Occasionally, I’m reminded of how commonly fighting is an everyday occurrence for countless humans. Given how much fighting I did both verbally and online for much of my life, I’m glad that my life is now peaceful enough that I tend to forget how much fighting there is in the world. Whenever I see it, I feel a combination of fear, frustration, and disappointment, all of which are amplified if the fighting is happening close to me. This is one of many reasons I decided to share my take on fighting in this post.
Instead of solving problems, fighting just creates more problems because it activates the sympathetic nervous system. Commonly referred to as the “fight-or-flight system,” this is designed to provide protection against threats. When active, the sympathetic nervous system makes critical thinking nearly impossible, obscures the bigger picture, prepares one to fight or die, and causes others to be seen as enemies rather than companions. All of that prevents problems from being solved. Even when someone recognizes intellectually that there is no threat, they are almost always unable to act on that knowledge when the sympathetic nervous system is in control. Fortunately, there is also the parasympathetic nervous system, which activates when the sympathetic nervous system deactivates. The parasympathetic nervous system brings people closer together, allows both critical and creative thinking to flourish, makes the bigger picture clear, and reveals that most apparent enemies are anything but. Difficult problems can be solved easily when the parasympathetic nervous system works its magic. If you’ve ever felt overwhelmed by a problem that seemed impossible to solve, took some time away from it to relax, and then quickly found a solution after returning to it, then you’ve experienced firsthand the difference between those two nervous systems.
There is so much fighting in the world because so many are living with the sympathetic nervous system active almost constantly and the parasympathetic nervous system almost always dormant. To paraphrase an idea that I’ve heard from several writers, the sympathetic nervous system puts two people at opposite sides of a table where they attack each other; the parasympathetic nervous system puts them both on the same side of the table where they can look at and work through the problem together. In sympathetic nervous system mode, the focus becomes winning the fight rather than working together. That makes each participant spend more time on the areas where they disagree (which may be few) while ignoring the areas where they agree (which may be many). This can be avoided by activating the parasympathetic nervous system, which can be done in a number of ways: using the technique from Letting Go by David Hawkins, doing calming breathing exercises, burning off extra energy through exercise, taking a soothing bath, visiting with animals, and anything else one finds comforting. Once the parasympathetic nervous system is in charge, it’s much harder to fight and much easier to work things out peacefully.
Thinking that fighting brings anything good often starts early in life: siblings see their parents fight (with each other, their kids, and so on), so they fight with each other until their parents come in, and, instead of finding out what’s going on and helping the kids work toward a solution, the parents either decide arbitrarily which kid is right or punish each of them (or both in many cases). This sets the kids up to believe that fighting is the way to resolve problems and inclines them to seek someone else to pick a winner when the fighting inevitably fails to fix the problem. Multiply that by millions of families and now the whole society is set up that way.
You can see this whenever two individuals fight, an arbitrary decision about who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” is made by another individual or group outside the situation, and one or both of the fighting individuals feel upset with the verdict. Pain, anger, and resentment linger because the underlying issues were left unresolved and there was no solution that benefited both of them. That sows the seeds for even more conflicts going forward, which usually gets others involved (family members, business partners, etc.) and increases the chances of further escalation to violence. Decisions made by one person or group that appeared to “settle” the matter can always be changed later on by someone else (in that case, those who liked the original decision may hate the later decision, and vice versa), which is another way that fighting and arbitrary decision-making fail to solve or settle anything. When that happens, it usually leads to even more fighting, and often results in violence.
The same talking points and arguments often come up repeatedly during a fight; I’ve seen and been in many fights which largely consisted of each person repeating their same points. This is even more likely if the fight encompasses an entire society and lasts for decades or even longer. In many cases, the fights are so formulaic that anyone who has watched enough fights around controversial topics can predict with a high degree of accuracy how any given fight around those topics will unfold (arguments made, counterarguments made in response, the cruel names and accusations each will make toward the other, etc.). It’d be funny if it weren’t so depressing.
Some people fight because that’s how they were raised, and they never learned a better approach. Others fight out of fear over what might happen if they don’t get their way. Still others fight because fighting satisfies their ego, especially when they insult someone, yell, or turn to violence. I believe I experienced a combination of all of that a few years ago when I expressed some concerns to someone close to me at the time. A few sentences in and before I’d fully explained my concerns, she started interrupting me, denying everything I said, cursing, bringing in irrelevant things she disliked about me, and otherwise escalating the exchange into a fight. After a great deal of this, I said, “This makes me not want to bring up my concerns anymore.” She responded with something completely unrelated instead of addressing what I said or even acknowledging that I had said anything. Even though that fight eventually settled down and ended in a somewhat civil manner, we still wasted about an hour in which there was much hostility, anger, interruption, and no actual resolution for or at least attempted resolution of the concerns I brought up. That made the relationship even more strained than it already was and became one of the stepping stones toward its eventual demise. Looking back, I wish I had ended the exchange as soon as she started interrupting and attacking me instead of struggling through all of that with nothing good to show for it.
