Saturday, November 22, 2008

Steps 4-6 of Lynn Fitz-Hugh's 21 steps of personal peacemaking

Today my daughter and her friend had a back-and-forth conversation about two sides of the same reality, and I expressed the gist of step 1 - "Nothing is gained in trying to decide whose version of what happened is true." My daughter asked why I launched into big explanations when she made a comment. I explained she gave an example and I explained a point it illustrates. Inducing--going from specific to general. But I'd better dial it back a few notches so I don't get tuned out.....

Okay, steps 4-6 from Lynn Fitz-Hugh's 21 steps to personal peacemaking.

4. Running away from conflict does not solve it. "The conflict will still be there, but now someone may also feel abandoned or insignificant. Often the resulting lapse of time has allowed bad feelings to fester and false assumptions to be made. It is best to address conflict as soon as one has control over one's emotions and the other person is able to engage."

Molly, does thee hear this? Here is a step I need to work on a lot.

5. When people are very, very upset they get flooded by adrenaline. "This is a biological wiring for 'fight or flight.' We cannot just turn it off. It takes at least 20 miutes with attention off conflict--longer if it is hard to get attention off of it--to get rid of all the adrenaline....It is a bad idea for someone to try to talk, listen, or make decisions while flooded with adrenaline. Rational thinking is impaired and the brain has a difficult time working constructively."

OOOh I just hate it when this happens to me. I do the flight thing and I know it takes far more than 20 minutes to be able to return after I leave. I will try to focus away from the source of upset--probably that will help.

6. Timing of efforts to address a conflict is a two-party affair. "People exist on a broad spectrum from 'eager to address issues' to 'extremely terrified about addressing issues.' It is not fair for the [more] willing party to demand that the other person engage because the first party wants to/needs to, and it is similarly not fair for the more avoidant party to insist that his or her nonengagement policy be accepted by both (or to continue avoiding without addressing when he or she will be willing to engage). "

Hmmm... this speaks to me very clearly. What sayest thou?

These 3 steps speak to me clearly and I know I have some work to do. I hope I need not do it soon (because that would mean a conflict sooner rather than later) but do hope I will have these steps in mind when I need them.

Peace, y'all


No comments: