Where is the logic? Learn to think systemically. Part 1

I Introduction

The athlete enjoys his physical strength, loves exercises in which his muscles play a role, and the analyst prefers brain activity, giving him the opportunity to explore. He enjoys even the most ordinary cases, representing the opportunity to apply their abilities.

Edgar Allan Poe

For people who are actively winning their place in society, a sufficient amount of literature on public speaking, negotiations, leadership, etc. is now available to help. But the lion’s share of these works is united by the fact that in all of them, the authors teach methods of human relations, methods of influencing people, etc., that are favored by them. This is reminiscent of recipes from the cookbook: “measure out half a glass of theory, sprinkle with a pinch of logic, mix it with courage to your taste ... better serve yourself slightly warmed up”.

I don’t want to impose any kind of ready-made relationship building recipes on you. On the contrary, as a professional IT analyst, I want to push you to actively and skillfully analyze your bones, shine through the light, compare and try for a tooth, the events around you that affect your relationship with the human race. And already on the basis of this analysis, we consciously build our own model and strategy of behavior in society. Perhaps someone, this course will help, looking at a talk show on TV, not to shout its participants the unpleasant truth about them on the screen, but to reasonably and calmly correct their judgments.
')
And for this, I suggest you, together with me in the framework of this article, to speculate on the topic of human communication.

So let's go ...

For any analysis, you need some point of reference. And since, in my opinion, mutual understanding in people’s relationships is still mutual understanding, well, at least for successful relationships, then let's try to cling to this topic.

II About mutual understanding of people

An optical sight point on your forehead is also someone's point of view.
Lee Harvey Oswald.

Often we become witnesses of situations when different people, discussing among themselves their attitude to an event or circumstance, give them diametrically opposite assessments. Roughly speaking, some people call a gray sheet light and others dark. Who is right in this case? If you evaluate meticulously and impartially - no one is right. But in life, such assessments, as usual, are not needed by anyone, the public wants to understand: it’s dark or light. Most people in opposition demonstrate extreme maximalism; half-measures in such situations are not perceived. From anyone who joins this dispute, they are surely waiting for a clear indication of which side he is on. But after all, there is almost always a chance to bring the opposing camps to a common point of view.

1. Establish problems of mutual understanding

It is not by chance that in our reasoning we came to the thesis “point of view”. Literally, it means that, exploring an object from different angles, it can be characterized in different ways. For example, if you look at the cylinder from above, it seems to be a circle, and if from the side it is a rectangle. So they argue: some taldychat: this is a circle, others twist a finger at his temple and claim that this is a rectangle. In a broader sense, “point of view” means a choice for evaluating facts and phenomena, a certain range: properties, qualities, characteristics, priorities. If, in the above example with a gray sheet, to evaluate it as a floor on which you need to sleep after taking a bath, then it is most likely dark, and if you throw it on a dirty floor in order to walk in it in shoes, it is rather light. Immanuel Kant cited a very capacious and elegant example, saying: "One, looking in a puddle, sees dirt in it, and the other reflects the stars in it."

Let's see how you can still get closer to the general consensus and understanding of each other by people. Now, we are not talking about the adoption of one of the sides of the opponent’s point of view, but about understanding why he took precisely this position. Perhaps this will allow a more tolerant attitude towards his choice, help prevent confrontation and force rivals to look for reasonable solutions that will suit everyone. Therefore, in any dispute, it is very important to understand why the opponent had such an idea about the problem and find out what information the parties lack in order to more accurately assess the situation. In the course of such proceedings, new details and facts may open up, and most importantly, the view may change: both of one and both opponents of the problem itself and of the ways of solving it.

From my personal experience as a systems analyst, an even greater obstacle to understanding the problems under discussion is an attempt to evaluate a complex phenomenon, considering it - as a monolith - a single and indivisible whole. The miscalculation in this case lies in the fact that any phenomenon or event is essentially a composite composition of simpler parts. Therefore, each such part must be evaluated on its own. And these estimates can vary greatly both among themselves and with the overall rating of the composition as a whole. In addition to the evaluations of each component themselves, the weight of evaluation of this ingredient in the overall ensemble should also be taken into account. It is hard not to agree with Mark Tullius Cicero, who said: "Arguments should not be considered, but weighed." For example, choosing a product in a supermarket, especially an intricate product, you first of all evaluate the whole composition, I mean packaging. Having stopped your eyes on one of them, you take it and the next step - see the composition of the ingredients. And only having assessed the quality of each of them, you make your choice: put the packaging in your basket or back on the shelf. But the most interesting thing is that if you abandoned a product, someone following you can choose it, although he also carefully read the composition. This does not mean that he is stupid or blind, just the overall assessment of the product as a whole did not coincide with you.

For a better understanding, the opposite effect should be considered when a person laments about the deterioration of some particular business position, but does not even try to compare the facts and see the obvious that this loss occurs against the background of a general improvement in the state of affairs in general and is actually a pawn donation for the sake of overall positional success. This is especially noticeable with systemic changes in people's lives, when a person is genuinely indignant, how bad it has become now and how good it was before. And with leading questions, it turns out that he has now updated the car and allowed himself to do a good repair - this is a matter of course - a due, but the fact that now there are minor inconveniences is annoying.

As in a joke:

- How do you serve firefighters?
- Oh, everything is wonderful and they feed and put on both a great vacation and benefits for the whole family, But when the fire is up, at least quit!

After we have fixed for ourselves the main problems that we want to explore, the next step is to find the factors that in one way or another affect them.

2. Find out the factors affecting mutual understanding

In the above reasoning there is one “hitch” - the so-called social filters. This phenomenon is manifested in the fact that most people, under the influence of the closest circle of communication, perceive reality through the prism of the priorities of this environment. Some facts they consider trivial and not influencing the decision-making, but some important and significant.

For different social groups, these priorities may be diametrically opposed and, therefore, representatives of these groups are simply not able to adequately perceive the arguments of opponents, considering them to be insignificant. For this very reason, as usual, the problem of "Fathers and Children" arises. In any case, moving along the conveyor of life, the children's point of view is approaching the views of their parents, which have recently been perceived with hostility. And so, when it would seem that matured and clear children in conversation with their parents use their own (parents') rhetoric and judgments and wait, if not ovations, then surely the approval of the father and mother, they again run into a wall of misunderstanding. Shock! "How so? you said it yourself yesterday ... ” And later, life goes on and they are no longer moms or dads, but grandmother and grandfather in general: “children should not be brought up in strict order and order, but in unlimited love, indulging their whims, and also indulge them in every way and in no case do not punish. " A curtain! And for an encore: the back of the entire chain of generations is already propped up by the new fighting lines of children with their ever-rebellious worldview.

3. We will reveal the whole truth about the truth

Another important element affecting the quality of mutual understanding is the veracity of the information used. In another way, it can be described as the confidence of communication. And as we have already noted above, the truth of each side depends very much on many factors and the only reliable truth is that there is no truth! However, let us try to consider this concept from different points of view in order to form our attitude towards it as objectively as possible.

And we begin to understand, with a consideration of extremes. That is to say, we outline borders on both sides, and only then, we will begin to dive into various shades and half-tones of the problem.
Not often, but there are people who, in communication, beat backhand with the "bare truth", causing embarrassment, awkwardness, conflict situations. In society, such behavior, as usual, is perceived as defiant and is considered not tactful. They try to avoid contact with such people, although in most cases they are impressed and even claimed, but in metered amounts. Mark Twain also wrote: "The truth should be served as a coat is served, and not thrown into the face like a wet towel." Therefore, communication with such people looks like an exotic and is caused only by the desire to use it as a show or to organize harassment of their enemies. The niche for such behavior in communication is very limited.

This is on the one hand, and on the other hand, you have probably come across a situation where, when communicating, lying is much less troublesome than telling the truth. Well, it seems to be “to explain for a long time” or “so as not to break wood” and the like. And after all, the goal is good, and even then it lied on trifles, well, just a little, but all this delays over time and becomes the norm. Gradually, the lie is opened more and more often, and they are already looking at you somehow pitifully and are not taken seriously, even when you are telling the truth. As the saying goes: "The spoon was found, but the sediment remained." What can be fraught with such a method of imaginary simplification of communication? Most often, in such cases, there is a depreciation of a person’s place in the communication hierarchy.

But these are extremes, and in life relationships with some people are based on truth, and with some on lies. And in both cases, this may be the best way to communicate. In what situations, which way of communication is preferable to choose? Mark Tullius Cicero said: "Enemies always tell the truth, friends never." That is, one of the criteria for choosing the True / False communication method is the presence and depth of contradictions with an opponent.
It is worth noting that everything that we have considered in this section so far is based on the assumption of some one - the “Truth” Truth. But everything in life is more complicated: people always want to hear the truth and only the truth, but on condition that this is THEIR truth.

