- NEW!
by level headed on November 21st, 2009
Confrontation usually angers people. What kind of a response are you soliciting?. If the relationship was cold before it may become ice cold.
I want to be in a relationship, but I'm not interested in anyone... Help?
by ellie56 on January 25th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Does anyone have a member of the family(married into the family) that thinks they can take over your land,that will be yours one day?insite.
by thebrowns on January 23rd, 2012
| 1 person likes this
How to forget someone I love so so much from the bottom of my heart?
by Adeesha_D on January 25th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Do you have too much time or not enough time with your s/o ?
by calmwaters1 on January 21st, 2012
| 1 person likes this
need advice? please help me
by brandonsteele82109 on January 25th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Is confrontation a valid stimulus for conversation, if it injects vigour into a relationship which would otherwise be stone cold?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
lol, but at least it will mean words will be exchanged between the two parties before that transition comes about. Plus, if there was never any "chemistry" there to begin with, then any "fallout" resulting from an attempt to "animate" the relationship would be counter-productive to what you were hoping for anyway; whether it stays at the same level of "coldness" or becomes "ice cold", it's not better, and the net effect of the two parties not talking to each other can only remain the same. In terms of words exchanged, there is no sense of "degree" - people either talk to each other (however minimal this is), or they don't. When I described this hypothetical relationship as "stone cold", I was referring to the latter. Raising a subject which is likely to initiate confrontation could lead to a new-found understanding between the two parties towards the others' position, laying the foundation for further dialogue. Confrontation, therefore, is potentially and ultimately, a good thing.
by mumpsimus on November 21st, 2009
Or is it? I don't know. The theory I tried to outline above reflects my interpretation of the goal of interaction: to establish common interests between yourself and someone else, and then utilise those interests - use OR abuse them - to develop your understanding of their perspective on whatever it might be, and in the process, develop your understanding of the person. That, for me, is the ultimate goal of interaction, and it applies to conversations between men, women, and men and women. How that goal might be realised in conversation should be at the discretion of the individual - as long as the means justifies the end, however unconventional or "perverse", it seems to me to be worth it. Then again, I could be wrong, unwittingly setting myself up to be some kind of social pariah, lol. What's your take on this?
by mumpsimus on November 21st, 2009