Why productive conflict resolution is so rare

Have you noticed a disconcerting trend with most conflicts in your life? A nagging yet nebulous feeling of uneasiness surrounding them? A general dearth of insight regarding the ins and outs of why and how they occurred. A disappointment with a majority of their half-baked resolutions, which seem to amount more to sweeping most contentions under the rug and tacitly agreeing to feigned forgetfulness than actual closure?

I know I have. I started noticing it during my teenage years, as my until then enduring bond with my sister started souring with pubertyDon't worry, it's all good now. Teenhood is life's hazing; once you make it out the other end, it progressively gets better., and our verbal altercations rose in frequency and vitriol.

What is wrong with the typical dispute? #

I'm not the biggest fan of shouting matches. Moderate social tension is enough to put me on edge. I'm also under the impression that I have naturally more qualms to start flinging vicious personal barbs than the averageI'm more of an obnoxious erosion than nuclear mortar type.. This means that despite usually bearing the brunt of the lambasting, I don't even get to participate in most of the fun. All of that to say I possess an ample source of motivation to minimize this type of interaction.

As such, I started spiraling into anguish pretty quickly when I realized we had the exact same fights every two weeks and never seemed to make any progress. If the content of the aspersions didn't offer any solution at face value, I inferred the real issue must lie deeper. I'd try to bring it up during our bouts, pleading for fledgling truces dedicated to delineating the root of the conflict, but to no avail. I couldn't help thinking there had to be a better solution than this.

Primed by this experience, I increasingly started to spot these breakdowns in communication in every area of life, ranging from mild to severe and independent of my direct involvement.

It didn't matter if it was with friends and family, at work, or between strangers on the internet. So much conflict, so little productivity. Most of the time, even the contenders don't really seem to know what they're actually fighting about. And it's not like the settlements are any better. Usually, one party eventually gives up and hightails or yields, at least in appearances. Other times, a shoddy compromise is half-agreed upon without ever considering whether it genuinely addresses any of the underlying problems. Again and again, the senselessness of the whole affair irked me. There definitely had to be a better way to go about this.

When I discovered Nonviolent Communication a few years later, I knew I had just found what I had been looking for all this time. I finally had a framework to explain why conflict happened and how to resolve it.

Before we get into alleviating strategies, let's try to understand the problem first.

The empathy bottleneck #

The theory of constraints #

The theory of constraints posits that every system is held back by its smallest bottleneck, which reduces the entire output to the latter's maximum capacity. As such, the key lever to unlocking a higher level of productivity is to identify and widen it. Think of a clogged tube, for example. Despite having a 5 cm diameter, if it's restrained to 2 cm for a short section by a tight elastic, its maximum flow will be capped by this constraint💡If you'd like to read more about the theory of constraints, you can check out this post by Tiago Forte on the topic. It's also got some visual examples, which may help you understand it faster..

It's an interesting framing when you set about implementing changes to a system, as according to it, only a very limited number of actions will lead to any substantive impact. Indeed, you won't reap the benefits of any other optimization until you've addressed the smallest bottleneck, since it represents the hard limit of the whole shebang.

Say we have two elastics on our 5 cm tube, causing a 3 cm and a 2 cm constraint. If you only remove the 3 cm one, the tube is still capped at 2 cm. If you only remove the 2 cm one, the tube is now capped at 3 cm, which is an improvement. Lastly, if you remove the 3 cm elastic first and its counterpart second, you have now unlocked the full 5 cm girth. However, you could only see the results of this compound optimization after removing the smallest bottleneck.

The questionable state of human conflict resolution #

In our case, we're interested in the system of human conflict resolution. I'd say it's still pretty dismal and has significant room for improvement. It'd be a gargantuan task to paint a comprehensive picture, so let's just abstract it into these two striking examples. If we consider violence as a conflict resolution failure, which I do, here are a few stats that support my point.

On the interpersonal scale, according to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, about 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 menMore precisely, 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men. See Tables 4.7 and 4.8 on pages 44 and 45. It categorizes severe physical violence as anything beyond a slap, push or shove. aged 18 and older have been the victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime in the US.

