PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC RULES AND THEIR APPLICATION IN THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS

Lecture

In the preceding chapters we examined a number of aviation incidents involving inadequate mutual perception among aviation specialists, and we described ways of resolving conflict situations, of clarifying the meaning of information held in a person's psyche, of
coping with the neurotic disorders that had arisen, and of using psychotherapeutic rules to improve the climate in a crew when check pilots and inspector pilots are on board the aircraft.
In the present chapter we have identified a number of new psychotherapeutic rules used
in the process of communication, and we have also supplemented the rules mentioned earlier, but in a
less developed form. This chapter, in essence, crowns everything one needs to know in order to avoid any form of misunderstanding arising in the process of communication.
It was precisely the practice of psychotherapy, and the uncovering, in the course of its application, of the mechanisms behind conflict situations and psychogenic disorders, that allowed us to formulate a number of rules,
following which in the process of communication makes it possible to avoid both possible conflict situations and the emergence of psychogenies. The rules given below make it possible to form
what may be called a psychotherapeutic outlook, thanks to which a more adequate perception of reality is achieved. Using these rules in the process of communication allows one to take a different view of the problem of compatibility in general and in working groups in particular – above all among crew members and air traffic control shift personnel – as
specialists who have a particular need for compatibility with one another, on which flight safety depends.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Suppressed negative emotions sooner or later come to the surface" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Proceeding from this, negative emotions must either be expressed skillfully or worked through – in such a way that not a
trace of them remains. We fairly often encounter situations in which a person displays aggression toward us whose magnitude is completely disproportionate to the situation at hand, in response to which we feel indignation in return – since it is entirely unclear to us why the person is behaving so aggressively. As a rule, a disproportionate emotional reaction arises when a person has, for a longer or shorter
period of time, restrained their true emotions and suppressed them (another cause underlying a disproportionate emotional reaction is discussed below). In connection with this it is necessary
162
to be able to distinguish aggression that has arisen in response to a situation that has only just occurred from so-called
delayed aggression (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). The most obvious sign of delayed aggression is the disproportionality of the emotional reaction (its intensity exceeds the
typical magnitude for the given situation).
The phenomenon of delayed aggression consists in the fact that negative emotions that arose when this or that need was blocked did not manifest themselves at the moment they arose (for one reason or another the person suppressed the negative emotions), but instead begin to
manifest themselves later – especially in situations where the person with whom the negative emotions were associated finds themselves in a position where they can quite justifiably be reproached for something, but this is done disproportionately to their actual action (as soon as
an occasion arises to "justifiably" reprimand the person, those accumulated negative emotions, tied to
past situations, find their outlet in the new situation, where there is sufficient grounds
to be dissatisfied with the person).
Thus, suppressed, unexpressed emotions represent a clear danger
both to the person suppressing the emotions and to the one with whom those emotions are associated. All of this
makes the process of communication extremely confused – since most often neither side understands the essence of what is happening! In this connection the conclusion suggests itself that it is best, after all, to express emotions rather than suppress them. On the one hand, this is undoubtedly true, but negative emotions can be expressed in a way that is just as
dangerous for the process of communication as suppressing those emotions. If a person has decided to express emotions, the expression should be such that it does not provoke strong negative emotions in
the party to whom they are addressed. This can fairly easily be achieved by reformulating the aggressive thoughts that have arisen in you – removing all insulting
turns of phrase and trying to convey the essence of what you are experiencing, explaining precisely what displeases you and how you feel about what has happened. In other words, instead of blaming the other party for what has occurred, you need to give them information about how you perceive it, but without a negative judgment of the other party. But the moment an unsubstantiated and insulting assessment of the other party's actions follows from your side,
adequate perception of you immediately ceases – regardless of the fairness of your conclusions,
or your emotional state (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
Above we indicated that a disproportionate emotional reaction may have yet
another cause. The latter is connected with the phenomenon of a lowered threshold for the emergence of emotions in
cases where a person experiences strong negative emotions. A person whose particular need has been blocked naturally begins to experience negative emotions, and these emotions lower the threshold for the emergence of other (new) emotions: it is lowered all the
163
more the stronger the negative emotions were. This lowered threshold means that the person begins to react to what is unpleasant to them much more strongly and much sooner: situations that previously provoked no response at all now trigger the strongest irritation. In this
case the disproportionality of the emotional response to the situation is connected not with the person at whom the negative reaction is directed, but with the one who is displaying the disproportionate
reaction (one needs to analyze what has recently happened to them, which needs of theirs have been blocked). How, then, can the two causes be distinguished from one another, each of which produces an externally identical reaction (an identical symptom) – disproportionality of the emotional response? One cause can be distinguished from the other by the nature of its
specificity. If we are dealing with the phenomenon of delayed aggression, the disproportionate reaction will be directed at the person with whom the past suppression of this or
that negative emotion is associated. In the case of a lowered threshold for the emergence of emotions, however, the disproportionate reaction will be nonspecific in character: the negative emotions may fall upon absolutely anyone, especially upon whoever, in the experience (or opinion) of the person displaying the emotions, seems the most harmless and most able to endure the attack.
