More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
These attacks are designed to get the other person to give in and agree with what we want.
We may also use counterattack–blame as a way to control other people’s behavior.
I believe that we have created a social environment that has reinforced the development of abusive character in a growing segment of our population.
The behavior of aggressive personality types who misuse power and act belligerently can still be defensive at its core. In the majority of cases, abusive people feel they are fighting for their own survival and are not conscious that they are attacking or manipulating someone else.
Feeling powerless and victimized—even when one’s behavior is offensive and self-serving—is a trait many persons carry from childhood into adulthood.
A bullying way of life based on counterattack–blame often grows out of a dog-eat-dog view of the world.
we often communicate in a way that increases conflict instead of resolving it.
we may sometimes be reluctant to answer a question because our answers can be used against us. Further, we also frequently resist asking questions for fear of being seen as invasive and prying.
We have two primary formats for using questions adversarially. The first is to use questions as statements in disguise; the second is to use entrapping questions to put a person in a compromising position.
we hide our judgment behind the shield of a question.
Here are just a few examples of how we mask statements as questions.
We have three basic ways of turning a question into a statement of our own opinions and feelings: tone of voice, body language, and adding words.
Voice Tones That Can Make a Question Defensive
Body Language That Can Make a Question Defensive
Words That Can Make a Question Defensive
Gotcha! Multiple choices with no right answer.
Many entrapping questions are phrased in the context of having only two possible answers—
Either answer carries certain implications.
Questions seeking a self-incriminating yes or no.
Another common entrapping question is, “Do you want to know a better way to do that?”
Formats for Entrapping Questions
Instead of using statements as tools for clarity and understanding, we often use them to control other people’s opinions and feelings.
We misleadingly objectify, stating our opinion as fact (Aristotelian logic), or we ardently convince (Aristotelian rhetoric), trying to persuade or coerce others into agreeing with us.
Many of us hear and make statements every day that turn our own personal experience and beliefs into a generalized truth:
If you do not agree with me, you will automatically be in an adversarial position. If you make your disagreement known, the subsequent interaction could easily turn into a right/wrong verbal battle.
When we use inclusive nouns such as “you,” “we,” and “it” to represent everyone or every situation, we generalize our own experience.
We also objectify our personal experience by using state-of-being verbs—such as “is”—that effectively turn opinion into fact.
Words That Turn Subjective Opinions into Statements of Fact
According to Aristotle’s model, when someone resists the “truth” of our message we must switch to what he calls rhetoric, the “art of persuasion.”
When we use persuasion with anyone, even someone we love and respect, we reduce that person to the status of someone who needs to be manipulated.
Whenever we are invested in punishing the person who resists our efforts at control, we are using predictions punitively.
Regardless of its magnitude, a punishing prediction is destructive to relationships.
Falsely threatening predictions.
we want to instill the fear of punishment, but we are not driven to punish or retaliate if our warnings go unheeded.
Predicting Rewards
We don’t want to resort to punishment, so we offer the bribe to try to get control in a positive way.
Because the bribe is really, at its core, our attempt to control someone else’s will, we may often resort to threats if the bribe is turned down.
I believe that all our institutionally prescribed ways of using questions, statements, and predictions break our trust with each other. They not only fail to help us resolve conflict, they literally cause defensiveness.
our predominant ways of talking to each other move us toward conflict instead of resolution, judgment instead of learning, resistance instead of openness, anger instead of love.
The character of a non-defensive question is never harsh, accusatory, or interrogating. It is gentle, respectfully offering others an invitation to speak.
Essentially, a non-defensive question is innocently curious—
We ask a question solely for the purpose of discovery. We have no hidden agenda, no goal beyond wanting to clarify our understanding.
whenever we inject feelings like hurt or anger, the “question” turns into a statement.
Most people tell me that when they hear a question asked in the tone of a statement, it sounds more neutral and they feel freer to answer truthfully.
Our question should be a genuine invitation for the other person to speak.
A non-defensive question helps people crystallize what they think, feel, and believe. It enables them to clarify their position to themselves and to us.
by making open, curious questions the foundation of a conversation, we gain as much clarity as another is willing to offer before we respond with our own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
Mental preparation
The mechanics of a non-defensive question require us to shift our focus momentarily from ourselves to the other person. That shift helps to move us out of our own feelings long enough to be receptive to what the other person has to say.
most of us continue to swim around in our own reactions, reluctant to come up for breath long enough to find out what the other person actually means.
