# How conflicts work

Conflict is an inevitable part of being human:

- We all have *constant* [inner conflict](conflicts-inner.md) about various [beliefs](understanding-certainty.md), [feelings](mind-feelings.md), and [thoughts](understanding.md).
- However, people *usually* see conflict as a difference of [views, interests, or goals](purpose.md) between two people.

## Why we engage in conflicts

We *always* start conflicts from a [perceived](image.md) need:

- Their need may or may not be real or accurate, and may simply be a "want".
- That need may also be based on a complex set of circumstances.
- You often have a *massive* advantage if you're [aware](awareness.md) of what you and others want and need.
- When you stand to gain for yourself or for another person, the skills are exactly the same.

This perceived need someone has to confront a situation has several degrees of intensity:

1. Discuss: We mention it because we want others to open up a discussion about the matter. We usually want people to increase their [understanding](understanding.md) and make or thoroughly consider [decisions](people-decisions.md), or we know *they* don't understand. Most things sit in this realm for mentally well people, especially regarding [religion](religion.md) and [politics](groups-large.md).
2. Defend: We have a [conviction](understanding-certainty.md) on the matter and don't feel it's appropriate to leave an idea uncontested. Usually, we people to [change their minds](image.md) about their opinion. Every healthy person has a handful of these.
3. Die For: We have chosen to closely [identify](identity.md) with the matter. Often, we've integrated the concepts so closely that we require others to honor their standard on it. Every single person has at least a few of these.

Conflicts aren't always fighting with others, but can be:

- Fights and arguments arise when people see that it's the best way to accomplish their [purposes](purpose.md).
- Sometimes, it's simply a disagreement or [misunderstanding](understanding.md).
- While [respect for others](people-3_respect.md) is *always* appropriate, being "nice" and overly accommodating in a time of conflict will destroy you and those you care about.

APPLICATION: When we use [technology](technology.md) to increase the amount of time we can [communicate](people-conversation.md), we often lose the [quality](values-quality.md) of each individual engagement compared to in-person. Since technology removes distance, it mixes us with various [cultures](people-culture.md) across the world, and our conflicts are guaranteed to become more frequent.

We engage directly in conflict when the trouble of making the conflict becomes less than avoiding it.

Our perception doesn't have to be [real](reality.md), either, and there are several ways there can be breakdown when communicating with others:

1. [Cognitive bias](mind-bias.md) that diverts people away from the truth.
2. [Influence](influence.md) from peers and leaders that [distorts](image-distortion.md) what appears to be true.
3. [Personality differences](personality.md) that change how people are inclined to think.
4. Old mental [habits](habits.md) that haven't completely gone away, even though they were already considered no longer applicable.

Usually, healthy people start conflicts after witnessing at least three instances of the issue.

- The first and second ones may be improbable, but the third time typically confirms we're seeing a [pattern](symbols.md) that isn't creating the [results](results.md) we want.

Our [decision](people-decisions.md) to make a conflict is significant because every conflict risks sabotaging [relationships](people-friends.md) with other people, which we will usually value when we have any [love](people-love.md) for them.

## Complicating factors

Gratitude and revenge tend to complicate conflicts:

- We are grateful or vengeful when someone has done something good or bad to us in the past.
- For this reason, we impose past experiences that may not apply to present situations.
- The only way to stay level-headed in a conflict is to ignore both for yourself while understanding how others interpret it.

Since most people are [higher agreeableness](personality.md), it's generally human nature to want mutually beneficial agreements with everyone. We will often [compromise](people-5_conflicts.md) to avoid the worst altercations. Our desire to reconcile is most of the inspiration for [cultural standards](people-culture.md) and [norms](people-3_boundaries.md).

But, sometimes a peaceable resolution isn't possible. All we need is someone [perceiving](imagination.md) a [purpose](purpose.md) of theirs that will fail or an irreplaceable [scarcity](results.md), combined with something we [imagine](imagination.md) someone else can do about it, often with a [bad faith](morality-evil.md) belief of the other's intent.

Usually, we avoid the conflicts around us from several base reasons:

- We're [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) of the [power](power.md) others may wield against us.
- We're honoring a [principle](values.md) we [believe](understanding-certainty.md) in
- We legitimately [love](people-love.md) other people who may be affected in the situation.

APPLICATION: [Our upbringing](people-family.md) often teaches us to avoid fights, but we must never back down from a fight over [principles](values.md) we [believe](understanding-certainty.md) in. Instead, we must learn to [negotiate](people-5_conflicts.md) instead.