Moreover, a person is so arranged that he gets tired, constantly listening to someone's truth, and he is forced to look for a new lie, but his own, which is gradually becoming his own official truth. Remember, like Viktor Tsoi: "I do not like when they lie to me, But I'm also tired of the truth."
Over time, most people build their own truth, which is convenient for them, and, hiding behind it as behind a screen, feel comfortable and confident in communicating with others. There may be several such decorations, just manage to change them depending on the situation and the main thing is not to confuse at what moment, which one to hide behind. But time flows and everything changes and gradually, even the most comprehensive facade, covers far from all places, and a person who does not notice this looks at least funny. Even more stupid can look like a man who borrowed this "Screen of Truth" from other people and only ran through her press release in passing. Such a screen can be: party discipline, religious teachings, corporate code, etc. For the time being - these katas even work until you meet a really strong opponent. The more stereotypical views a person expresses, the less interesting he is for discussion and communication.

Another reason for the emergence of a "half-truth" was noted by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. In the work "Demons" he wrote: "... the real truth is always implausible ... To make the truth more believable, you must certainly mix lies with it. People have always done that. ” To embellish the truth with “special effects” is always tempting and this truth, unfortunately, is much more in demand by society. This becomes a whole science and a good business with a professional approach.

But perhaps the most significant reason for the distortion of the truth is the fact that only a truly self-sufficient and strong person can desire it. And most people are afraid of her, the truth makes them more vulnerable. Therefore, the absolute majority needs to be deceived, and therefore people who conceal the truth from you are only your accomplices in this matter.

Now that we have fixed the problems and conducted their initial survey, it is necessary to formulate the goal that we want to achieve as a result of our research. It is important not to make a mistake and not go the wrong way. That is, achieving the goal should bring us some tangible benefit in solving the problems voiced.

There is a whole section of management - goal setting, it is better to read more about this topic in the original sources.

4. Set the objectives of the study

Solving all these difficulties is not completely possible, due to the complexity of the organization of human nature, the community as a whole, different conditions affecting the formation of the outlook of social groups, etc. But you can minimize the problems. To do this: firstly, the desire of the opponents themselves to meet each other, and secondly, knowledge of some principles of systems analysis, allowing to put complex problems into simpler chains, look at events and phenomena from different angles of view, model situations, etc. P. This article is devoted to your questions.

In order not to miss with a view to research, we take a larger target, and then, as we determine the guidelines for its achievement, we correct the front sight. So, we will announce the mission of our research: “To learn how to communicate with other people as efficiently as possible, based on our interests.” You ask, how does this goal fit in with all the problems we have indicated above? Will explain. It is important to learn how to manage relationships with people, and this does not necessarily mean forcing the opposing parties to hear and understand each other. For example, when I watch various talk shows, I get the feeling that the presenter accurately imagines the whole problem being considered, but he is not in a hurry for his opponents to also come to a common vision - after all, this show will end. Therefore, he manages communication, then diligently separating points of view and deepening the misunderstanding of different groups, then clarifies some points, bringing them together - “The show must go on!”. Therefore, I note that it is important not only to be able to manage relationships, but also to determine how they manipulate you with their help and, if necessary, counteract or use them for their own purposes.

5. Let's match the results

In order to further be convenient to use the results obtained in the course of the study, it is necessary to make a squeeze, a concentrate of our reasoning.

Conclusion 1 : In order to reach a consensus in communicating with people, you need to be able to understand their point of view and its motivation. And also be able to convey to them their point of view.

Conclusion 2 : It is possible to give the most accurate estimate of complex events and events only by expanding them into simpler components and giving an estimate to each separately, but determining the weight of this estimate for the phenomenon as a whole.

Conclusion 3 : To get closer to understanding the problem, you can only look at it from different points of view. And this contributes to the participation in the discussion of different people with different opinions, preferably grounded.

Conclusion 4 : The reality perceived by people is determined by what they consider true and correct in life. Therefore, the “Truth” of a particular person is formed only from those facts that he likes.

Conclusion 5 : In a long-term relationship, it is necessary to consider that over time, your point of view may change. The worldview of the people around you may also change.

Conclusion 6 : To communicate with different people in different situations, you need to be able to choose the degree of trusting relationship.

Part 2 can be found by clicking on the link.