Do you avoid conflict whenever possible?

Post Reply New Topic

My God,
I had no idea this was an autisctic characteristic.
For years....literally years, people have pointed this out about me.
It cost me dearly in the job I used to be in, as I was a Manager, and used to get picked up on how much I would avoid conflict, when other Managers seemed to relish in the challenge.
I'm only recently diagnosed and lots of things are making sense to me know.
However, i would ask as many of you as possible to reply to this poll and tell me how you feel about conflict.
This is easily the most revelatory issue for me tht has come up post diagnosis.
Anybody, please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for creatting this thread.

I used to avoid any conflicts because a conflict was likely to trigger a meltdown in me and in a meltdown state I would lose the conflict.
Now I started to see the difference between an argument and a meltdown... and got better in conflict-but-no-meltdown strategies.

I hate conflict and like Trogluddite, I'm also a people pleaser. It's taken me years of therapy to finally be able to say no to people. When there is a conflict, particularly if it's not one I was expecting, I will default to trying to do everything I can to make the other person happy, even at the detriment of my own health. It's a terrible coping mechanism. It's only really been in the last two years that I am getting better at saying no and standing up for myself.

It depends on whether I see any possibility of resolution.

At work, I kept my opinions pretty strictly to myself, because work is a feudal hierarchy and unless you're at the top, you're lunch. Not worth it.

In my non-work life, I won't go around and around with anyone on anything - if that starts, I say my piece, excuse myself, and leave. This is just as much true in relationships as in conversations. Arguing for the sake of argument? Waste of time. Devil's advocate? Waste of MY time. Took me a while to reach this point, but it's a good place to be.

If it looks as though resolution is possible, if both parties are trying to keep an open mind and goodwill, then I'll hang in and try. I've changed my mind about some things, and I've been able to persuade other people about a few things. It's pretty rare, though.

I have a difficult time playing "Devil's Advocate."

I like to tell people my true opinion, rather than make myself be another person with opinions contrary to mine.

I just don't have the flexibility to be "Devil's Advocate." I don't find it fun, either.

^^ mostly I think it's a form of trolling. I've actually seen people reverse their opinions - they say A, the person they're talking to agrees, so they then say Z. Total waste of time.

Edit in: this
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/rese ... apnell.pdf
is a bit dense, but it's pretty eye opening if you read the abstract and the general discussion at the end. I read this right when it came out (I was working then) and it just cemented my resolve to stay away from Trollheim. There's nothing to be gained by engaging, you're merely feeding sadists.

It's annoying when there's no possibility of "resolution."

That's why I hate soap operas. Whenever, seemingly, the problems have been solved, a new problem reveals itself immediately. I understand that this is a "furtherance" of the story---but it's still annoying.

That's why psychotherapy can be so annoying. That's why I can't be a psychotherapist. "Resolution" is often quite the elusive thing. It's as if the "patient" wants to remain a "patient" for life.

My mother is like that. She believes she has a "right" to suffer. Whenever I offer a "resolution," she scoffs at it. Rather, she wants to endure the sorrow, rather than seek a way to alleviate it.

^^ sometimes when people feel trapped by their problems, they turn and embrace them in counterproductive ways - the problems become a part of the person's identity, but in a way that prevents growth. It's a survival mechanism, but it becomes a trap; the person becomes unable to see any way out, and they'll become almost intransigent about staying in the problems, because the problems begin to define who they are.

It can lead to some really sad dynamics - people try to help directly and just get frustrated. Even professionals. One thing that can work is to advise obliquely - as in, "gee, when that happened to me, I did X" - then drop the subject, even if "X" is immediately disparaged. Another approach is to try to play to the person's previous problemsolving - "How did you deal with this the last time?" or "can you remember anything you've done before that helped?" or "I found this information, didn't you do something like this before?" But it takes a huge amount of detachment to maintain this much perspective. You can't tell. All you can do is show.

Thing is, that identity-trap can happen with almost any problem. I have a friend who used to work as a therapist, and he told me that one of the hardest obstacles for people to overcome is a reluctance to give up the part of their identity that was centered on the problem, the grief, the past pain, the healed injury, etc. He used the term, "a need to grieve the pathology before they can let go of it" - because it feels like they're losing a part of themselves. I'd never thought of that, and I probably never would have.

Soap operas, ugh. Talk about manufactured crises and manipulation!

I couldn't agree more.

The "pathology" becomes the "essence" of the person; the person would feel he/she is "losing a part of his/her self" should the pathology be alleviated somehow.

I can understand this---because this has happened to me. I really don't want to get rid of my "uniqueness" and my "youth." I don't want to join the "adult race."

Most of the time, though, I am not "suffering" as a result of being "who I am" (though suffering does inevitably occur at times). I keep myself "above water."

The problem arises, to me, when a person is genuinely suffering, is "stuck," like you said, within the suffering. Yet, stubbornly refuses to seek a way out, becomes hostile/defensive, asserts their "right" to suffer, and thereby loses the ability to remove themselves from the quagmire. Oftentimes, the "quagmire" is a really lousy place, indeed.

^^ and all you can do is throw them a rope. It's their decision whether or not to grab on. Yep.

I wish I was better at inspiring people to “grab on.”

Or it could be I lack the patience and fortitude to wait until personal evolution imbues the person with the desire to “grab on.” Along the lines of Plato’s “Allegory of a Cave.”

I’d rather it takes weeks, months, with steady progress rather than years, with progress coming at a glacial pace.

I lack the flexibility to throw the rope too many times, with no results. Futility really bothers me.

^^ And your post makes me wish that I was better at finding things to say to express my sympathy.

Throughout my life, I have too often been the drowning man who wouldn't "grab on", and I have no ill feelings towards those who felt that they had tried everything in their power and eventually had to walk away to relieve their own pain, and I deeply regret the frustration and sadness that I put them through. I understand the feeling of futility all too well, albeit from the other end of the rope.

I don't like conflict but there are times I feel I have to stand up for myself & there's also some times when i cause conflict over something most anyone else would think is nothing.

I believe there are two kinds of conflict: worthy causes and stupid arguments. For most of my life, I kept being sucked into the latter kind. With the growth of social awareness, I'm finding I'm getting less involved in the latter and more in the former.

Another thing that can affect this, I think, is being the kind of person who can see both sides of an argument.

Well if someone cuts me off or pulls out on me etc when I'm driving then ill honk at them or maybe flip them off if they came real close to hitting me but other than that I avoid any sort of conflict.

There are times you need to push back against bullies. I am getting better but still am not where I should be.