At the very beginning of our description of the psychotherapeutic rule under consideration, we mentioned that emotions can not only be regulated (managed), but also worked through.
Working through is based on changing the significance of the blocked need that
underlies the negative emotion that has arisen. The power of this mechanism of reworking the significance of a need can hardly be overestimated – it is enough simply to compare one's own
needs (manifested as views, attitudes, principles) at the present moment and
at some point in the past. Making this comparison, we will easily convince ourselves that our entire
life is a constant and entirely natural replacement of some needs by others (in
the process of maturing, a person's needs naturally undergo change). There is not a single person whose needs have remained unchanged. In light of the above, the question arises – what is stopping us from changing the needs we currently have, but spending on this, say, not several years or decades, but several hours or minutes – which
is an entirely ordinary practice in psychotherapy! Indeed, people are often
unable to resolve a particular problem situation for decades, yet resolve it in just a few hours in the process of communicating with a psychotherapist. And what does the psychotherapist do over the course of those several hours – nothing other than change the needs of the person who came for help! All of this can be done on one's own, without turning to a psychotherapist – changing the significance of one's needs is within everyone's power, but without self-analysis and knowledge of the psychotherapeutic rules listed in
this work, this is, of course, difficult (Evstigneev
D.A., 2010, b).
164
The psychotherapeutic rule "Every person, at every moment in time, considers
their own behavior normal" (otherwise this behavior would not exist). Proceeding from this, essentially,
there is nothing left to do but accept this behavior, to treat it as something
normal, since the person themselves considers it precisely so (Evstigneev D.A., Kuznetsov Yu.I., Kopysov V.Kh., 2009; Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). It is essential that to acknowledge, to accept another's behavior
does not at all mean to agree with it (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Accepting another's behavior
is the first step toward changing that behavior (see the rule "Before attempting to change another person's behavior, it is necessary to establish positive emotional contact with them").
A person considers the behavior they enact to be correct and, as a consequence of this, does not accept a negative evaluation of it. In light of this, the evaluation of a person's behavior should be such that it does not damage the relationship in the future in any way. It is necessary each time to calculate
how each of your statements will change your relationship in the future, and it is precisely through this lens that one should decide what can be said at a given moment and what cannot. In other words, remember that another person's behavior
is the norm, and this is what one must build a dialogue upon (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c). We have arrived at an important idea: the norm of behavior is first and foremost set by each individual person (by their currently actual needs), and in order to bring this norm into line with our own norms,
one must form, in place of the existing norm (the old conditioned reflex), a new
norm (a new conditioned reflex). Because the main content of the psyche is a set of conditioned reflexes formed over the course of a lifetime, achieving
the formation of a new conditioned reflex in place of the old one is not difficult: just
as a child's psyche, in the process of growing up, is saturated with ever newer conditioned
reflexes, ensuring ever more perfect adaptation to the environment, so too an adult's psyche is capable of change, though achieving this change will be somewhat harder than
for a growing young organism. It is harder because an adult, as a rule,
believes there is nothing left for them to learn in life and increasingly leans toward the idea that only
they themselves can teach anyone anything. That is, an adult's psyche is more rigid, and this rigidity is set primarily by the psyche itself – namely, by the person's belief that
what they have learned over a given stretch of life is sufficient for a comfortable existence, and that an adult's character cannot be changed. It is extremely easy to prove
such thoughts unfounded – it is enough to recall adults who have survived one or another severe psychological trauma, and to understand that the human psyche, being
woven from a colossal number of conditioned reflexes, is capable of change at any
moment: a person's psyche before a psychological trauma and after it can differ to such an extent that
165
it is not merely some part of the previously existing needs that changes (which happens more
often), but the entire system of needs collapses, to be replaced by a new one – a system corresponding to the new reality (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
Above we indicated that achieving the formation of a new conditioned reflex (of one set of
needs) in place of the old (another set of needs) is not difficult, and for
this we need to know the conditions under which conditioned reflexes are formed (Evstigneev D.A.,
2010, c). The primary condition for the formation of a conditioned connection is the usefulness of the new formation, that is, the usefulness of the information that has reached the person and which they
can use effectively in the future. For example, if a person is shown that their categorical rigidity creates a situation in which they are lied to more and more, they will abandon that rigidity, since it is not useful but harmful to them. Therefore, changing a person must be built on creating situations in which they can gain, through their own experience, useful information for themselves, thanks to which they will become more
adaptive. Another aspect of the skillful formation of new conditioned reflexes is the emotional background accompanying this process. Just as a small child forms conditioned reflexes with ease in the presence of parents, so too does an adult
form them with ease in the presence of persons who are significant to them and from whom
positive emotions emanate (the formation of conditioned reflexes is facilitated by
the release, during positive emotions, of biologically active substances that alter
the state of the neurons). But an adult is, after all, not a child, and besides positive emotions one also needs arguments, if we, as in the situation described above, are
unable to place the person directly into a situation where they could gain useful information for themselves through their own experience (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
Above we mentioned that a person's behavioral norm is set by their currently
actual needs, and it is perfectly clear that in the course of each individual's development, the behavioral norms set by their changing needs will themselves change. But the change in behavioral norms occurs not only within each of us individually – it also occurs with social norms. And these social norms significantly change our own norms (our needs). It must be said that social
norms are the main source that fills our psyche with this or that need – and
needs that are specifically social rather than physiological in nature. Social norms, while granting
us a number of acquisitions necessary in life, at the same time conceal a danger.