Some may think that fighting is sometimes a necessary part of solving problems, especially if they see two individuals fighting before working things out. What they’re not considering is that those individuals worked things out after the fight ended and both of them could connect peacefully. Further, even if fighting occurs before a problem is solved, there’s no way to know how much faster the problem could have been solved without the prior fight, or if an even better solution could have been developed without the fatigue and frustration that come with every fight.
Anyone who has studied human history knows that the same problems have kept recurring for millennia, despite all the fighting that has been done around them. Anytime a problem arises and two or more people fight about it, they move further away from the problem and whatever they can do to work on it. The longer they fight, the further away from the problem they move and the less likely they are to solve it. Everyone only has a certain amount of time and energy and fighting wastes huge amounts of both; none of those wasted resources can then be spent on solving problems. The result of this constant fighting for most of human history is an unfathomable number of murdered humans, countless strained and broken relationships, and enough weaponry to kill all humans and most other living creatures all while many are without enough quality water, food, shelter, and other bare essentials for survival. There must be a better way.
The good news is that there is a better way! What actually solves problems is identifying the emotions of everyone involved, making sure that everyone’s concerns are heard and understood by everyone else, and then finding a solution that makes everyone better off. It’s amazing how much being genuinely interested in the concerns of others opens them up to being interested in your concerns. This allows problems to be solved. In contrast, when A is closed off to the concerns of others, that also tends to make others closed off to A’s concerns. This makes problems stick around indefinitely.
The speed of proper problem solving is incredible. When two or more individuals stop fighting, relax, and work through a problem together, a problem that has stood for decades can be resolved in an incredibly short period of time (the amount varies depending on how big the problem is and how effectively those involved work through it). A wonderful example of this occurred when Mister Rogers sought funding for public television. In less than ten minutes, he succeeded where everyone before him failed over two days. His quiet, gentle, compassionate, and sincere approach moved this and many other mountains during his life.
Here’s a dynamic I’ve seen and been in at least a dozen times: a man and a woman (usually a romantic couple but not always) will have an exchange that becomes heated, he wants space to process things before continuing, she’ll keep pressuring him to work everything out right away, and he walks away in frustration, usually after saying some things out of anger that he doesn’t actually mean. Two friends of mine experienced this repeatedly in their marriage until they figured out an effective way to avoid it: when he feels sufficiently overwhelmed, he’ll voice that, take some time to himself to decompress, and then return to finish talking through the rest of the issue with her. That keeps him from saying things in the heat of the moment that he doesn’t mean and gives them both the closure they need to solve the problem together and strengthen their relationship.
Perhaps the strangest part of all of this is the fact that some folks will fight even when they know they’re in a sensitive situation in which much will be lost if it goes badly. You’d think they’d do better when so much is at stake but, if anything, they do worse. Fortunately, some get it right. Chris Voss, former hostage negotiator and author of Never Split the Difference, is one example. He shows that the same excellent communication skills that can safely free hostages can also make positive differences for families, friends, business partners, and more. He’s not the only one, either. In addition to discussing the importance of listening with the intent to understand in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey also encourages everyone to seek Win/Win solutions that make everyone better off instead of solutions that make one or more individuals worse off. Similarly to Chris Voss, Daryl Davis, Christian Picciolini, and Megan Phelps-Roper all show that this stuff works incredibly effectively in the real world, not just in books.
Marshall Rosenberg’s central point in Nonviolent Communication is about empathically connecting with those who are in pain to find their needs. He shares an amazing example that shows he was a master of this, even when he had just been verbally attacked by the very man with whom he empathically connected. The authors of Crucial Conversations talk a lot about the importance of safety in conversation. When everyone feels safe enough to contribute to a conversation, everyone benefits, and even the most difficult issues can be worked out peacefully. However, when sufficient safety is absent, then contributions may be made in a hostile manner that results in their immediate rejection; others may not contribute at all if they fear being yelled at, hit, or ostracized for sharing their perspectives. The best communicators know how to create and maintain a safe environment for conversation, as well as how to recover safety if it has been lost.
All of the above effective communication and conflict resolution skills can be difficult to use in the heat of the moment. That’s why it can sometimes be helpful for two folks who have an issue with each other to bring in a third person. The third person isn’t there to pick sides, choose a “winner,” or anything else of the sort. Rather, that person is there to keep the peace, make sure each person feels heard and understood by the other, and guide both of them toward a mutually beneficial solution while ensuring that the exchange stays on track. This can sometimes bring about an effective solution after all other methods have failed.
I’m much less inclined to fight since my dog Sawyer’s death. Without my best friend to help me feel better after butting heads with someone else, I fear that such interactions will either destroy me or result in me destroying them. As such, I avoid whenever possible those who choose to fight and who attempt to pressure me into fighting back. I want to be around those who bring out the best in me rather than the worst. I deeply appreciate those close to me who can talk effectively through problems while they’re still small, have civil conversations instead of fights, and ask questions rather than running with negative assumptions. For now, that means my circle is quite small. I’m ok with that. It’s quality that matters the most to me, and I’m thankful for my high-quality friends and family members who continue to make my life better.
Pingback: Healing: Obstacles and Opportunities | The Tartt Take