There is no doubt that always surpassing others in words is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen. It's OK to write a novel about how tired you are to get along with Wang Meng. This is a little story about a patient with "eloquence" seeing a doctor. The doctor said politely to the patient: please sit down. The patient was not happy: why do you want to sit? Are you going to deprive me of my right not to sit? The doctor decided to change the topic of harmless to humans and animals to ease the atmosphere: the weather is good today. As a result, the patient still didn't buy it and said: pure nonsense! The good weather here doesn't mean that the whole world has good weather today. For example, in the Arctic, the weather is very bad today. There is a strong wind and icebergs are hitting in the long night The doctor explained: I said today's weather is good. It generally refers to local, not global. That's what everyone understands! As a result, the patient retorted: is what everyone understands necessarily correct? Do you think what is right must be right? An important part of seeing a doctor is consultation. He always adopts a non cooperative and confrontational attitude, and the doctor can't see him at all. He refuted and eloquently, but forgot the really important purpose of his trip. When a person always wants to surpass others in words, his purpose of speaking is no longer to communicate, but to defeat others.

1. Eloquence patients are isolated from others I used to be a patient with eloquence. It took me a long time to overcome the problem of "language is better than people". When I first went to college, I was dragged by my classmates to sign up for the selection of the debate team of the college. I was interested in it, but after watching several classic videos of international college debate competition, I fell in love with the feeling of lip to lip war. As a result, after several trials, I was not only not selected, but also infected with "sequelae of debate competition". I no longer participate in the debate contest, but all the problems in life seem to have become my debate topic. As long as I catch it, I must argue right and wrong. I doubt, refute and look for loopholes in conditional reflection. I attack and sophistry and always want to beat others. Relying on my cleverness and eloquence, I am always indomitable and aggressive. Like a belligerent rooster, I must force the other party to the corner before I give up. From whether angelababy has cosmetic surgery to whether China should abolish the death penalty, my eloquence can turn a small chat into an unhappy quarrel. No one likes to be questioned and refuted, and no one likes to be forced to admit defeat. As a result, it is conceivable that that time was when I was so old and had the worst popularity. But I didn't realize how annoying I was. Until one day I saw a passage from the British philosopher Locke in the theory of educational films: The purpose and purpose of real reasoning is to obtain the correct concept of things, make correct judgment on things, distinguish between true and false, right and wrong, and act accordingly. Then, don't let your son grow up in the technology and form of argument,... Don't let him envy others to argue. Unless you really don't want him to be a capable man, but an insignificant quarrel. He is stubborn in arguing with others and proud of refuting others. What's more, he doubts everything and thinks that it is impossible to find truth in arguing, and all he can find is victory. I began to reflect on the true meaning of the debate. The mechanism of the debate game determines that everyone defends the established position, and everything is to support their own arguments. No one doesn't care about right and wrong. Everyone only cares about losing and winning. Its rules require that debaters always outperform their opponents in words. Therefore, the participants in the whole process refute in order to refute. No one will listen to the views of others, and no one will revise their own views. Debate competition is wonderful as a kind of performance, but it's bad if the competition habit becomes a habit of thinking. Bernard Shaw once said: If you have an apple, I have an apple, exchange with each other, each of us still has only one apple; If you have a thought, I have a thought, exchange with each other, each of us has two thoughts, or even more than two thoughts. What is communication? It is two-way communication and the exchange of ideas. But when a person just wants to prove himself right, you have a thought, I have a thought, exchange with each other, and there is still only one thought. Such communication will not enrich the mind, but the mind will become more and more barren. My mistake is to take the set of debate competition into the ordinary discussion and communication and into the daily interpersonal communication. People around me not only don't think I'm powerful, but also think I'm self righteous, paranoid and narrow-minded. They not only don't admire me, but also isolate me and stay away from me. For me, what's the point of always surpassing others in words, in addition to satisfying a little vanity and gaining a little vain sense of achievement? We should discuss for real knowledge, not to overwhelm others. Real thought communicators should be modest. They actively seek consensus and are willing to admit their shortcomings. For them, refuting others is not the most important, and obtaining a clearer understanding is more valuable. Later, I came into contact with a member of the debate team. I found that her debate team temperament suffocated me, and her words were more aggressive than my defeated member. Even if she is eloquent and articulate, even if she is a winning general in conversation, I think she is a bad communicator. What is a good communicator like? As Eckhart Tolley said in the power of the moment, "you can speak your mind clearly and firmly, but you don't have to attack and defend."

