This past Friday evening, I went over to a friend’s house to play a group board game, Settlers of Catan. After playing the game, most of the people packed up and left. I, however, stayed after for several hours and talked with the hosting couple, ... and .... Over the course of the conversation, we discussed relationships extensively. I made the comment that it is not possible to have a deep, healthy relationship without conflict. ... disagreed, saying that his parents never had any conflicts in all the time he was at home.
After a couple shots back and forth about the conflicting views, we realized that we were defining the term conflict differently. I meant conflict to have a general definition, meaning a simple difference of opinions, no matter how small. Any discrepancy between perspectives equated to a conflict; a conflict was just the area in which A did not exactly match B. ...'s premise for disagreement, on the other hand, was an assumption that conflict only meant a resolute decision not to acquiesce to the wishes, intents, or opinions of another: a stubbornness that would strain, or perhaps debilitate, the relationship.
Once we both voiced our views as clearly and comprehensively as possible, we understood the difference between our assumptions. In the end, I determined the meaning of the word conflict by my usage of it, and ... accepted the definition. One common analogy we used was the difference between argument and argument, those terms are very much the same as conflict and conflict. ... and I disagreed with the statement that it is not possible to have a deep, healthy relationship without conflict. Differing term definitions was the basis for the discrepancies between our conclusions. After each explaining our views, ... conceded by accepting my definition for the time being so that we could continue to communicate effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment