fbpx

Tag: #conflictresolution

Posted on

The Ladder of Inference

The biggest determining factor of the quality of our relationships is the quality of our communication. And the quality of our relationships greatly influences the quality of our life. In fact, some say that the quality of our relationships is the quality of our life.

Therefore, I would argue that communication is the most important skill for life. In that vein, I would like to share with you a model for how we process data. The model is called The Ladder of Inference (shown below).

The ladder has seven steps (starting at the bottom rung):

  1. Observable data and experiences. These are the raw facts that we hear and see. Let’s use an example: Last week Friday I told my friend Jim that I found it unfair that when we go out he never pays for anything. I played football with Jim on Monday and we talked briefly on the phone on Tuesday. I see him in the mall on Thursday and he passes me straight without saying hello and he looks angry. That’s the data.
  2. Select data. This is the data that we choose to designate as important while ignoring the rest. In this example I select the fact that I told Jim about his cheap ways and now he passes me straight and he looks angry. I completely ignore the other two times that I interacted with Jim.
  3. Add meaning. At this stage we interpret the data and add some meaning to it based on our personal and cultural values. So now I conclude that Jim must be angry with me because he passed me straight. I add this meaning because that’s what I would do if I was angry at someone (personal) and because in my culture to not acknowledge someone you know is an affront.
  4. Make assumptions. Now I make the assumption that Jim is angry at me because I reproached him about his cheapskate behaviour.
  5. Draw conclusions. At this stage we come to some grand theory. I conclude that Jim has only been using me to get free drinks all along. He was never really my friend.
  6. Adopt beliefs. This high up on the inference ladder, my conclusions based on this situation become firmly held beliefs – People will use you for your money if you let them. All people are interested in is what they can get from you.
  7. Take action. At the top of the ladder I act based on my beliefs. I treat everyone with scepticism and distrust and don’t buy drinks for anyone unless they buy for me first.

What actually happened was that Jim had just heard that a thief had broken into his house, so he was angry and hurrying home to appraise the situation. His mind was so preoccupied that he did not even see me even though I walked right past him.

The steps taken up the inference ladder in this example sound crazy given the reality, right? But this is what we do all the time. The most insidious thing about the ladder of inference is that our beliefs dictate the data we select next time. We are biased to ‘seeing’ only what we already believe. The good news is that we can counteract this cycle with three simple habits:

  1. Be aware of our thought process. Ask yourself, “Is this a fact or an assumption? Am I making a fair conclusion here? Is there something I could be missing? Am I 100% sure that I have all the information?”
  2. Be open and transparent about your thought process. Let people know what you are thinking. Chances are they can fill in some missing context.
  3. Ask people about their thought processes. It’s highly likely everyone else is busy climbing up their inference ladder too. Pause and ask, “How did you come to that conclusion? Why did you say that? What’s your thought process? Why did you choose that course of action?”

Keeping the ladder of inference in mind (pun intended) has the potential to improve the quality of our communication drastically. Try it out and see the positive effects in your relationships!

Click the hyperlink to learn more about the ladder of inference.

Joyfully,

Copyright 2018, Matik Nicholls. All rights reserved.

Posted on

Look Bacchanal!

In Trinidad and Tobago, the word bacchanal means confusion, argument or scandal. I’ve seen more bacchanal in my lifetime than I care to admit, but on the plus side, it has afforded me a wealth of experience in dealing with conflict.

What I’ve observed is that how people deal with conflict can be described on a sliding scale with avoidance (passive) on one end and confrontation (aggressive) on the other. Most people have a natural tendency that falls somewhere on this scale. We foster healthy relationships neither by avoiding conflict nor by constant confrontation.

By constantly shying away from having difficult conversations about sensitive or emotive issues avoiders rarely experience deep meaningful relationships. Avoiders will not tell people their real feelings in order to keep the peace. They seem like they are the ‘good guys’ next to the more aggressive confronters but they are just as toxic to a relationship. Often, they resort to passive aggressive behaviours. Then the only clue that you may get from an avoider you have offended are some sarcastic remarks in passing conversation.

I remember in my first supervisory position I couldn’t look at people in the eye when giving them negative feedback. It took me some years of self-development before I could hold those types of difficult conversations but even now I don’t like doing it.

Some examples of avoidance behaviours at its worst:

  • Using public forums to address personal offenses covertly with general statements such as when making work presentations or delivering sermons from the pulpit or ranting on Facebook.
  • Creating organizational policies to address one person’s behaviour.

Not all avoiders are this externally toxic of course. Many will just harbour bitterness and resentment quietly for a lifetime. There is a famous article by Bronnie Ware that talks about the 5 Top Regrets of Dying People based on her experience giving palliative care to dying patients. Number 3 was; I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings. Living without saying how you really feel is a tragic existence.

Confronters do not suffer from any problems of pent up feelings. Confronters have no interest in maintaining harmony or not hurting the other person’s feelings. They often appear to be the ‘bad guys’ always causing bacchanal. Their need to get the issue off their chest or prove their point is the overriding motivation. The result is often that they come across as aggressive and the result is more destructive than constructive as far as building trusting healthy relationships is concerned.

Some examples of confrontation behaviour at its worst:

  • Cussing out people when they feel unfairly treated.
  • Personal attacks on Facebook.

I have highlighted the very extreme ends of the scale only to make the distinction very clear. Most people, thankfully, will reside closer to centre with a tendency in either direction and will display a mix of these behaviours. So, let me offer a more balanced way of handling conflict; open and honest dialogue.

Open and honest dialogue recognizes that issues need to be brought into the open in order to be resolved while simultaneously recognizing that everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. This type of engagement focuses on the issues not the personalities and has relationship building as it’s goal. This subtle shift is very powerful. The goal is no longer to keep the peace nor is it to assign blame. The relationship is prioritized as the most important thing.

This mindset demands that avoiders share their true feelings directly with the person. It also demands that confronters consider how the message will be received and therefore strive not to communicate in a way that could be interpreted as a personal attack. The bible calls it speaking the truth in love. You have to do both.

To do this it is most useful to consider:

  1. Choosing a place and time which brings out the best attitudes in both parties.
  2. Leading with more questions than statements.
  3. Making as few inferences as possible, assuming pure motives on both sides.
  4. Talking about the issues or situations and how they made you feel rather than making judgemental statements.

Here’s an example: Don’t say, “Matik yuh selfish, greedy bastard! Yuh eat meh cake again!” Do say, “Matik I was looking forward to eating my slice of cake all day and when I came home and it was gone I was so disappointed and upset. Did you eat it? Why?”

Where there are human relations, there will be conflict. Living a joyful life necessitates a mindset of treating conflict not as an opposition to relationship but as an opportunity for deeper relationship.

Joyfully,

Copyright 2017, Matik Nicholls