Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/22/6233/
△ 173｜Which is more useful to reason with family members or to give orders?
This is a story I’ve been collecting for so long that I almost forgot about it.
My father-in-law has a habit of being “alone”. Often in group activities, he would run away alone. For this reason my mother-in-law talked a lot about him. He basically ignored it and didn’t justify it. You say yours, I do mine. Doing nucleic acid this time exposed this problem. We measure nucleic acid in one tube for ten people. In theory, our family of 6 should try to stay in one tube as much as possible. Because if it is two tubes, then there is a possibility that the other tube will be positive, which will then drag down the other part of the family members and increase the chance of positive exposure. This is actually a very simple truth. But my wife simply asked my father-in-law not to run nucleic acid alone, and my mother-in-law repeatedly said that you should be obedient. They never bothered to explain the reasoning. As a result, my father-in-law is still in the same habit: you say yours, I will do mine. Every time, a person runs downstairs to do nucleic acid first. By the time we got down, he had finished and came upstairs.
So many people like to say: Home is not a place to be reasonable. Then in this case, we can clearly see the importance and necessity of reasoning. If you don’t make it clear, family members won’t take your request seriously. Especially if this person is your father. You feel that you should do what you want him to do. Isn’t this the big joke of the slippery world? There seems to be this tradition in their family: many things do not want to make the truth clear, but simply give orders and ask others to do the same. This will definitely cause a lot of problems.
——”A Typical Case of Unreasonable Family” ssteym
To be honest, even if the person in the story is “clearly explained”, he will not follow that reasoning – the reason why he has always acted alone is not because he has a set of cognitive principles of his own, no matter what. No matter how clearly others explain the truth, it can’t change his decision. But on the other hand, I can also understand the reason why this family did not want to reason with the head of the family, but gave orders directly-because over the years, his wife must have exhausted all methods, rhetoric It’s been said, but the head of the family never takes the truth of the other party’s words seriously, so that there is today’s situation of doing things differently.
Is there any help? I don’t think so, but since they have chosen to form a family, they must have found a way to persuade themselves and compromise, and the noise will turn to noise . ——This should be the final destination of many Chinese families. Even if they see the crux, they are reluctant to face and solve the current conflict. Maybe one person will endure it silently, but if two people want to find a solution for this conflict. One solution is to pull out a lot of old accounts.
Compromise is the most direct, but it seems to be the most palliative solution, but at least for Chinese people who pay attention to harmony, this is the most suitable choice. I have summarized the characteristics of many domestic violence cases, and they often start with “throwing things” first. When one of the parties cannot control their emotions, they will make “throwing things” — probably many people don’t mind this matter. This kind of angry behavior can often end peacefully because of one’s compromise and admitting mistakes. . But a seed was also planted here – at least the other party realized that his behavior of throwing things gave him a chance for moral kidnapping. Then, he’ll have the next drop — but the compromiser doesn’t climb down the pole every time. At this time, we will usher in the second emotional critical point – when “throwing things” can’t solve the actual problem, they begin to have a stronger tendency to violence – and as these progress step by step, the evolved It must be the happy ending of domestic violence.
The core of “domestic violence” is of course not to solve the problem, just like the means we are most familiar with – domestic violence solves “the person who asked the problem”. When the dissatisfaction, questioning, and denial of the parties are stifled, the root of the problem is naturally solved, so that the other party cannot raise other questions.
As for the story he mentioned at the beginning, although he is not as good as “domestic violence”, it can already be regarded as a kind of “cold violence” – a coexistence relationship that should be based on family units. In the eyes of men, it is a complete fragmented existence. He would rather act alone than have any connection with his family. In fact, there is a precondition that is not very pleasant. It is a “male” who acts alone, so according to the requirements of public opinion, there is no way to blame the female side in turn. Perhaps this is the root cause of this “cold violence”.
Just imagine, if this man was a person who acted alone from the very beginning, then a woman should have predicted the consequences of this matter before marrying him. But if this “habit” was formed during their decades of getting along after marriage, it’s hard to say that this is not the common result of the two. Men use “cold violence” to confront the form of family, while women always use commands, and refuse to use “reasonable” methods – if you go back to the source, you can see more of them changing each other And the past of compromise – but these points, can’t stand the toss of “right and wrong”.
After all, we don’t know the origin of the story, but if we go back to the real meaning, the title “Which is more useful to reason with the family or give orders?” , in the end, either one party compromises, or it becomes a mode of command. What they maintain is no longer the concept of “home”, but a pleasure of surrender and restraint.
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/06/22/6233/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.