As the saying goes, seven masters, eight hearts, a family is still like this, in society, with colleagues, friends do not agree with people, people who do not match their hearts and eyes are a lot of people, how should we get along with these people?

Psychologists tell us that when talking to someone who has an opinion, we must first create an atmosphere of psychological compatibility between the two sides of the conversation, and only by making the other party's psychology compatible with yours will he (she) sit down and listen to you, and it is possible to achieve the purpose of your conversation. To make the other party step by step closer to your point of view, this requires that the content of your conversation can not exceed the other party's psychological tolerance, once beyond its psychological compatibility, the other party will listen to your words more unpleasantly, and your opinion will be greater, and talk to people who disagree, we should do the following.

Look for resonance

How do you get the expected "approval response" as soon as you open your mouth? It's simple. "The way I start and win a discussion," Lincoln said of the secret, "is to find a common ground of approval." "Lincoln was able to find this common ground of approval even when discussing the highly heated issue of slavery." For the first half hour, "Der Spiegel, a neutral newspaper, reported on one of his speeches: "His opponents agree with every word he says." From that point he led them forward, little by little, until at last he seemed to have led them all into his own enclosure. ”

Arguing with the audience only provokes their stubbornness, makes them desperately defensive, and makes it almost impossible for them to change their minds.

Wouldn't it be much more advantageous to start by highlighting something that all the audience believes with you, and then come up with an appropriate question that the audience will want to hear? Then take the audience with you to passionately search for answers. Hold up to them the very clear facts you have seen in your quest, and they will be guided by you to accept your conclusions. They will have more confidence in this kind of truth that they have discovered for themselves. "What seems to be an explanatory discussion is a discussion from above."

Because, in all kinds of controversies, no matter how wide and sharp the differences, there will always be a common point of agreement that the speaker can resonate with everyone's heart.

In daily life, when talking to people who disagree, find more common ground, attract the interest of the other party, and continue to talk to each other, you will reach a consensus.

When the average person has a good reason to confront the other party's dissatisfaction, he will attack the other party's complaint from the front and expose the other party's wrongness, but this practice will make the other party's dissatisfaction more and more high, and the attitude will be tougher, so it is not an effective method. As in this example, if you deliberately focus on the issues that are in focus, the other party will be frightened because the matter is too big, and the front line of complaining will be sluggish, and the troops will be automatically withdrawn.

For those who are always opposed, it is better to temporarily withdraw their opinions and put forward negative theories, so that the other party will lose the target of attack. The phrase "let people get along and let people go" is a good way to deal with those who are always stubborn and unyielding. For example:

A large company has a considerable controversy over whether the newly developed products belong to the urban or rural type, and there is a considerable controversy. Seeing that his subordinates were arguing, the company manager announced the suspension of the meeting. When the meeting was held again, a leader who had originally advocated a rural type spoke: "If you advocate an urban type, I will also think that it is not unreasonable. Because I grew up in the city and didn't know much about the countryside, I didn't dare to assert it, I just felt like a rural type. I'd love to hear more from the pro-urban approach to make the change in my attitude more reasonable. So the argument turned into a discussion, and the atmosphere was much better. Later, a lengthy discussion ensued, and the conclusion was that it belonged to the rural type, and that the two sides of the original opposition were not happy to approve of it in their hearts.