The 1 in roman was only the precaution in case I decide to have another thought about certain part of this book. I’m currently writing this while listening to Otis Redding’s Try a Little Tenderness, in a FamiCafe nearby while watching a couple in the side of my eye basically cuddling in public.
It was mentioned in this book on chapter 2: the next conversation that when having difficult conversation, we have to decide the goal of that conversation first, and the goal has to be realistic and specific, more or less. He gave an example such as “I want to hear their perspective without getting defensive,” or “I want to listen without interrupting.”
And then he showed some example, basically when having conversations, we have to keep in mind that our goal is to connect with them. All of his example was when we say sorry first and try to listen to their perspective then they will be nice to us back, then we understand each other, and live happily ever after. I just wondered, it was not that ideal in real life. If we have beef with another person, then that person most likely a selfish jerk (or it could be ourselves, we just don’t realize it). We can only wish his response would be something like, “I understand, I’m sorry too.” And what if he closed himself? Conversation can’t happen if one party closed himself. In this book, at least until chapter 2, he hasn’t mentioned how we should have “the next conversation” with these kind of people.
Also, what about some conversations that are better swept under the rug? Because these kind of conversations exist too! I strongly believe not everything has to be talked about. Just like this clip from modern family.
Goofythinker 