disagreement that don't result in making the other person angry. Your descriptions of #4 and #5 seem to expect anger, though, and I wonder if you'll be creating conflict because you expect conflict.

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Kaspian

Two thoughts:

1 - One of my closest friendships was based on the agreement to disagree. We'd spend hours discussing our different view points, and it was invigorating. The respect we had for each other only grew as we got to know each other and our opinions better.

2 - There are ways to express honest disagreement that don't result in making the other person angry. Your descriptions of #4 and #5 seem to expect anger, though, and I wonder if you'll be creating conflict because you expect conflict.

hmmm??? Valid points.

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that the goal of an apology should be to clear the air but to express that you are sorry.
Don't have expectations that the other person will do something like forgiving you afterwards.

To me, clearing the air, and expressing the sentiment of sorrow, are really the same thing, or am I mistaken? (Just a little wordplay.)

[Chado2423]

I feel so people dumb right now, which is why I am reading things like this and questioning them. And your support is very much appreciated.

[ar81]

There are also natural blamers.
You can't agree with them, specially at work.
Fortunately I haven't had them at work, but in a previous job I had a boss who was a blamer.

And in another job I was harassed by a politician who is now in jail.

[Brutha]

To me, clearing the air, and expressing the sentiment of sorrow, are really the same thing, or am I mistaken?

Sorrow is an emotion. Expressing your sentiment of sorrow is similar to expressing other emotions like happiness. It's totally about yourself and authentically expressing what you feel.

Clearing the air on the other hand is an attempt to fix the situation. It has the goal to get the other person less angry at you.

If you try to express the sentiment of sorrow that you have you ask:
"What do I feel about this situation deep down at my core? How can I express that?"
If you try clearing the air you ask yourself:
"What can I do to make the other person forgive me?"

Those two are different strategies.

[Chado2423]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Sorrow is an emotion. Expressing your sentiment of sorrow is similar to expressing other emotions like happiness. It's totally about yourself and authentically expressing what you feel.

Clearing the air on the other hand is an attempt to fix the situation. It has the goal to get the other person less angry at you.

If you try to express the sentiment of sorrow that you have you ask:
"What do I feel about this situation deep down at my core? How can I express that?"
If you try clearing the air you ask yourself:
"What can I do to make the other person forgive me?"

Those two are different strategies.

But what if you ask all those questions simulteneously? (I'm really trying to learn here.) I've never been real successful in relationships.

[Brutha]

But what if you ask all those questions simulteneously?

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.

And I've even found out that sometimes when you do this you get fired from your job (lol). So what do we do when we take responsibilty and it isn;t accepted?

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.