The danger of social norms arises in cases where the needs of a specific person, being more adequate to the situation at hand, are suppressed by social norms. Another variant, in which social norms are harmful, is the complete subjugation
166
of individual norms (needs) by social norms: when a person, having lived
a substantial part of their life, realizes that they did not live their own life – that they lived as dictated by social norms rather than as they themselves wished, thereby deriving
no pleasure from life at all (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
So, let us clarify why a person considers the behavior they enact to be normal. A person considers their behavior normal because every organism stands guard over its own needs (it cannot help but defend what belongs to it): the goal of any organism is self-preservation and maximal adaptation to the environment, that is, a striving for the maximally possible satisfaction of its significant needs, which are the universal source of activity and which determine various forms of behavior. In enacting one behavior or another, a person proceeds from the conditioned reflexes they possess
precisely at that moment (this or that need (norm) – an understanding of what is good and what is bad), and they cannot change them
immediately, however much we might sometimes wish they could! In any case, some
amount of time will be needed for their conditioned reflexes (in this case, their needs, norms) to undergo change. This is precisely why one must never stubbornly resist behavior enacted by another person, since until their conditioned reflexes (needs, norms) change,
their behavior will not change either. All that remains for us is to create the conditions for this change –
conditions for the formation of new conditioned reflexes, which we mentioned above (Evstigneev
D.A., 2011).
The rule under consideration extends to everything with which a person identifies –
to whatever social group they currently belong to, to the organization
in which they currently work and with which they fully identify themselves, to the
country in which they reside. And the greater the degree of identification with this or that
group, the more zealously and diligently the person will defend the interests of that group and stand up for it – and solely because they belong to that group, and not at all because
it possesses any unique characteristics: unique characteristics exist in any group, and one can take pride in absolutely anything, as the whole of human history confirms! Once a person moves into another group (for example, changes their place of
work), they begin identifying with the new group, now defending its interests.
Using this example we can observe the unprecedented conditionality of social needs and attitudes, which change in accordance with a person's transition from one group to another. In
this connection, an essentially identical phenomenon occurs as a child develops and matures – moving from one environment to another, gradually discovering ever newer facets of reality, there is no one they have not identified with at some point, no one they have not
imitated, no one from whom they have not adopted something, naturally abandoning
167
needs they once held in favor of new ones that seem to them more adaptive – and
this continues until the end of life, since our conditioned reflexes, being the main content of our psyche, are rewritten every second, and all the more rapidly the more sharply the environment around us changes, which ultimately should ensure adaptation to that environment (Evstigneev D.A., 2011).
In light of the problem of a person's identification with the group within which their professional activity takes place, we cannot fail to note such an important pattern as the connection
between the degree of identification with the work collective and the employee's capacity for work and effectiveness. If the management of a given organization does not care for the employee, does not
value them (and thus reduces the employee's degree of identification with the organization), the
employee's degree of concern for the organization will be minimal. Therefore the foremost task of any
manager, if they care about production efficiency, the quality of the product manufactured, and the organization's prestige, is to create maximal identification of the employee with the
organization (Evstigneev D.A., 2011)!
Let us return once again to the question of the inevitability of a person defending what belongs to them.
A person cannot help but defend what belongs to them, and this applies to their nationality,
which they inherited (a given, not dependent on them). This example again allows us to
see the unprecedented conditionality of needs formed over the course of a lifetime. A person
will defend everything connected with their nationality, but only because they belong
to that particular national group, and not at all because that group possesses any unique properties or qualities. As we noted above, one can take pride in
anything at all, for there is not a single nationality that does not possess something distinctive. A person's character, being conditioned-reflex in origin, is formed over the course of a lifetime – within the environment in which the person lives, and it is the environment, being the primary source of social needs, that determines the specifics of a person's behavior –
the environment, not the anatomical and physiological features of this or that national group. Let us recall that a child is born without any conditioned reflexes at all, and everything each of
us represents is information recorded in the process of growing up, and the recording of information
is continuous – the neurons of the brain cannot stop the process of recording; it occurs
every second.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Meet at points of intersection" (Evstigneev
D.A., 2010, b) means that any communication should take place only if
both partners in the communication desire it. This rule exists owing to the following psychological patterns. A person who initiates communication desires
communication with their partner because every meeting with them evokes positive emotions,
168
and strives by any means necessary to obtain this communication, but because of the surge of positive emotions completely fails to notice how they are blocking the needs of their communication partner in
cases where the latter does not, at that particular moment, wish to communicate. The person
initiating the communication, in their anticipation, does not even notice that their partner has no need for it whatsoever at that moment. Often, out of politeness or a reluctance to offend the other person, we nonetheless continue to communicate, and everything seems to be going well, but we can
only judge the quality of the communication after some time has passed. Continuing communication against one's will blocks a person's need for self-determination (it is no longer they who choose
