Journal 10: What have you learned about your own conflict style?
According to the quiz my conflict style is collaborative. I think this is fairly reflective to the extent that a quiz can be, but still is not always true. My conflict style depends largely on who my conflict is with and who is is with. When I'm more vulnerable in a conflict I'm more likely to avoid it because I don't want to put myself in such a vulnerable place. However, sometimes even in a very vulnerable place I will act collaboratively but that's a lot easier for me if I am the one to make the first move. I find it easier to open up and be honest with someone if they don't ask me to. I scored lowest in competition and domination and i think that's true most of the time. I will sometimes handle family conflicts in a competition sort of way but I do that a lot less now than I used to.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Week Ten / Journal Ten
What have you learned about your own conflict style?
Well, it took me a little while, but I finally got hold of the conflict styles survey, and based on the results of that my conflict style is "Collaboration". However! My scores for Accommodation, Compromise, and Collaboration are really close together, which I think means they should all be taken into consideration. Also, I'd like to analyse these results a bit.
For one thing, I think that these scores somewhat reflect what I'd like my conflict style to be like. A lot of my high answers for the Accommodation are due to the fact that I really, really want to be an accommodating person, and I think that came through in the way I answered questions. The same goes for compromise: I wish I compromised more, and I think unconsciously a lot of my answers were influenced by that.
In reality I think my conflict varies depending on who I'm talking to--with people I like less or with whom I feel I need to be more assertive, I tend to use more of a domineering style, but with people I really value I'm more likely to be accommodating. Other times I use collaboration, and sometimes when I feel there's no way to win a conflict I just avoid it altogether.
Well, it took me a little while, but I finally got hold of the conflict styles survey, and based on the results of that my conflict style is "Collaboration". However! My scores for Accommodation, Compromise, and Collaboration are really close together, which I think means they should all be taken into consideration. Also, I'd like to analyse these results a bit.
For one thing, I think that these scores somewhat reflect what I'd like my conflict style to be like. A lot of my high answers for the Accommodation are due to the fact that I really, really want to be an accommodating person, and I think that came through in the way I answered questions. The same goes for compromise: I wish I compromised more, and I think unconsciously a lot of my answers were influenced by that.
In reality I think my conflict varies depending on who I'm talking to--with people I like less or with whom I feel I need to be more assertive, I tend to use more of a domineering style, but with people I really value I'm more likely to be accommodating. Other times I use collaboration, and sometimes when I feel there's no way to win a conflict I just avoid it altogether.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Journal 10
My own conflict style... I suppose the quiz was correct when it said I was collaborative. But it probably would have been right if it gave me ANY of the choices. I am very situational in conflict. I avoid conflicts with my classmates. I compete/dominate conflicts with my parents. I accommodate in conflicts with my friends. I compromise in conflicts with my brother. I collaborate in conflicts where I am more of a third party. It just depends on so many factors, I don't think I could pinpoint one strategy I favor. I would say that conflict is confusing and I don't always know how to deal with it. Guess that's why I'm in this class eh?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Journal number 10
What have you learned about your own conflict style?
The quiz result said that I am the accommodating type and I was kind of surprised by the result because I am everything but not accommodating. because I am not the kind of person who let's the others decide and is the quiet person.
If I am not satisfied with something I am straight forward and tell my opposite what I think and how I feel. It is true that I sometimes value if it is worth to stand up to for or if I should let go of it because it is not worth fighting for but most often I defend my stand.
I am not saying that I am not open for the other side and their argument but it is just not my attitude to not speak out what is in my head.
I think it is part of because I am German but also because I like it better if people walk straight up on me and tell me if there is a problem. I don't like drama and I think if you do not stand up for yourself and don't talk about your needs there will be a point in which you can not take it any longer and that is what we call the "explosion point" in Germany. If that happens a person yells everything out and brings up things which are from the long past just because she did not agree on it before but she did not say anything because she was not willing to get into an argument and wanted to comfort the other. But at that point everything gets it out and the opposite has no choice to get out of the conflict without hurt feelings and that is where the drama starts. To avoid situations like that I prefer to say what is on my mind and I am willing to stand up for my opinion if I think it is worth it.
The quiz result said that I am the accommodating type and I was kind of surprised by the result because I am everything but not accommodating. because I am not the kind of person who let's the others decide and is the quiet person.
If I am not satisfied with something I am straight forward and tell my opposite what I think and how I feel. It is true that I sometimes value if it is worth to stand up to for or if I should let go of it because it is not worth fighting for but most often I defend my stand.
I am not saying that I am not open for the other side and their argument but it is just not my attitude to not speak out what is in my head.
I think it is part of because I am German but also because I like it better if people walk straight up on me and tell me if there is a problem. I don't like drama and I think if you do not stand up for yourself and don't talk about your needs there will be a point in which you can not take it any longer and that is what we call the "explosion point" in Germany. If that happens a person yells everything out and brings up things which are from the long past just because she did not agree on it before but she did not say anything because she was not willing to get into an argument and wanted to comfort the other. But at that point everything gets it out and the opposite has no choice to get out of the conflict without hurt feelings and that is where the drama starts. To avoid situations like that I prefer to say what is on my mind and I am willing to stand up for my opinion if I think it is worth it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Journal #10
What have you learned about your own conflict style?