## Healthy conflicts

Healthy conflicts require both sides willing to change and compromise:

- You must believe in others and want something *beyond* the conflict.
  - Many conflicts have solutions where everyone can win, so it's not healthy to focus on "winning" or "losing" them.
- Consider all your failings when approaching them, since they're likely noting them more than you are.
- *Always* assume that person believes they're being perfectly [reasonable](purpose.md) and [logical](logic.md), irrespective of reality.
- However, also assume you don't know most of what that person knows.

Conflicts only become unhealthy when we don't properly [calculate](people-decisions.md) the [risks](safety.md), make them needlessly, or don't manage them well.

APPLICATION: Conflicts are healthy when managed correctly by everyone. Through them, we can [understand](understanding.md) others' [points of view](image.md), become more patient and [loving](people-love.md), and develop future [skills for good boundary-setting](people-5_conflicts.md).

## Reactions to issues

No matter how, our [disposition](personality.md) makes its own mix-and-match reaction to the conflict:

- Opposition - animal fight reaction, often involving aggression or hostility against the disagreement.
- Conformity/compliance - animal flight reaction, focusing on agreeing over [understanding](understanding.md) the disagreement.
- Sympathy - focusing on [feelings](mind-feelings.md) more than [reasoning](logic.md).
- Questioning - focusing on [reasoning](logic.md) more than [feelings](mind-feelings.md).

Conflicts become severe when we run strictly off [feelings](mind-feelings.md):

1. Feelings lead to reactions.
2. Reacting leads to seeking blame.
3. Blame is specifying who [caused](results.md) the problem.
4. While blame is a [power tactic](image-distortion.md) in [groups](groups-member.md), it doesn't create any meaningful [results](results.md) because the action to break something is typically different from the action to [fix](https://adequate.life/fix/) it.

There are several reasons an argument will arise:

1. One person is [unwilling](purpose.md) to [understand](understanding.md) the other's desires, at least as it pertains to them.
2. One person has run out of patience with the other, for any reason whatsoever.
3. Someone is maliciously trying to [distort how things appear to others](image-distortion.md).

## The scope of a disagreement

Not everyone disagrees on the same [values](values.md), even when they're in a [team](groups-small.md). There's a "depth" of disagreement based on how well someone [understands](understanding.md) the conflict:

1. Refuting the central idea: They can state their opponent's thoughts in their words and can give a [well-reasoned](understanding.md) explanation of what's wrong with the idea and why. This is the only way to win someone over and discover [the truth](reality.md), but requires tremendous patience.
2. Refuting a non-central idea: They can quote their opponent's words and explain how that idea is wrong. They never address the *central* idea, and sometimes insert their ideas ("straw man"). This is often as far as most people get, especially on the internet.
3. Counter-argument: They state the opposite of the argument, then defend it with [reasoning](understanding.md) and evidence. In this situation, they'll never [convince](understanding-certainty.md) the other person, but will allow observers to see an [alternate viewpoint](image.md).
4. Contradiction: They state the opposite of the argument, but without any reasoning or evidence.
5. Attacking tone: They redirect the focus to the speaker's choice of [language](language.md). At this point and beyond, they're focusing on [distorting image](image-distortion.md) more than [truth](reality.md) or [influencing](influence.md) anyone.
6. Attacking the person: They redirect the focus to the speaker's [authority](image.md) ("ad hominem"). At this point, they're often [afraid](mind-feelings-fear.md) their opponent might be right.
7. Blindly attacking: They'll use [insults](morality-taboo.md) and call their opponent names. This person is operating strictly on [animal impulses](mind-feelings.md) and isn't expressing enough present [maturity](maturity.md) for a useful engagement.

APPLICATION: Hardly any people are as thoroughly convinced on a subject as they appear to be. Usually, a bit of solid [reasoning](logic.md) based on their existing [perspective](image.md) that incorporates yours (often delivered with a [compelling story](stories.md)), combined with time for them to ruminate on it, is enough to radically [influence](power-influence.md) them over to your perspective, but that doesn't mean they'll shift their inner thoughts on the matter.

The range of disagreement a person typically sits within will indicate plenty of information about their motivations:

1. Focusing on the central idea means they're concerned with the ideas the other person has.
2. Focusing on *any* ideas means they're concerned with [truth in general](reality.md) or like to [philosophize](philosophy.md).
3. Making counter-arguments means they simply want to prove themselves right or prove their opponent wrong.
4. Contradicting means they want to stop the other person from continuing in their dialogue.
5. Attacking the tone means they [feel strongly](mind-feelings.md) against the information, but don't [understand](understanding.md) why.
6. Attacking a person means they are either [dysregulated](awareness-dysregulation.md) or wish to [maintain an image](image-distortion.md).
7. Blindly attacking means they feel they will lose something if they lose the argument.

Conflicts don't always resolve easily, though. Sometimes, inherent [bias](mind-bias.md) in the form of [discrimination](people-discrimination.md) can destroy any chance for an expedient resolution.

