I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:

The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

364. Suggestibility Is A Hazard To Rational Conflict Solving

Suggestibility Is A Hazard To Rational Conflict Solving
In entry 358 I described, why a gullible man is a hazard to a rational woman, his irrational and incomprehensible believes making his behavior unpredictable and unreliable.  A woman can never be in a safe haven with a gullible partner.   He is prone to do hurtful and detrimental things out of the blue.    I listed examples of dangerous believes, but I did not point out explicitly, that in this context not the believes by themselves are the hazard, but the man's treating the woman according to them.   
Suggestibility to external influences in a more general way is also a serious hazard to a relationship.
In entry 361 I explained, why conflicts can only be solved by shared premises, and how communication is the only viable method for reaching consent about premises.    
This concept can only work, when both partners can mutually influence each other.     They need to be responsive in persuasibility but without being mentally derailed by suggestibility to irrational external forces stronger than the motivation to solve conflicts.   (More in entry 362

Influencing is the first step in rational persuasibility.  Influencing means to be reciprocally able to convey all information considered as important correctly into the conscious mind of the other.    Information is anything going on in the sender's mind, that s/he wants the receiver to know, values, attitudes, wishes, needs, suggestions, introspections, emotions, feedback, attributions, clarifications, subjective perceptions.   The information of what is a reaction and what is proactive behavior is especially important, when the behavior causes a conflict to be solved.  
Information can be conveyed verbally, written, non-verbally in gestures and facial expressions.
Influencing does not mean to manipulate the other to do anything.  It only means to convey every significant information to create the shared premises pool, which then enables both partners together to arrive at the same logical conclusion and therefore at a shared decision and an agreement for actions.
This of course only works, when both are motivated to tell everything without holding back, to make sure to express it well, and when both are also interested to receive the information from the other and both value the information as important.  

When there is suggestibility instead, it is a hazard and disruptive.   When a man's premise is an irrational belief, prejudice, preconception, that fulfills his own needs only, but is not convincing to the woman, then this impedes sharing it in a premises pool.   
If as an example a suggestible and immature man's belief in the inferiority of a woman is his justification to consider her purpose as being a commodity, then this belief is a premise that cannot be shaken by reason due to allowing him to gain selfish benefits.
When the woman attempts to tell the man, how she needs to be treated, which is an information to be included in the premises pool, the place for this information in the man's mind is already occupied by his own contradictory belief about a woman's purpose.     As a belief, it is immune to reconsideration.  

The persuable man motivated to include into the premises pool, how to treat the woman in accordance wirh her own needs, is permanently perceptive and receptive to information input from her.   If he is too busy or distracted, then at least he deliberately focuses regularly on asking her.   He listens, because he wants to know.

The suggestible man has subjectively no reason to listen to the woman.  He already does not doubt the validity and priority of his own premises not only for himself but also for her.    He treats her as a commodity according to his belief and for him, there is no need to change the premise, to which the woman is supposed to submit.     
Therefore the suggestible man has no interest in what she wants to tell him.    He either refuses to listen or he externally pretends to listen, but she is talking to a wall.  What she says, bounces of and never becomes an information entering his conscious mind.     His believes have made him oblivious of the need to be influenced.   He is not aware of a conflict, but of a dysfunctional woman, who refuses to share his belief. 

When a man is suggestible to external influences and holds believes, that are incomprehensible and inacceptable to a rational woman, conflicts will not get solved but aggravated.     A suggestible man is not suitable for a rational woman.