Excuse me, how to empathize effectively?

Looking at problems from the perspective of others is often to eliminate misunderstandings between people.

A good way to promote communication.

However, as consumers, the more they stand from the point of view of merchants, the more they think about the reasons why merchants refuse to apologize, make and sell fakes, and monopolize business, the more they can't forgive merchants; As an employee, the more you stand from the boss's point of view, the easier it is to have opinions about the boss. This is especially true as a citizen.

Scientific American Mind warns us that if we do it in the wrong way at the wrong time, it may have the opposite effect.

In 2007, a young Palestinian named Tariq attended a special summer camp. The summer camp was initiated by the SeedsofPeace Foundation. The summer camp organized a group of young Palestinians like Tarek to live with a group of young Israelis, including boating and hiking together. More importantly, young Palestinians and Israelis exchanged ideas and explained the impact of the conflict between the two countries on their lives. Organizers hope to promote the revolutionary friendship between the young people of the two countries through this week-long summer camp.

However, for Tarek, the summer camp did not achieve his expected results. Tarek originally thought that listening to Israeli young people telling their stories and feelings could make them sing and eliminate hostility towards each other. However, this did not work. Despite listening to each other's stories and even thinking from the perspective of Israeli young people, Tarek can't feel more sympathy for each other.

What we often say about empathy is called empathy in psychology. Our intuition and a large number of psychological theories believe that the adoption of opinions can solve many problems in interpersonal relationships. Understanding other people's experiences and feelings can reduce prejudice, bridge political differences and even end violent conflicts.

. Conflicts between people and groups are often caused by lack of understanding. Therefore, if the two sides take time to sit down for a cup of tea, they can enhance their understanding and know their similarities, so as to resolve their differences and digest contradictions.

This logic holds true in most cases. Decades of research shows that the adoption of opinions can usually deepen the feelings between people and make people produce more altruistic behaviors such as mutual assistance and cooperation. It makes people more generous, even to those members of the opposition who are dismissive. However, opinion selection sometimes doesn't work, and more and more studies have found that opinion selection will have opposite or even harmful effects.

People often take opinions as a way to solve the long-standing contradictions between different ethnic and political groups. Tarek's experience shows that this strategy may fall into a misunderstanding. After attending the "Seeds of Peace" summer camp for two years, Tarek met Emile, a neuroscientist who studied group conflict psychology at MIT. Emile Bruno, working with Bruno. Bruno said that a large number of studies show that in different groups, the adoption of opinions can enhance the dominant group's view of vulnerable groups. For example, thinking about the situation of a homeless person can give ordinary people greater motivation to help him. But for two conflicting opposing groups, thinking from each other's perspective cannot eliminate hatred.

Bruno recently pointed out that for the opposing groups in the conflict, the adoption of opinions will have a completely different impact on both sides of the conflict. In a forthcoming paper, Bruno studied the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians in Europe and the relationship between white Americans and Mexican immigrants in North America. It is found that the dominant groups in the conflict (here, Israelis and white Americans) will have a more positive view of the vulnerable groups (corresponding to Palestinians and Mexican immigrants) after empathy; But on the contrary, for the disadvantaged groups, thinking from each other's point of view can not produce a positive view of each other. In fact, after listening to the views of white Americans, Mexican immigrants' views on white Americans became worse.

The adoption of the viewpoint seems to have the opposite effect on the vulnerable groups in the conflict. The possible explanation is that these vulnerable groups and individuals spend a lot of energy thinking from the perspective of the strong. So repeating the same thing many times will not bring different results. Consumers are fed up with the submission of businesses again and again, and no amount of explanation will help.

University of Illinois psychologist Michael? MichaelKraus and his colleagues pointed out in a paper published on 20 1 1 that people at the bottom of society are easily influenced by others, and they will spend more time and energy studying other people's ideas instead of changing the status quo through their own efforts. In addition, vulnerable groups, such as students and employees at the bottom of the company, often feel that their opinions are not taken seriously and no one wants to listen to their opinions. So it is difficult for them to concentrate on listening to other people's opinions.

Through research, Bruno found that it is not "viewpoint selection" but "viewpoint giving" that can make the attitude of the vulnerable groups to the conflicting parties change positively, that is, express their opinions and get the attention of the powerful groups. Bruno believes that the disadvantaged groups have a strong desire to express themselves, and they are eager for their voices to get the attention of others.

Advertisements bombard consumers every day, but they can't hear their voices. Resolve conflicts (between them)

Merchants have to shut up first and let the disadvantaged consumers speak first.

Although business negotiation is not as bloody as violent conflict, it is still full of smoke and conspiracy everywhere, especially when one side of the negotiation uses some dirty tactics. In an unpublished paper, Adam, a psychologist at Northwestern University? AdamGalinsky simulated a business negotiation. He asked one side of the negotiation to imagine the possible strategy of the other side in advance, and then made an amazing discovery. Galinsky said: "Once you are aware of the strategy that the other party may adopt, you are more likely to use immoral means." After studying the other party's strategy, one party may even commit immoral acts against a third party unrelated to the negotiation. For example, participants will lie to researchers and say that they have done a good job on a certain task, even though it has nothing to do with negotiation!

Galinsky believes that fierce competition in business negotiations will make people feel threatened and make negotiators pay too much attention to unethical behaviors such as fraud that the other party may take. This will prompt both sides to adopt dirty tactics, especially when one side feels threatened by the other's tone. Galinsky said: "When you are calm, the adoption of opinions will ease the atmosphere and promote cooperation; When you are angry, standing in the other person's position will add fuel to the emotional fire. "The same is true in daily life. When people feel disappointed and angry, thinking of each other may make people feel worse. When a wife is unhappy, she always imagines what her husband is doing, and what she imagines at this time is never a good thing. Let's pray that no one will put themselves in the shoes when they are in a bad mood.

Seeing this, you may find the research results of Bruno and galinsky quite regrettable. But at least among friends and colleagues, the adoption of opinions can still produce positive effects of cooperation; For both sides of the conflict who need to ease their relations more, adopting opinions may be counterproductive.

But it's not all bad news. Bruno's research actually provides a relatively simple way to alleviate contradictions: that is, among conflicting groups, let the relatively weak party express their views first, that is, express their opinions. For example, in the daily relationship between students and tutors, employees and bosses, people with relatively low status should be allowed to express their views first. In this way, they will feel that they are concerned and contribute to the good development of their relationship.

Business can adopt a similar strategy. Many people think that business negotiation is a zero-sum game process, in which one side takes advantage and the other side suffers. This view tends to make negotiators' mood fluctuate greatly, and it is more likely to have the opposite effect when adopting the view. However, business negotiation can be regarded as a positive sum game, so that both parties can actually get a win-win result. For example, the interests of car salesmen and customers seem to be in conflict.

Salespeople want cars to sell at higher prices, while customers want to buy cars with less money. But in fact, both sides have greater interests: that is, to complete the transaction and achieve the goal together. When both sides of the negotiation focus on each other's interests and strive for a win-win situation, it is more likely to reach an agreement.

Thinking from the perspective of others is one of the most important qualities of human beings, which enables us to cooperate for greater goals and make us care more about others. More importantly, it is necessary to understand that it is not omnipotent, and improper empathy may be counterproductive.