what to do): in trying not to offend the other, that is, in satisfying their needs, we block our own needs, and the blocking of needs, as is well known, leads exclusively
to negative emotions, which will eventually make themselves known, and which may
manifest themselves in the future in a way that is completely unexpected for both partners. Thus, a person
who initiates communication may obtain it from their partner, but the price for this will be the destruction of the relationship, since the negative emotions caused by the fact that one of the partners
communicates "under duress" will sooner or later make themselves known, since any unexpressed
(unresolved) emotions strive toward external expression, and until this occurs, the person will experience painful sensations. Situations in which negative emotions are expressed
provoke bewilderment in the person on whose initiative the communication took place; they do not even remotely suspect that they themselves are partly to blame for the situation that has arisen – having sought
communication with their partner in situations where the latter did not need it, resorting for this purpose
to all manner of tricks. But the other side is also at fault in the situation that has arisen – the
person who was unable to skillfully decline communication, who turned out not to be ready to say "no." Each of
us has found ourselves in such situations, and in both the first and second role. From all
this it follows that one should under no circumstances strive to obtain from a person
what they do not give you of their own free will, of their own desire: everything obtained against
a person's will comes at a very high price. In other words, only from a person's genuine behavior can one derive true pleasure, and it does not matter whether they are upset with you or very pleased, the most important thing is that it be sincere, unfeigned – "at the price
that will suit everyone" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
A particular manifestation of the psychotherapeutic rule examined above is the situation of
169
communication between two people sympathetic to one another, one of whom, being enchanted with their
communication partner, begins to indulge any of their desires, doing so with enormous pleasure, and at the same time completely fails to notice that their own needs are being satisfied less and less, while their partner's needs are being satisfied more and more (Evstigneev
D.A., 2010, b). The result of such communication is that one of the partners receives everything
without making any effort at all. A situation arises in which the one who receives everything on first
demand becomes ever less and less sensitive to the desires of the other, and stops
doing even what previously constituted a norm of behavior for them – as is well known, a person's unsatisfied needs are the universal source of their activity, and when practically all needs are satisfied, activity disappears, and the person stops
working on themselves. A frequent outcome of this is a growing disrespect toward the one who
strives to satisfy their partner's needs. In light of this, the only true
way to prevent such situations is an equally respectful attitude toward one's own needs and the needs of one's partner – to maintain parity in the relationship, that is, not to
create conditions of complete need satisfaction, thereby stimulating each other's activity
(Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
The surest way of stimulating each other's activity is the absence of the thought that
your partner belongs to you, has been "won." Very often relationships begin to fall apart
precisely from the moment when a person, thinking their partner belongs to them, allows themselves things that, before this thought arose, they did not allow themselves. This happens because the need is satisfied (the person of interest to us is nearby) and there is no longer any need to try, to work on oneself, to show one's best side. But a new problem then arises, one that many are
reluctant to notice – the problem of preserving the relationship that has formed (Evstigneev
D.A., 2010, c). One aspect of this problem will be examined within the framework of the psychotherapeutic rule "Strive to maintain the bar set by an established relationship."
In striving to satisfy the needs of their communication partner (to please them), a person sometimes counts on receiving certain "dividends" from this in the future, entirely
disregarding the fact that their communication partner's system of needs may differ considerably from their own, in connection with which many of the partner's needs that
the person is striving to satisfy are not represented in them at all, or are not so significant
for them (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c). In such a situation there is clearly no basis for counting on any dividends. Finding themselves in a situation where they do not receive what they had counted on when satisfying the other's needs, a person experiences a whole range of negative emotions,
which, depending on the situation, may include elements of anger,
shame, suffering, and elements of disgust and contempt. The person is vexed that,
having spent many months (years, decades) putting their plan into reality, they have achieved nothing of
what they so strove for, and in this situation they begin to blame their communication partner for
not living up to their expectations, instead of acknowledging the fallacy of their judgments about their partner's system of needs and the fact that satisfying another's needs is the key to managing them. Without doubt, satisfying another person's needs is
170
an important element of managing a relationship, but only when used skillfully (with knowledge
of the partner's existing needs and the consequences of satisfying them). The miscalculation regarding "dividends" is connected not only with the fact that the person did not bother to find out the true
system of needs of their communication partner, but also with the fact that, counting on a profit,
they signed an agreement with their partner unilaterally, without notifying the latter of the very fact of the agreement or of how they were supposed to "pay for the services rendered." In this connection, negative emotions in the conflict arise not only in
the party that drew up the agreement, but also in the one to whom claims were made
regarding its non-fulfillment (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
The psychotherapeutic rule "Be prepared to skillfully refuse, and to accept a refusal
from someone else" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). All of us have repeatedly encountered situations
where we refuse others something, or others refuse us. Both situations are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpleasant, both for the party that was refused and for the party that did the refusing. In the course of our lives a very stable conditioned connection forms – we become upset when we are refused a request (and there is nothing strange in this,