Based on data by the UCDP, there have been a total of 1 533 642 direct civilian and military deaths in conflicts and one-sided violenceDisease and famine not included. You can visualize the data on the Deaths in conflicts, World, 1989 to 2021 chart of OurWorldInData.org/war-and-peace.
Source: the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset. worldwide so far in the 21st century (from 2000 to 2021 included). So on average, that's about 191 deaths directly caused by conflict every day, and that's while living in one of the most peaceful periods of the last 600 years.

Obviously, these stats are the result of a complicated interweaving of factors. Yet, if we focus on the interpersonal scale through the conceptual lens of the theory of constraint, I believe that the main bottleneck is our widespread lack of proper empathic inquirySome people may broadly encapsulate this concept within "emotional intelligence". I'm not the biggest fan of the term for several reasons. Having to stitch "intelligence" to emotional maturity in an attempt to boost the latter's perceived legitimacy seems more like an abdication to the zeitgeist responsible for its neglect than an emphasis on its importance to me. However, in our current case, its main issue is simply that it's too broad and vague.. In order to understand why, we have to take a look at the inner workings of conflict.

Understanding conflict #

In a nutshell, conflict is the presence of mutually incompatible desires between different parties, such that if one gets their way, the other(s) won't. If Mary wants to blast music at max volume while John, who's sitting right next to her, wants to focus in peace then conflict will occur. Same thing if they both want the last piece of cake. However, that definition is a bit too simplistic and muddles distinct elements into the same conceptual goop, which is in fact a big part of the problem.

Human needs #

According to the Nonviolent Communication (NVC) framework, human preferences are informed by needs at their core. These include basic survival needs (like air, food, sleep and shelter) but also broader components of a fulfilling existence (such as love, creativity, harmony, independence, learning, and many more).

These needs branch out into more specific predilections (e.g. your favorite food), but they carry a lot less weight on your well-being in the grand scheme of things. Would you rather forgo sleep or ice cream for two weeks?

Indeed, it's important to note that these needs are primary and, as such, mostly agnostic and permissive. They don't require very specialized means or situations to be fulfilled. Regardless of personal preference, both pasta and zucchinis can satisfy a need for food. Similarly, many different people can meet someone's need for intimacy. There is no need catering monopoly.

It's also possible to withstand most needs being unfulfilled for a substantial amount of time, aside from the most basic survival ones. Granted, it probably won't be very enjoyable. This is why I usually prefer to refer to this concept as yearnings or values since they carry less connotation of "neediness".

A need's state of fulfillment is what gives rise to feelings. Satisfied needs usually generate emotions, which we tend to label as "positive", such as gratitude, delight, calmness, captivation, or tenderness, to name a few. Unmet needs, on the other hand, engender "negative" emotions like dread, frustration, contempt, apathy, despair, shame, and many more.

Although everyone has access to the same pool of needs, they aren't all valued to the same extent, depending on the individual.

We're naturally wired to seek the fulfillment of our needs. In order to do so, we come up with various strategies. There are usually many different options available for the latter because of the broadness of each need. For instance, if you're hungry, you could cook a meal or go to the restaurant, and there are many possibilities when it comes to the specific recipe.

Yet if there's this much leeway, how come we can't settle on better compromises more often?

Misdirection & Confusion #

Unfortunately, most of us are unclear about this inner process. It's quite rare for someone to be able to name their specific needs at play. Conflict arises when the strategies deployed by different people come at odds, and they perceive a threat to the impelling needs behind them. However, our awareness of the situation is usually pretty limited. We're spurred to action by a sudden experience of unpleasant feelings, and in an attempt to get rid of them, we infer an interpretation of their cause so we can put a stop to our discomfort.

The actual needs and feelings are always "valid", however the interpretations overlaid on top of them most often aren't. If someone is feeling an emotion, that's a real "objective" fact. They are indeed feeling it. Furthermore, according to NVC where there's a feeling there's a need, so there should at least be one of those involved too. Nevertheless, there isn't any guarantee regarding how accurately they will identify said feelings and needs. The same goes for the story they'll wrap over them as an explanation, which can frequently be completely off-base.