I always though that my conflict style would be avoidance, but my style actually is "accommodation." This actually makes a lot more sense in my life. Emotion is very crucial in the accommodation style. I think that it is more about wanting what is best for people, which is partially the reason why I want to be in social work. My sister (a family based therapist) always told me that it is good to be "accommodating' when you are working with your clients, because that is your job. It is your job to be there for them and to "give" to them. But, because this is your career choice, you cannot have this be the way you handle your personal life. If you are giving to people at work, and then you surround yourself with people who abuse your accommodation style and "take and take and take," while giving nothing in return you are going to get burned out, lost, and feel like nobody is there for you. This is advice that I have very dearly try to take to heart, although it is very hard. My best friend always tells me to "stand up for myself" and to not "forgive people so easily" after they hurt me. But, that is how I am: I cannot stay mad at someone, especially someone I care about, for long periods of time. But, I also realize that some people take advantage of this and use me to vent to and basically be their "counselor," but never return the favor.
I always though that my conflict style would be avoidance, but my style actually is "accommodation." This actually makes a lot more sense in my life. Emotion is very crucial in the accommodation style. I think that it is more about wanting what is best for people, which is partially the reason why I want to be in social work. My sister (a family based therapist) always told me that it is good to be "accommodating' when you are working with your clients, because that is your job. It is your job to be there for them and to "give" to them. But, because this is your career choice, you cannot have this be the way you handle your personal life. If you are giving to people at work, and then you surround yourself with people who abuse your accommodation style and "take and take and take," while giving nothing in return you are going to get burned out, lost, and feel like nobody is there for you. This is advice that I have very dearly try to take to heart, although it is very hard. My best friend always tells me to "stand up for myself" and to not "forgive people so easily" after they hurt me. But, that is how I am: I cannot stay mad at someone, especially someone I care about, for long periods of time. But, I also realize that some people take advantage of this and use me to vent to and basically be their "counselor," but never return the favor.
Journal Nine
Journal 9: What factors influence conflict dynamics as we look at why individuals, groups, and nations engage in conflict? Why do you think humans seem so willing to commit horrible acts of atrocity against other humans in the name of justice, security, and peace?
I think one of the largest influences on why individuals, groups and nations engage in conflict is to protect their identity and the safe place that they have within that group or nation. I think this is also what makes people so willing to commit horrible acts of atrocity. When people belong to a group or nation and have very little or no contact with other groups or nations, the other group or nation becomes a kind of abstract idea instead of a group or real living people. They can become the enemy and dehumanization can take place without anyone really having to try very hard to make it happen. I think that fear has a lot to do with this. When we have very little contact or exposure, or the other group or nation is different culturally from us, we don't understand and our sense of identity becomes threatened by something we don't understand. Often, instead of seeking too understand, the easier solution is to create more walls around ones own group and shut out other group and attack if that is threatened. People don't feel individually responsible for acts of extreme violence when they're part of a group, defending the group, and have some sort of justification for their actions. This is something that needs to shift, but largely has to be a shift the individual in question has to decide they want to put effort into.
I think one of the largest influences on why individuals, groups and nations engage in conflict is to protect their identity and the safe place that they have within that group or nation. I think this is also what makes people so willing to commit horrible acts of atrocity. When people belong to a group or nation and have very little or no contact with other groups or nations, the other group or nation becomes a kind of abstract idea instead of a group or real living people. They can become the enemy and dehumanization can take place without anyone really having to try very hard to make it happen. I think that fear has a lot to do with this. When we have very little contact or exposure, or the other group or nation is different culturally from us, we don't understand and our sense of identity becomes threatened by something we don't understand. Often, instead of seeking too understand, the easier solution is to create more walls around ones own group and shut out other group and attack if that is threatened. People don't feel individually responsible for acts of extreme violence when they're part of a group, defending the group, and have some sort of justification for their actions. This is something that needs to shift, but largely has to be a shift the individual in question has to decide they want to put effort into.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Journal 9
Journal 9: What factors influence conflict dynamics as we look at why indiviudals, groups, and nations engage in conflict? Why do you think humans seem so willing to commit horrible acts of autrocity against other humans in the name of justice, security, and peace?
We talked in class a while back about a similar topic and I thought a very interesting aspect was the idea that people go as far as they are pushed. But when you push them too far, they are too invested and will refuse to give up. At that point they feel they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. When they reach that point they might go to extremes beyond what would normally be expected, a suicide bomber (in my mind), must be pushed to an extreme before they would be willing to give their life in such a dramatic and destined way (as opposed to fighting traditionally where they have a chance of surviving).