since a refusal threatens us with the non-satisfaction of a given need, which naturally gives rise to negative emotions). But why should our request necessarily have been met – after all, we ourselves do not satisfy anywhere near all the requests made of us by others. This happens because it is difficult for us to put ourselves in the other person's place, to understand that the same patterns operate in them as in us, and so the evaluation of one and the same action differs depending on whether it is we who took it or someone else. Strange as it may seem, a refusal can be a cause for joy, yes, genuine joy, because the person did not dissemble but acted as they truly consider right and convenient for themselves – we are given an undistorted, real picture. One should always remember
that the other person, just as we do, has every right to act as they wish, and there
is nothing better than when interaction is built on a foundation of respect for
each other's needs. Our needs periodically come into conflict with the needs of other people, and there is nothing strange or bad in the fact that we refuse others or are
refused ourselves in the satisfaction of this or that need; therefore there is nothing to be done but to
treat such situations calmly. The person who refused us, however, and who is entirely
unaware of the patterns described, is in need of prompt rehabilitation, for it is unpleasant to them that they refused, and since it is unpleasant to them, meetings
with us become unpleasant too, which may result in distancing. The rehabilitation consists in
171
agreeing instantly with the refusal, so that the person does not under any
circumstances feel guilty or awkward about the situation that has arisen, and in doing everything possible
to make them feel that you bear no grudge and understand the impossibility of satisfying
your request. There is a great deal of meaning in this rehabilitation – we are acknowledging the person's
right to their own opinion, that is, we are respecting them. When we refuse even a small request, we
usually do so against a backdrop of negative emotions, which are quickly picked up on by the person
who was refused. But if we were to refuse against an entirely different emotional backdrop
(against a backdrop of positive emotions, or calmly and with reasoned argument, without changing our previous emotional state), the refusal would be perceived far more gently
and benevolently. It is precisely in this way that a normal perception of refusal can be achieved.
Moreover, we very often make one significant mistake – we "refuse from ourselves" (attributing the refusal to our own will), whereas it is better to "refuse from the circumstances" (motivating it by the situation that has arisen). In that case the refusal will not be attributed to you, and since that is so, you will avoid reproach and displeasure directed at you (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
The psychotherapeutic rule "Know how to manage your interlocutor's aggression" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Aggression is always anger, and anger arises only when this or
that need significant to a person is blocked – and if that is so, find out which need of the person has been blocked. In doing so you will establish the cause of the anger, and clarity about the cause, as a rule, opens up paths toward resolving the situation. If, after establishing the cause,
172
things have not become any easier for you, do not rush to conclusions all the same, and try to manage your own emotions. Remember that resisting an aggressively disposed interlocutor in the same way
they are behaving almost always means losing or aggravating the situation. It is aggravated not
only because the aggressor considers their own behavior to have a right to exist, but also
because carrying out aggressive actions is accompanied by strong negative
emotions leading to a narrowing of consciousness (see Fig. 8.1, panel A) – under these conditions your actions
may be attributed by the aggressor any number of nonexistent intentions,
the person becomes so inadequate that any displeasure on your part, even the smallest, will
be perceived as the most extreme form of insult. In such
situations one can proceed along the path of reducing the interlocutor's aggressiveness, since we (by definition!) will not manage to resolve the matter until our opponent begins to
perceive us adequately, and adequate perception will return to them only once they stop
experiencing negative emotions and calm down. This can be achieved by the following
means (Evstigneev D.A., Kuznetsov Yu.I., Kopysov V.Kh., 2009):
1) by perceiving the situation yourself as manageable, ordinary, that is, a situation for
which you are prepared (seeing no resistance on your part, a person as a rule stops
carrying out aggressive actions toward you – since these, it turns out, do not have the effect they had counted on);
2) by concentrating attention on those statements of the aggressor that are not insulting in nature, and building the subsequent dialogue precisely on the basis of these statements, thereby gradually calming the interlocutor;
3) by demonstrating behavior that is entirely unexpected by the aggressor – in particular, behavior of full acceptance of their opinion and behavior.
Speaking of regulating one's own anger, remember that its display, translated into
words, means: "I am not coping with the situation, I am weak," and so displaying
anger amounts to admitting one's own weakness and inadequacy (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, a), and
also gives the interlocutor an opportunity to manipulate you, because they have received information about your weak points, about your unreadiness to resolve certain matters. Thus, if
anger arises, and a strong anger at that, this indicates that you have a problem with your forecast of the probability of satisfying the need – practically all bets were placed on satisfying the
need, in connection with which there was no readiness for the situation (for the blocking of the
need), whereas if the probabilities of satisfaction and blocking of the need did not
differ from each other so strongly, the person would naturally have begun to think through their actions in case a significant need were blocked (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
The psychotherapeutic rule "It is not always necessary to fear it when you are
told an untruth" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Most often people are inclined to tell an untruth not at all
out of a pathological passion for lying, but because at that particular moment they are not ready to tell
the truth, at that moment they are too weak to bring themselves to admit it. Sometimes it is enough simply to wait (not to hurry to tell the person that we are aware of the situation – that they
are lying), and the person will confess their lie themselves – they will have found the strength to tell us about it. Thus, a person needs to be prepared to receive this or that piece of information.