Alas, people tend to disregard introspective inquiry. Instead, they fall madly in love with a single interpretation paired with a single need-fulfillment strategy and fight to the death over both. They'll identify with second- or third-order thoughts superimposed on their emotions and only communicate about the latter, adding new layers of confusion and misdirection for their interlocutors. Because these masquerading thoughts aren't the actual crux of the issue, "fixing" them may prove completely fruitless.

The genuine pain point is always the need, not all the superfluous malarkey plastered onto it. At its core, what truly pisses people off isn't this superficial layer of the conflict, but that you're not "getting it". Not only are their needs not being met, but it even feels like their mere existence is being invalidated.

Sadly, this pattern often spirals from singular conflicts to overall mindsets.

The dearth of empathy in practice #

Feedback loops #

Genuine connection is a need in its own right. Whether or not we're aware of it, we're all craving palpable empathy—to be understood, to have our needs acknowledged and respected. Either this was the instigating issue of the conflict in the first place, or these new deprived needs go pile up with the others. In both cases, misidentifying the needs at play and poor communication only exacerbate strife.

To make matters worse, the longer said needs remain unaddressed the more defensive we become, and our receptiveness to those of others plummets proportionally. Indeed, the more guarded we become, the less we're willing to be candid and vulnerable, which would ironically be the best way to dispel the confusion. Additionally, as we feel increasingly misunderstood and hurt, our resentment starts creeping up whilst our good graces evaporate. "If the other person is being such an ass, I don't see why I should try to understand their point of view." This inauspicious trend is all the more amplified when we get the impression that the people we're interacting with are willfully scorning our grievances.

As you can imagine, it's far too easy for these dynamics to devolve into a vicious cycle where nothing ever gets resolved and the situation only keeps getting worse. Furthermore, when such occurrences are repeated, this dynamic starts permeating our baseline mindset. It's not like the slate is wiped clean at the end of every conversation.

If someone has only ever been accustomed to receiving very little empathy and understanding, they'll be highly defensive by default. Plus, they're starting out with a pretty shoddy tool set for conflict resolution due to the lack of positive examples. All of their subsequent interactions and conflicts start at a disadvantage. When you're communicating with someone, you're also unwittingly dealing with the baggage of all their previous run-ins.

All of this sounds pretty dire, but is what I'm describing really that big a deal? Does it truly have that much of an impact on everyday life?

Don't underestimate feelings #

You might be tempted to say that I've only been talking about some hurt feelings here and there. Surely, these puny subjective vagaries don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. After all, aren't we a rational and civilized species concerned with loftier matters? It's not like Joe Schmoe is going to overrule the laws of thermodynamics by being keenly butthurt.

I could retort by asking whether you've ever opened a social media app, but that would be a bit too flimsy an answer, so allow me to further elaborate.

The thing is, humans are social animals optimized for collaboration and thus highly attuned to collective harmony far more than rigorous rationality. Social psychology has demonstrated multiple times that our reality is highly prone to intersubjective malleability. From Sherif's autokinetic effect experiments and the definitely foolproof induction of reliable social norms of objective measurements to Asch's conformity experiments and the curbing of truthWhen it's not our moral principles, as shown by Milgram. to soothe social acceptance, just to name a couple.

Facts don't care about your feelings, and the fact of the matter is that feelings don't care about your factsThis isn't a prescriptive statement on my part, merely an observation.. A phenomenon that Edward Bernays fully and successfully exploited when he turned bacon into the staple "all-American breakfast" by pioneering a potent mix of weaponized statistics and arguments from authority or got women to smoke to further the feminist causeHey, technically, fewer women equals lesser potential for oppression, doesn't it? The math holds up. Seize the means of pollution and reclaim your torches of freedom from health!.