2. Desire to speak is a relationship killer Always surpass others in words, which not only hinders the real exchange of ideas, but also the killer of workplace and intimate relationships. In CAI Kangyong's way of speaking, Cai Kangyong tells a career story. A top student who graduated from a first-class university is full of experience and eloquence. Every time his boss asks him for his opinions at a department meeting, he talks with confidence and has ideas, which are appreciated by his bosses. It's a pity that everyone doesn't like him. When things need to be coordinated, people from other departments are rarely willing to cooperate with him, and people from the same department are not too willing to accompany him. In fact, he is excellent, but the problem is that he likes to crush others in intelligence, eloquence and ability. When he disagrees with others, he always makes them speechless. Those who have verbally suffered from him expect him to make a fool of himself. In intimate relationships, there are no winners. There are too many places for two people to quarrel in love, cohabitation and marriage. There may be differences and contradictions in squeezing toothpaste from home, whether it should be squeezed from the middle or the end, who washes the dishes tonight, whether you can check each other's mobile phone, how to spend their salary, how to get along with their mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, and how to educate their children. If the two sides do not negotiate issues constructively, rather than arguing about who is right and who is wrong, any one may set off a bloodbath at home. Lanlan is my best friend. Every time she quarrels with her boyfriend, she has to force the other party to bow her head and admit her mistake. In fact, it doesn't matter to her who is right and who is wrong. What she wants is attitude. For her, every quarrel is a test of "do you love me or not". If her boyfriend loves her enough, he will follow her, let her and coax her. If her boyfriend refuses to give in, she will use emotional control. If she is angry and angry, she will cry, and if she can't cry, she will cold war until the other party admits her mistake and apologizes. But his boyfriend is a reasonable person. He likes to reason with LAN LAN. He must tell right and wrong. When such two people get together, they can fight over trivial things. Quarrels often end in: Man: OK, OK, it's all my fault, okay Woman: what do you mean "OK", what's your attitude? Man: I admit my mistake. What else do you want? Is it over? Woman: you dare yell at me. Try it again. Finally, the two ended up breaking up, because no one would give in. Every quarrel is a consumption of their feelings. The days together create more pain than happiness for each other. In fact, in a close relationship, you always want to defeat each other, win each other, prove yourself right, and the other party is unjustifiable, which will only lead to a double lose situation. I'm not saying that girls can't have emotions. Sometimes they lose their temper, which makes them cute. Too rational love will turn into a stagnant water. I'm not saying that boys can't reason with girlfriends, but people have both rational and emotional sides. However, our communication can not put aside our emotions after all. Effective communication must first deal with the emotions of others. No one likes to be questioned, opposed, attacked or forced to admit their mistakes. I especially agree with the saying that "a coquettish woman has the best life" and "a coquettish man has the best life". They have a soft persuasion. Always surpass each other in words, which will create a communication atmosphere of confrontation between the two sides. The purpose of communication is to solve the conflict constructively, but when two people are in a state of confrontation, communication becomes destructive. Suppose a situation, a double working family, after dinner, neither husband nor wife wants to wash the dishes. Couples who can constructively resolve conflicts will first find a consensus that both recognize that both husband and wife should undertake housework. Then discuss a plan acceptable to both sides and clarify the obligations: for example, those responsible for cooking do not need to wash the dishes, those responsible for washing the dishes do not need to cook, or one-day wife does the dishes and two-day husband does the dishes. But if the goal of both sides is to defeat each other, they will spare no effort to prove that the other party should wash the dishes more. First than miserable, than who recently more hard; More than credit, more than who pays more for the family; Then expose the shortcomings, turn over the old accounts and give examples of dissatisfaction one by one; Finally, it is upgraded to personal attack, which labels the other party as selfish, lazy, immoral, thoughtless, no sense of family responsibility and so on. But what's the point? No matter how miserable, meritorious, demeaning or personal attacks are, they all hurt their feelings, but they hurt each other, and they didn't decide to wash the dishes. Even if one party's compromise can be temporarily stopped that day, the dishwashing problem will still become the fuse of contradiction at any time in future life.

3. Never forget the real purpose of communication Why do we always have to be better than others in words? This is our nature. We naturally like to surpass others. We prefer to have the upper hand in all aspects than to fall behind; We naturally like others to identify with ourselves. When someone opposes or questions, we will involuntarily defend ourselves and use our own voice to overwhelm the voices of opposition and doubt; But this desire pulls us farther and farther away in the conversation. It makes us forget the real purpose of communication and what is really important to us. Always surpass others in words is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen. If you meet such a person, you might as well give up the meaningless victory to the other party without harming the principle. It is also a kind of wisdom to know how to admit defeat at the right time.

There is no doubt that always surpassing others in words is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen. It's OK to write a novel about how tired you are to get along with Wang Meng. This is a little story about a patient with "eloquence" seeing a doctor. The doctor said politely to the patient: please sit down. The patient was not happy: why do you want to sit? Are you going to deprive me of my right not to sit? The doctor decided to change the topic of harmless to humans and animals to ease the atmosphere: the weather is good today. As a result, the patient still didn't buy it and said: pure nonsense! The good weather here doesn't mean that the whole world has good weather today. For example, in the Arctic, the weather is very bad today. There is a strong wind and icebergs are hitting in the long night The doctor explained: I said today's weather is good. It generally refers to local, not global. That's what everyone understands! As a result, the patient retorted: is what everyone understands necessarily correct? Do you think what is right must be right? An important part of seeing a doctor is consultation. He always adopts a non cooperative and confrontational attitude, and the doctor can't see him at all. He refuted and eloquently, but forgot the really important purpose of his trip. When a person always wants to surpass others in words, his purpose of speaking is no longer to communicate, but to defeat others.

1. Eloquence patients are isolated from others I used to be a patient with eloquence. It took me a long time to overcome the problem of "language is better than people". When I first went to college, I was dragged by my classmates to sign up for the selection of the debate team of the college. I was interested in it, but after watching several classic videos of international college debate competition, I fell in love with the feeling of lip to lip war. As a result, after several trials, I was not only not selected, but also infected with "sequelae of debate competition". I no longer participate in the debate contest, but all the problems in life seem to have become my debate topic. As long as I catch it, I must argue right and wrong. I doubt, refute and look for loopholes in conditional reflection. I attack and sophistry and always want to beat others. Relying on my cleverness and eloquence, I am always indomitable and aggressive. Like a belligerent rooster, I must force the other party to the corner before I give up. From whether angelababy has cosmetic surgery to whether China should abolish the death penalty, my eloquence can turn a small chat into an unhappy quarrel. No one likes to be questioned and refuted, and no one likes to be forced to admit defeat. As a result, it is conceivable that that time was when I was so old and had the worst popularity. But I didn't realize how annoying I was. Until one day I saw a passage from the British philosopher Locke in the theory of educational films: The purpose and purpose of real reasoning is to obtain the correct concept of things, make correct judgment on things, distinguish between true and false, right and wrong, and act accordingly. Then, don't let your son grow up in the technology and form of argument,... Don't let him envy others to argue. Unless you really don't want him to be a capable man, but an insignificant quarrel. He is stubborn in arguing with others and proud of refuting others. What's more, he doubts everything and thinks that it is impossible to find truth in arguing, and all he can find is victory. I began to reflect on the true meaning of the debate. The mechanism of the debate game determines that everyone defends the established position, and everything is to support their own arguments. No one doesn't care about right and wrong. Everyone only cares about losing and winning. Its rules require that debaters always outperform their opponents in words. Therefore, the participants in the whole process refute in order to refute. No one will listen to the views of others, and no one will revise their own views. Debate competition is wonderful as a kind of performance, but it's bad if the competition habit becomes a habit of thinking. Bernard Shaw once said: If you have an apple, I have an apple, exchange with each other, each of us still has only one apple; If you have a thought, I have a thought, exchange with each other, each of us has two thoughts, or even more than two thoughts. What is communication? It is two-way communication and the exchange of ideas. But when a person just wants to prove himself right, you have a thought, I have a thought, exchange with each other, and there is still only one thought. Such communication will not enrich the mind, but the mind will become more and more barren. My mistake is to take the set of debate competition into the ordinary discussion and communication and into the daily interpersonal communication. People around me not only don't think I'm powerful, but also think I'm self righteous, paranoid and narrow-minded. They not only don't admire me, but also isolate me and stay away from me. For me, what's the point of always surpassing others in words, in addition to satisfying a little vanity and gaining a little vain sense of achievement? We should discuss for real knowledge, not to overwhelm others. Real thought communicators should be modest. They actively seek consensus and are willing to admit their shortcomings. For them, refuting others is not the most important, and obtaining a clearer understanding is more valuable. Later, I came into contact with a member of the debate team. I found that her debate team temperament suffocated me, and her words were more aggressive than my defeated member. Even if she is eloquent and articulate, even if she is a winning general in conversation, I think she is a bad communicator. What is a good communicator like? As Eckhart Tolley said in the power of the moment, "you can speak your mind clearly and firmly, but you don't have to attack and defend."