Another common reason we are told an untruth is the fear
of becoming dependent on the other person (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c). Indeed, if the latter
learns some piece of information about us that we would have preferred to keep quiet about, this makes
us dependent on that other person, and we can then be manipulated. And the danger lies not only in
the risk of deliberate manipulation on the part of this "other," but also in the fact that
this "other," being in a particular state of mind (resentment, aggression), may allow
a leak of information, which, understandably, is not in our interest. In light of this we can no longer
afford to show ill will toward the new holder of confidential information,
we must behave "well" (as the person who has gained access to the information wishes), which often has to be done "under duress." In this case the rule
"meet at points of intersection" is violated, and when this rule is violated, unresolved negative emotions begin to accumulate, the result of which is a negative attitude toward the
173
person who received information not meant for them. It follows from this that
compelling a person to tell you what interests you (which the person does not wish to disclose) and
obtaining this information will lead to nothing good, just as the mere fact of a question about information of interest to you being asked will lead to nothing good.
If a person does not wish to provide certain information about which you are asking a question, they will be forced to lie (in order not to fall into dependence), but they do not wish
to lie! It is unpleasant to them that they have told an untruth, but they could not have acted otherwise either –
here we plainly have a situation of mutually contradictory needs: the person to whom they lied,
they respect, and have absolutely no wish to deceive, and at the same time they cannot tell them the truth, since the information is "not for them," "not intended for them" (a little later we will examine another situation – when a person has lied and feels comfortable about it). So now
we can grasp yet another subtlety of psychotherapeutic technique – one must know how not to ask
the question that interests you – not to ask it, so as to obtain a truthful answer to it a little later,
or even to get no answer at all, but for certain not to damage the relationship. Readiness to speak on
a given topic, as a rule, can be very well "read" from a person – both from their facial expressions and from
their speech (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
If a certain topic is unpleasant to a person, it is precisely we who should hasten to steer the conversation away from that topic, without waiting for the person to point out that the topic is unpleasant or to
try to steer the conversation aside themselves. Such a stance toward someone who is not ready to
discuss certain matters is itself a manifestation of the most genuine respect for them and for
their needs. When we are careful in our dealings with another, when we steer away from topics that cause displeasure, we win the person over, and we may soon (sometimes immediately after we have steered the conversation away from an unpleasant topic) receive information about the very
topic the person has so carefully been avoiding.
Another frequent reason we are told an untruth is our own behavior –
behavior that signals to those communicating with us what is good for us and what is bad
(Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Moreover, the more categorical our statements are,
the more people around us tell us untruths. Thus, the number of
people who will tell us untruths, and the volume of false information coming from them,
are, first and foremost, set by our own behavior. One more pattern should be remembered. There is no person who does not deceive, who does not distort information, and when we
manage to do so, in the overwhelming majority of cases we feel comfortable – by distorting
information we have managed to create more favorable conditions for ourselves. This pattern
also operates in the psyche of another person, so try to understand that they too, just like you,
174
have the right to use this mechanism (why should it be allowed for one but not the other?). Once
this is understood, there is nothing left to do but treat the actions of others more gently –
since they are in no way different from our own! What else, then, is needed for
a more adequate (painless) perception of lies? If a person has deceived, they feel
comfortable (in their own view, they have managed to avoid an unpleasant situation for themselves), and since things are good for them, things will be good for you as well when you are with them, and yet how often we fail to understand
this and wish, come what may, to hear the truth – a truth neither we nor our communication partner are ready for! But what, then, is needed to minimize or altogether eliminate
the manifestation of dishonest behavior? The most important thing is to create conditions such that
your communication partner has no need to deceive, and such conditions can only be created on the basis of knowing all the rules listed above. Indeed, if you follow the rule "meet at points of intersection," the person will have absolutely no need to twist and turn and invent an excuse for
why they could not meet with you when you so wanted them to. A person will lie in a case where you have not observed
the rule in question, have begun pestering the person, trying to find out why they cannot satisfy your request (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
The psychotherapeutic rule "Before attempting to change another
person's behavior, it is necessary to establish positive emotional contact with them" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). If such contact has not been established, none of our actions, none of our arguments (however skillfully prepared and finely tuned) are capable of changing the person's behavior in the direction we want. On the contrary, our actions
will only irritate them further, and so it is extremely dangerous to acquaint a person with our arguments before
benevolent relations have been established – by doing so we create conditions in which
all our arguments will by default be perceived negatively and will subsequently
no longer work, even though they could have become an effective weapon from the moment the interlocutor began
to perceive us positively. It turns out that convincing arguments
are not of such great value in themselves – what matters is that these arguments be used after positive emotional contact has been established.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Strive to maintain the bar set by an established relationship" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). People between whom mutual sympathy arises exert a strong influence on one another – they adopt each other's gestures, manner of speaking,
and manner of thinking. All of this happens thanks to the mechanism of emotional contagion – a person,
basking in the positive emotions associated with another, very quickly and easily absorbs
everything that emanates from the person who brings them joy (in experiencing strong negative or positive emotions, the formation of conditioned reflexes is facilitated –
175
they form without repetition, in a single instance). If the mechanism of emotional contagion is so
pronounced in two people sympathetic to one another, then any new action taken by
one of them will just as swiftly be adopted by the other. This will apply equally to a lowering of the
bar of the relationship: should one of the two people communicating move to a lower level of relations (for example, allow themselves disrespect toward their communication partner, allow themselves some harsh
turn of phrase (rudeness, sharpness, ill will) directed at them), the other side will immediately
move to that same lower level of communication. All of this can bring the relationship down not only
to the preservation of a merely formally benevolent form of communication, based on memories of a good past and the norms of hypocritical (sanctimonious) decency, but can also completely
destroy the relationship – to the point that the people come to hate one another. It is not at all difficult to
reach this last extreme – for the most severe psychological traumas come precisely from those to whom we are
closest, whom we love. The existence of the psychotherapeutic rule under consideration
once again convinces us that preserving a relationship, achieving compatibility with a person, is everyday work on oneself, and through oneself – on others (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b)!