More often than not, our more social needs for empathy, validation, and getting along supersede those for impartial deduction and pragmatic productivity. I'd wager you can easily find numerous examples of this in everyday life. It's pretty common knowledge that the personable incompetent loafer will usually long outlast the abrasive lone wolf high-achiever in most companies. It's also why, in spite of middling to deficient experimental proof of efficiency, many people favor alternative medicines. Their practitioners tend to exude a touch of reassuring warmth, which is frequently enough to beat their competition.

As such, when propagated on the global scale, the makeup of John Schmoe's rancor becomes, in fact, acute cause for concern. Say, it could go so far as to affect who gets chosen as the leader of the current most influential country in the world, no biggie. I mean, certainly, the people would elect anyone but a competent, composed person who's got their shit together and more pressing concerns than daily bouts of mudslinging on TwitterI'm definitely not making a pointed reference to a fairly recent event. Any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is purely coincidental..

Alright then, so if we'd better start getting a move on, what can be done to reverse this downward spiral of parochial acrimony?

Breaking the cycle #

Let's end this first post on a slightly more hopeful note. After all, feedback loops go both ways. They have the potential for vicious and virtuous cycles alike.

If we want to resolve conflict constructively, achieve better understanding and compromises, improve our odds of actually affecting change, and slowly start resorbing the damage worldwide, we'll have to start dropping some of the bad habits we've inherited.

First, keep the empathy feedback loop in mind. People will tend to match your energy over time in either direction. If you dive in heated and nasty straight out of the gate, you're off to a bad start. On the other hand, if you continuously do your best to deescalate the animosity level, it'll become increasingly difficult for the other party to keep being a temperamental gremlin in good conscience. It's almost always a good idea to take a moment to cool off before any interaction, if necessary.

As the saying goes, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. There's a reason the golden rule and recurrent leitmotiv of Dale Carnegie's famous book How to win friends and influence people is "Don't criticize, condemn or complain". Most of the other principles he espouses are also based on optimizing for the virtuous cycle and avoiding what's likely to lure out the opposite.

Second, try to see where the other party is really coming from. Unfortunately, they fairly often won't be particularly helpful in this endeavor. So do your best to triangulate the actual core needs based on what you can infer from the situation, and iterate based on their feedback. Most people might not be very good at identifying their needs by default, but if you formulate them well enough, they can tell whether you've hit the nail on the head or not. You should notice when you do, as it usually comes with a pretty sharp drop in tension. It's the interpersonal equivalent of finally breaking free from constipation.

Depending on the situation, deploying the entire empathic sleuthing apparatus can be superfluous. However, if you're trying to get someone to embrace a broader perspective (such as one including yours), you'll get highly suboptimal results until they get the sense that you're broadly aware and respectful of their ongoing needs. This step is almost always a prerequisite for conflict resolution. In any case, the other party will definitely feel a lot better about you and the interaction if you extended them a suitable amount of consideration in the process.

I'll dive into more practical details of the Nonviolent Communication framework in the second and final part of this series, but for the time being, let's wrap this up.

Conclusion #

I want to emphasize that I don't believe conflict to be intrinsically bad, nor am I advocating for its eradication. I value agency and human needs. It's par for the course that the differing desires of individuals will clash now and then. I enjoy authentic diversity and recoil at the idea of the artificial peace brought about by the dull hive mind of a completely homogeneous society. Nevertheless, I'd be happy if we could get to a place where we don't feel the constant urge to psychologically or physically maim each other over petty squabbles.

If we want to have any chance of shifting our current conflict dynamic, it's instrumental to understand why and how it's happening. This applies to both its general patterns and the core issue behind each specific situation. When we don't understand ourselves, much less the other, the odds of a solution emerging are very slim.

Very often, conflict doesn't arise from irreconcilable needs but rather from mutually incompatible strategies to fulfill them. Therefore, it's usually possible to find an alternative that respects the essential requirements of all parties involved. This process is greatly hindered by the muddling of strategies, interpretations, feelings, and needs. Coming up with an optimal compromise requires an environment of candid collaboration fostered through the demonstration of empathic inquiry.