2. Desire to speak is a relationship killer Always surpass others in words, which not only hinders the real exchange of ideas, but also the killer of workplace and intimate relationships. In CAI Kangyong's way of speaking, Cai Kangyong tells a career story. A top student who graduated from a first-class university is full of experience and eloquence. Every time his boss asks him for his opinions at a department meeting, he talks with confidence and has ideas, which are appreciated by his bosses. It's a pity that everyone doesn't like him. When things need to be coordinated, people from other departments are rarely willing to cooperate with him, and people from the same department are not too willing to accompany him. In fact, he is excellent, but the problem is that he likes to crush others in intelligence, eloquence and ability. When he disagrees with others, he always makes them speechless. Those who have verbally suffered from him expect him to make a fool of himself. In intimate relationships, there are no winners. There are too many places for two people to quarrel in love, cohabitation and marriage. There may be differences and contradictions in squeezing toothpaste from home, whether it should be squeezed from the middle or the end, who washes the dishes tonight, whether you can check each other's mobile phone, how to spend their salary, how to get along with their mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, and how to educate their children. If the two sides do not negotiate issues constructively, rather than arguing about who is right and who is wrong, any one may set off a bloodbath at home. Lanlan is my best friend. Every time she quarrels with her boyfriend, she has to force the other party to bow her head and admit her mistake. In fact, it doesn't matter to her who is right and who is wrong. What she wants is attitude. For her, every quarrel is a test of "do you love me or not". If her boyfriend loves her enough, he will follow her, let her and coax her. If her boyfriend refuses to give in, she will use emotional control. If she is angry and angry, she will cry, and if she can't cry, she will cold war until the other party admits her mistake and apologizes. But his boyfriend is a reasonable person. He likes to reason with LAN LAN. He must tell right and wrong. When such two people get together, they can fight over trivial things. Quarrels often end in: Man: OK, OK, it's all my fault, okay Woman: what do you mean "OK", what's your attitude? Man: I admit my mistake. What else do you want? Is it over? Woman: you dare yell at me. Try it again. Finally, the two ended up breaking up, because no one would give in. Every quarrel is a consumption of their feelings. The days together create more pain than happiness for each other. In fact, in a close relationship, you always want to defeat each other, win each other, prove yourself right, and the other party is unjustifiable, which will only lead to a double lose situation. I'm not saying that girls can't have emotions. Sometimes they lose their temper, which makes them cute. Too rational love will turn into a stagnant water. I'm not saying that boys can't reason with girlfriends, but people have both rational and emotional sides. However, our communication can not put aside our emotions after all. Effective communication must first deal with the emotions of others. No one likes to be questioned, opposed, attacked or forced to admit their mistakes. I especially agree with the saying that "a coquettish woman has the best life" and "a coquettish man has the best life". They have a soft persuasion. Always surpass each other in words, which will create a communication atmosphere of confrontation between the two sides. The purpose of communication is to solve the conflict constructively, but when two people are in a state of confrontation, communication becomes destructive. Suppose a situation, a double working family, after dinner, neither husband nor wife wants to wash the dishes. Couples who can constructively resolve conflicts will first find a consensus that both recognize that both husband and wife should undertake housework. Then discuss a plan acceptable to both sides and clarify the obligations: for example, those responsible for cooking do not need to wash the dishes, those responsible for washing the dishes do not need to cook, or one-day wife does the dishes and two-day husband does the dishes. But if the goal of both sides is to defeat each other, they will spare no effort to prove that the other party should wash the dishes more. First than miserable, than who recently more hard; More than credit, more than who pays more for the family; Then expose the shortcomings, turn over the old accounts and give examples of dissatisfaction one by one; Finally, it is upgraded to personal attack, which labels the other party as selfish, lazy, immoral, thoughtless, no sense of family responsibility and so on. But what's the point? No matter how miserable, meritorious, demeaning or personal attacks are, they all hurt their feelings, but they hurt each other, and they didn't decide to wash the dishes. Even if one party's compromise can be temporarily stopped that day, the dishwashing problem will still become the fuse of contradiction at any time in future life.

3. Never forget the real purpose of communication Why do we always have to be better than others in words? This is our nature. We naturally like to surpass others. We prefer to have the upper hand in all aspects than to fall behind; We naturally like others to identify with ourselves. When someone opposes or questions, we will involuntarily defend ourselves and use our own voice to overwhelm the voices of opposition and doubt; But this desire pulls us farther and farther away in the conversation. It makes us forget the real purpose of communication and what is really important to us. Always surpass others in words is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen. If you meet such a person, you might as well give up the meaningless victory to the other party without harming the principle. It is also a kind of wisdom to know how to admit defeat at the right time.