## Conflict management skills

We like to imagine our conflicts are only with others, but they're not. Our conflicts always start as [Inner dialogue](conflicts-inner.md), *then* ripple out to [interpersonal conflicts](people-5_conflicts.md), which can cascade into larger aspects of [society](people-conflicts-war.md).

There are only generally two constructive approaches to direct conflict management:

1. Be a nice person, which makes conflicts incredibly rare and skewed in your favor because others tend to make general [judgments](mind-bias.md) that nice people are [good](morality.md).
2. Be competent in your [specialization](jobs-specialization.md), which means others will [trust](trust.md) you're more likely to be correct.

In failing both, you're likely to become [enslaved](slavery.md) in some form, since people won't believe you to be good or competent enough to have all your freedoms.

Often, in most conflicts, there's a differing [understanding](understanding.md) of the [values](values.md) we express in [language](language.md), and the only solution is separating the values we [mean](purpose.md) versus the values we're [saying](results.md).

We tend to [express](language.md) our conflicts as if we're dogmatic about a subject, but more often than not we simply have a [popular belief](understanding-certainty.md) in one side of something (e.g., someone may only be 55% convinced of a subject they're screaming about).

When plenty of [power](power.md) is at stake or people are [breaking cultural norms](morality-taboo.md), most people are too [angry](mind-feelings-anger.md) to reliably separate the values other people intend versus what they're expressing, and direct their focus strictly toward *their* [understanding](understanding.md) of the problem.

Thinking without making assumptions in a conflict *can* become [habitual](habits.md), but it requires tremendous restraint.

Besides suspending judgment, defusing most conflicts require several additional skills:

1. [Understand](understanding.md) exactly what that person [wants](purpose.md) more than they do.
2. [Logically](logic.md) dismantle every justification the opponent is using, including any [distortions](image-distortion.md) of the truth to appeal to feelings.
3. [Creatively](mind-creativity.md) find a mutually acceptable [solution](https://adequate.life/fix/) beyond what everyone [sees](image.md) at the moment.
4. Skillfully [influence](influence.md) them to see beyond their [convictions](understanding-certainty.md) to [understand](understanding.md) your perspective.
5. Patiently avoid submitting to [anger](mind-feelings-anger.md) through all of it, which usually requires ignoring the need to be [important](influence.md).

These skills are challenging to master, mostly because they *require* experience with difficult people to finesse them. Nobody likes pain, so the only qualified conflict-managers are either constantly seeking conflict, [grew up](people-family.md) around it, or have [worked professionally](jobs-specialization.md) around difficult people.

APPLICATION: If you can easily influence someone toward your views, someone else can easily influence them away. The strongest people are also the ones who tend to disagree the most, and that's a critical part of selecting a [good leader](groups-small.md) to prevent an organization from becoming a [bad system](mgmt-badsystems.md).

Skillful negotiators validate others' [feelings](mind-feelings.md), but don't give in to harsh demands or permit them to control an argument. To create [results](results.md), they often employ [fear](mind-feelings-fear.md) for short-term effects and [love](people-love.md) for long-term solutions.

In the absence of sufficient skills, a fight may break out. When two people fight, they're using *any* [form of power](power-types.md) to make the other person submit under it. Since everyone's [conceit](morality-evil.md) is engaged, only [stronger people](groups-large.md) can break up that fight to prevent people from dying or suffering disproportionately. In the case of the strongest *[group](groups-large.md)* fighting against another, those conflicts have [far-reaching consequences](people-conflicts-war.md).

## Resolution

At the end of a conflict, there are only several legitimate things anyone can do to resolve an issue:

1. Give them what they want. (Lose/Win)
2. Withhold what they want, with the possibility they may get what they want some other way. (Win/Lose, but they may perform Win/Lose back)
3. Take what *you* want, without their permission. (Win/Lose)
4. Make everyone lose by giving up caring about what you want and destroying what they want. (Lose/Lose)
5. [Persuade](influence.md) them to exchange what you want from them in exchange for what they want from you. (Win/Win or Partial Win/Win)
   - This sometimes involves holding your possessions or property hostage until they give what you want.
6. Take a [creative](mind-creativity.md) "third option" by involving other people to intensify or clarify the conflict:
   - Include other people with power to control that person.
   - Advertise the conflict to create more power shifts.
   - Bring in another person to judge the conflict.

Often, the last two ("third option" or mutual trade) can actually *intensify* a [friendship](people-friends.md) over time after a conflict.

[Understanding](understanding.md) is the key to starting a healthy dialogue, but *everyone* involved must be willing to understand each other to permit a mutually [desirable](purpose.md) [result](results.md). In the absence of that, *someone* will leave unhappy with the arrangement.