the Motives and causes of our actions is an extremely complex phenomenon. Sometimes the most reasonable interwoven our thoughts, the most effective of our skills and the most controversial and dark impulses of the unconscious. To the end to understand the reasons for specific actions is very difficult, even if it is your own act. But our consciousness of these difficulties are not taken into account – the mind likes simplicity. And it is good, it allows us to act quickly and not get stuck in long-term thinking. Still, sometimes this simplicity leads to significant errors, which do not facilitate our lives.

the Apparent sense of clarity arises from the fact that in your understanding of other people, we rely on a set of "explanatory" patterns. Some of them we create ourselves on the basis of more or less my own experience. Many others are taken by us from the outside (family, close environment, culture). The inclusion of patterns is poorly understood (or even may not be noticeable to humans). The usual chords are used "by default", almost like the settings of the gadget.

"He cheated on me, because all men are polygamous, the only way to keep this permanent control."

"She, like all women, too emotional, so it responds"

"the Child, by definition, may not want to learn, so it's no wonder he runs away and does not listen"

all people Have their own installation, our perception of situations is different. But some patterns are at all. They may include rare, can be quite challenging, but still influence our perceptions and shape our response.

the Creator of one of the most interesting theories of personality George Kelly noticed that when people explain the behavior (and their own, and others), all the ideas and installation can be divided into three groups:

  1. Explanation "in the circumstances". One behaves, because it happened; it is the result of a chain of random events. This means that in another setting and at another time it may behave quite differently.
  2. Explanation "using object properties". One behaves, because these are people (or objects or tasks) with which it interacts. That is with other people/things/tasks he may behave quite differently.
  3. Personal explanation. One behaves, because these are properties of his personality and character. He's just so and so is unlikely to behave differently.

Obviously, all three sets of reasons anyway relevant. But our consciousness, making it easier, often misleads us. These misconceptions tend to obey simple laws, which George.Kelly was called "the errors of social perception."

basic error of perception is that people tend to explain behavior of other people more often via personal traits, and their behavior through external circumstances and objects. For example, if I'm late, it is "traffic", "wife distracted," "you set the meeting uncomfortable." And if late, "he is absent-minded", "punctuality", "respect us" etc This mechanism is often included totally unconscious, which leads to conflicts, resentment and further problems.

helluva lot about consistency is that people consider their own behavior as typical and as other owners of similar experience. A person thinks that all other people would have behaved the same way would have felt the same as he, although in reality, this is often not the case. This leads to the rejection of other people's feelings as wrong or distrust of others.

as often vstrechajutsja errors relating to socio-role behaviors. In this case, the person is perceived through the prism of its social role ("male", "head", "student", "sales", etc.). The explanation of his behavior is given, based on the fact that this role in the consciousness of the perceiver is fixed a certain way. For example, "chiefs everything is possible, they do not hesitate"; "men (or women) are easy to manipulate", and so on.

The man can also understand using primitive templates. "I do nothing because I'm lazy" - says about himself teenage girl. She's not trying to look for inside a more complex explanation for the fact that she followed the others, he calls laziness. Even the lowliest search will find or a lack of motivation, or negative feelings because of failures in the past, or anxiety. But her behavior always unambiguously interpreted by adults: "you're not trying, you're lazy". the Child comes to learn that as information about yourself, and then habitually relies upon as the explanation.

Excess explanations of their behavior through their own personal qualities often found in people with high anxiety and self-doubt.

let's briefly review where we are different types of explanations:

  1. "Adverbial" explanation. Reduces the responsibility of all participants, helps to relieve feelings of guilt. Stimulates the search for external factors that contributed to the situation. People do not always immediately know why the circumstances caused any action. Often in the first moments we say: "something happened". And it is not an excuse. Investigation of the circumstances is a good thing: we need to know exactly how it somehow worked. This allows the next time in similar circumstances to consciously choose a better course of action. But the excess of such explanations is perceived as avoiding responsibility or justification.
  2. "Object" explanation. Transfers the responsibility to the other participants. "If I hadn't been in a team with legal, I would have won"; "the teacher gave me a too difficult task," etc.. This explanation is often the reason for conflict and transfer of responsibility ("I blame you" "no you"). In the case of positive outcomes, this could be a reason for positive emotions ("the task was too difficult, but I finally decided").
  3. "Personal" explanation. Involves taking responsibility for yourself (or attributing it to someone whose behaviour is considered). The human tendency to use this kind of explanation, as well as the accuracy and precision of estimates depends heavily on insight, ability to analyze own and others ' mental content, and the ability to adequately feel the border. When we too often apply it to yourself, false responsibility and guilt. We did not try to take is limited to attributing any kind of qualities and experiences for this reason ("I'm a loser, so I can't do it").
Vladimir Anna
Статья выложена в ознакомительных целях. Все права на текст принадлежат ресурсу и/или автору (B17 B17)

Что интересного на портале?