The psychotherapeutic rule "Be attentive with regard to people who enter
your circle of communication after a significant person has broken off relations with you"
(Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). In this situation there arises the possibility of a need to "fill the gap that has formed," so that any person who gives us the attention and care so necessary at that moment will be perceived (mainly by people with hysteroid personality traits) as far more positive than
is actually the case, and, this being so, after some time has passed, once the emotions have subsided, the person will appear in their true, undistorted form, following which disappointment in
them will set in. Thus, in the situation described, there arises the danger of misjudging people
and of admitting into one's circle of communication people who happen to be there by chance – people with whom we would never have found ourselves close had we not been abandoned by a significant person.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Before communicating information to a specific
person, try to imagine that you are saying it in the presence of a group of
people" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). The essence of this rule lies in the fact that, for a number of reasons, a person does not always take account of the consequences of information communicated to someone personally,
does not take into consideration the fact that information from this person may pass on to other
people (their acquaintances), in particular, into a work or friendship circle. In such a case there
is a certain probability that this information will not only be disliked by others (not present
during the transmission of the information), but that the person themselves will turn out not to be ready to answer for what they said before others. Therefore one must try to
communicate only that information which will not harm you should it leak from the person to
whom it was addressed personally, selectively. In other words, before saying
176
anything, ask yourself the question: "Am I ready to say what I am saying to this specific person in the
presence of a group of people?" If the answer is positive – you may speak, since you are
in that case ready to answer for what you say. If the answer is negative – either one should not
speak at all, or one should speak, but only after first reformulating the thought so that it
poses no danger to you.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Be extremely cautious when passing information
from one person to another" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). First of all, it is necessary to establish for what purpose one person is passing you information about another, and what will happen if you pass it on to the latter or to someone else. The purposes may be quite varied. If you are dealing with a manipulative person (the one passing the information), they
may deliberately raise a particular piece of information with the purpose not only of learning your opinion about the matter at hand, but also of provoking you into joining their
opinion. If you have joined an opinion prepared in advance, this is fraught with certain consequences, the character of which may be either positive or
negative for you. It will be positive for you if your comment satisfied
the person – it coincided with the reaction they expected. In the opposite case the reaction will be negative – you will not have passed the test.
The psychotherapeutic rule "Keep track of changes in emotional distance and
do not allow it to increase" (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Emotional distance
is a measure of the emotional closeness between two people communicating. It is measured by how
warm and trusting the relations that develop between the communication partners are.
An increase in emotional distance (a person's withdrawal from you) may occur for the
following reasons, most of which are of a dangerous nature.
1. A person distances themselves because they spoke unfavorably about you, or simply found themselves in the company of people who spoke badly about you. In the first case, upon meeting with you (already after having spoken unfavorably of you), the person increases the distance between you because you continue to treat them well and communicate with them just as openly, while they already feel a certain shame in communicating
with you at the same level, since you do not know that, for you, they have already become a different person, and so
they find your benevolent attitude unpleasant – an attitude they plainly do not deserve and are perfectly aware of it (this is one of those cases in which a person will experience
negative emotions when positive emotions from their communication partner are directed at them). In the second case, the increase in distance is connected with preemptive measures – in case you should happen to learn from other people that they were present in company where unfavorable things were said about you, you would be displeased, and you would condemn this person's behavior, and so,
177
to avoid experiencing such strong negative emotions in the event of your reproach (connected
with unmet expectations – the expectation that the person would warn you
that someone had spoken unfavorably about you or had been plotting something against you), they withdraw – so that
the torment will be less painful, so that the emotion of shame will be less strongly expressed – the emotion that
arises when the need to correspond to a certain self-image is blocked
(Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
2. A person is planning to deal with you in one way or another, and increases the distance between you so as not to suffer while delivering the blow. For it is well known that
retaliation is dealt without regret or pangs of conscience only when we hold a negative attitude toward the person and that person is the most emotionally distant from us (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). From this follows the conclusion: in order to minimize the blow from an ill-wisher
(the one who is distancing themselves), the emotional distance needs to be shortened, which is achieved through a positive attitude toward the ill-wisher, through satisfying some of their needs.