The second part of this question really bothers me because I think about it a lot. (okay, okay, I usually end up crying if I even try to talk about it out loud with other people so writing is good). But a person wouldn't do something they think is wrong right? (my whole argument is based off that assumption and (as of right now) I truly think it is right) In that argument Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Now what I can't understand why he thought it was the right thing. But in general when these horrible things happen they happen because someone things it is the right thing to do. Usually not just for them, but for the good of a group, or a whole. When you are doing something "chivalrous" for someone else perhaps it's easier to justify the whole action. You are not being slefISH you are being selfLESS. Perhaps that's the way they see it.
I don't have a good answer for that. I just kind of thought out loud on a computer. I tried to link my thoughts but if I didn't I'm sorry and if you ask I will try to clear them up.
-Laura Lou
We talked in class a while back about a similar topic and I thought a very interesting aspect was the idea that people go as far as they are pushed. But when you push them too far, they are too invested and will refuse to give up. At that point they feel they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. When they reach that point they might go to extremes beyond what would normally be expected, a suicide bomber (in my mind), must be pushed to an extreme before they would be willing to give their life in such a dramatic and destined way (as opposed to fighting traditionally where they have a chance of surviving).
The second part of this question really bothers me because I think about it a lot. (okay, okay, I usually end up crying if I even try to talk about it out loud with other people so writing is good). But a person wouldn't do something they think is wrong right? (my whole argument is based off that assumption and (as of right now) I truly think it is right) In that argument Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Now what I can't understand why he thought it was the right thing. But in general when these horrible things happen they happen because someone things it is the right thing to do. Usually not just for them, but for the good of a group, or a whole. When you are doing something "chivalrous" for someone else perhaps it's easier to justify the whole action. You are not being slefISH you are being selfLESS. Perhaps that's the way they see it.
I don't have a good answer for that. I just kind of thought out loud on a computer. I tried to link my thoughts but if I didn't I'm sorry and if you ask I will try to clear them up.
-Laura Lou
Journal number 9
What factors influence conflict dynamics as we look at why individuals, groups, and nations engage in conflict? Why do you think humans seem so willing to commit horrible acts of autrocity against other humans in the name of justice, security, and peace?
There are many different factors that influence conflict dynamics. On the one side there are the different parties and their goal and how much they differ from each other and also the aspect if they have a past and if so how bad is it? If the past has been kind of tough and the fronts hare really hard it is almost impossible to have a soft conflict dynamic.
Besides these facts there are also different dynamics like the spiral dynamic which is most likely.
Groups, nations engage in conflict mostly if they feel that their needs are either not respected or they want more power or have an issue in general. There are many different aspects to engage in a conflict but from my experience the most common are to gain more power, to be taken more serious and obviously from nations territorial and economic reasons.
I think humans are willing to engage in horrible acts of autocracy because they hope the outcome will be better for them. From what I have experienced in the past and what my feeling is is that nations and people most likely are not interested in Other's need primary but in their own first. The Other's needs are secondary for us. If a country has a chance to get more oil or more power in general they will find a way to get into the country and try to reach their goal. However, they won't tell the other nation what their primary interest is, they will most likely come up with an excuse which makes others believe that they are seeking for the Other party to be helpful but that is most of the time not the primary interest.
For example is the UN and the NATO interfering in other countries to make them help develop peace through blue helmet insertion and it is true that they want to help build up more security and democracy in those countries but they also have a positive outcome themselves, which is for example getting closer to a perpetual peace or at least less war and that brings stability and that leads to more economic trades through the world and the latest at that point the interfering countries will meet some of their main needs. As a result of that you can say that even if interfering are not only to help Others but also to help meet your own needs and goals in the long run and to meet these needs people and nations are willing to do some horrible acts sometimes but not always.
There are many different factors that influence conflict dynamics. On the one side there are the different parties and their goal and how much they differ from each other and also the aspect if they have a past and if so how bad is it? If the past has been kind of tough and the fronts hare really hard it is almost impossible to have a soft conflict dynamic.
Besides these facts there are also different dynamics like the spiral dynamic which is most likely.
Groups, nations engage in conflict mostly if they feel that their needs are either not respected or they want more power or have an issue in general. There are many different aspects to engage in a conflict but from my experience the most common are to gain more power, to be taken more serious and obviously from nations territorial and economic reasons.
I think humans are willing to engage in horrible acts of autocracy because they hope the outcome will be better for them. From what I have experienced in the past and what my feeling is is that nations and people most likely are not interested in Other's need primary but in their own first. The Other's needs are secondary for us. If a country has a chance to get more oil or more power in general they will find a way to get into the country and try to reach their goal. However, they won't tell the other nation what their primary interest is, they will most likely come up with an excuse which makes others believe that they are seeking for the Other party to be helpful but that is most of the time not the primary interest.
For example is the UN and the NATO interfering in other countries to make them help develop peace through blue helmet insertion and it is true that they want to help build up more security and democracy in those countries but they also have a positive outcome themselves, which is for example getting closer to a perpetual peace or at least less war and that brings stability and that leads to more economic trades through the world and the latest at that point the interfering countries will meet some of their main needs. As a result of that you can say that even if interfering are not only to help Others but also to help meet your own needs and goals in the long run and to meet these needs people and nations are willing to do some horrible acts sometimes but not always.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)