It should be remembered that our enemies, our ill-wishers, are always waiting for us to stumble, to take one wrong step or another – all so as to have a pretext for an attack. It is difficult to exist within the framework of such a conflict, since a person will have to do everything with one eye looking
over their shoulder – so as to give no pretext for attacks on them. It is understood that only an ideal person
can afford to have enemies, and even then their defense is not absolute, since the opposing
side may not even wait for a pretext to appear – it may simply resort to underhanded means,
enlisting its supporters for the purpose. The fact that your ill-wisher's supporters have turned against you shows that you have overlooked the joining of the conflict by
people from the ill-wisher's circle. But even here all is not so hopeless: it is possible to foresee
the formation of such a coalition, and in that case it is necessary to act preemptively not
only upon your opponent, but upon their circle as well. Remember that by entering into a conflict with
a single person, you begin a conflict with many people in their circle (their supporters, their friends). The higher your opponent's status, the more people will be found willing to support them.
3. A person distances themselves after having been made to do something to you that they
did not want to do, but which, owing to circumstances (in particular, out of fear of losing the favor of the people who pushed them to it, on whom they are dependent in one way or another),
they nonetheless decided to do (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b). Once the reason for the distancing has become clear to you, do not hasten to tell the person who is withdrawing from you about it. Your ill-wisher should have the minimum amount of information about you, about your awareness of their actions, since nothing strengthens your opponent's position so much as this kind of
178
information. If your opponent does not know your thought process, does not know
how much you are aware of regarding their upcoming actions, they will leave their plan of action toward
you unchanged. Otherwise, they will be thinking about how, in light of the new information that has reached them, to construct an even more sophisticated scheme in order to
outmaneuver you. If we give our opponent a minimum of information, then, without taking any additional measures at all, we are already in a more advantageous position – we
know what our opponent intends to do against us, and so they will no longer be able to
deal us a real blow.
4. A person begins to distance themselves after receiving negative information about you.
How, then, should one behave in this situation, how should one refute the false information that has
reached them from certain people (not necessarily your ill-wishers)? There are
several forms of response in this regard. The first form of response is to follow the standard pattern of your relationship – as though nothing had happened. At the same time one should seek out the "source of infection" – the people who passed on the information discrediting you. After identifying these people and the information they passed on, it is necessary, through the close circle of the person to whom the information was passed, to introduce contrary information – information that contradicts what was originally received. In doing so one must maintain one's habitual behavioral stereotype, thereby demonstrating that "everything is as usual." The second form of response is
to deliberately create a situation in which, toward the person who received negative information about you, you can pointedly and sincerely
demonstrate a good attitude: to positively assess this or that action or deed of theirs,
and this proves especially effective in a case where they are unable to enter into dialogue with you –
for example, in the presence of a large number of people (that is, they cannot help but accept a positive reaction directed at them). This situation will show them that you remain, as before, loyal
to them and that you are not to be feared, and that those who reported the negative information about you to them did
so pursuing some purpose of their own (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
5. A person distances themselves after you have done something that, in that person's view, is impermissible, and this has offended them, while you did not even notice which phrase (action) of yours
served as the occasion for the situation that arose (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
6. A person distances themselves from you for the purpose of not spoiling their relations with those who hold a negative view of you – this is done so that they will not be associated with you and so that others' attitude toward them will not change as a result. In a number of exceptional cases this last
reason may have no negative basis at all – a person deliberately distances themselves from you, but not in order simply to protect themselves from a poor evaluation by those who
think ill of you, but in order to help you a little later. What, then, will this help consist of? The help consists in the fact that, having secured the support of those who hold a negative attitude toward you
179
(by demonstrating a line of behavior similar to theirs), they lull their vigilance, thereby
strengthening their own position, from which they can, covertly and most effectively, help
you. It is understood that this kind of behavior can be observed only in a person exceptionally well versed
in the psychology of communication. It is precisely thanks to a strategy of this kind
that one can dismantle an entrenched system within an organization – it is necessary that the people who have included you in their circle of communication, but who are far from you in spirit and conviction, not consider you
dangerous. In essence, this technique is the only way to break a system in an organization that has become corrupt in one respect or another – by destroying the system from within. It turns out that, for a time,
one should precisely refrain from showing whom one is close to. Otherwise
you will simply be unable to influence the situation (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, b).
So, emotional distancing is a sure sign of danger, but is it the only one? Of course not; there are other forms of behavior by which a person's attitude toward us can be determined. Let us examine one of the most original of these forms – behavior at
the table, namely, how food that we have purchased is eaten. In practically
any work "collective" it is traditional to mark notable events in the lives of
the people making up that "collective." Those people who have committed some low act,
when eating the food brought by the person against whom that act was committed,
choke on it – they try to swallow it, but do so with difficulty – the body does not accept what it has not earned ("conscience won't allow it"). But this is observed only in the case
where the person who has committed the unseemly act has an internal conflict – a contradiction between how they ought to behave after what they have done (not to make use of anything belonging to the injured party) and how they are forced to behave
(making use of what belongs to the injured party, since one can hardly refuse, at a shared table, the ritual, obligatory for everyone, of eating the treats, and drawing attention to oneself by refusing would be to give oneself away). If you observe the behavior described above, an investigation
is unavoidable – it is necessary to find out just what this person has done with respect to you, and it is necessary
to be prepared for the "blow" and for parrying it (Evstigneev D.A., 2010, c).
An