Trust is closely related to love and, like love, we may receive trust without doing anything to earn it. And we may trust other people without them doing anything to earn our trust. However, there are few people, if any, we would trust absolutely, and there are few people, if any, who would trust us completely. Some people trust us with a little more, and we trust some others with a little more. That’s how society works.

Sometimes it’s easy to gain more trust and sometimes it’s extremely difficult, depending on the person’s previous experiences of trusting others. Some people will freely give more trust but not if they have ‘been there, done that’ and been betrayed many times. Generally speaking, a small level of trust is freely given as a test and if you want any more, you have to earn it. Some people's experience is such that they find it too threatening to trust anyone with any more than what is necessary to ‘be polite’. For that reason, patience is the first requirement for gaining the trust of anyone, because it may take a long time.

When we receive trust, we receive the power to do great harm to those who trust us and therefore we need to show we deserve their trust. The giving of trust and being worthy of the trust is the link to love; forming a spiritual bond between individuals.

So, patience is the first requirement for gaining trust. Take your time and remind yourself that trust is a gift; not a right.

Use that time to make the other person feel safe with you and from you.  Not just from physical harm but from emotional, psychological and spiritual harm. The easiest and most effective way of achieving that is by using manners. Manners help establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners also lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles. All that can come from using basic manners.

Gaining trust means being worthy of trust. That means always being reliable – keep your word – be on time – be open and honest – make an effort to know the needs of people and be available to help – and be sincere in saying why you can’t help with some things. Always be willing to offer an apology when you are wrong and take responsibility for your actions.

To sum up, many people might just trust you, so there is no need to win their trust. You only have to be trustworthy and not let them down. However, if you are trying to win back trust, or win it for the first time, you first need to take it slow, especially if the person you want that trust from has been betrayed many times and finds it difficult to trust anybody.

If there is a problem to be worked out, be mindful of maintaining the dignity of other people, or maybe allow them to maintain dignity by ‘saving face’. Clearly identify what you are concerned about and why you need to share the problem with them. If there is a wrong to be righted, do it through restorative action, while being open and honest, especially about anything you did that contributed to causing the problem. 


Photo: Norlangie Park, N.T. Australia.

A builder told me he didn’t like the attitude of a third-year apprentice on his payroll. That statement didn’t give me any idea of what the issue was and, if that was said to the apprentice, I’m sure he wouldn’t know either. So I asked the builder what he meant. Apparently the apprentice often took the ‘near enough is good enough’ approach to his carpentry and dismissed the builder’s criticisms about quality as ‘being too fussy’. Part of the builder’s annoyance came from knowing the apprentice had the skills and knowledge to do better, if he just took a little more care.

An attitude doesn’t exist in isolation; it is an attitude towards 'something', which can be a particular object or person, or just life in general.  An attitude comes from beliefs, values and feelings and is expressed in actions. The attitude towards something in the immediate situation comes from beliefs, values and feelings about that particular thing, from whatever else is happening in the person’s life right now; and from the person’s deep-seated beliefs, values and feelings about life in general. Attitude is therefore complex. 

It seemed to me that the builder was referring to two attitudes. One was the attitude towards the quality of the work and the other was the attitude towards authority. In the early 1990s, the workplace adopted what was called Competency-based Training. To obtain a job, prospective workers needed a certificate that verified they were competent in that role. To get the certificate they had to be deemed to have the skills, knowledge and attitude to perform certain tasks in a range of circumstances.

Training organisations developed programs that detailed exactly what skills, knowledge and attitudes to pass on so the students got the certificate. It all looked great on paper but there was a major problem.  It’s relatively easy to teach someone of average intelligence the skills and knowledge needed to do a job, but it’s impossible to teach attitude. We can teach about attitude but a person’s attitude develops from within, and attitude determines the quality of what we do, whether the task is to join two pieces of wood or establish a relationship.

Part of the problem is that skills and knowledge are directly related to the task at hand but attitude is a combination of general beliefs, values and feelings. A person can have the skills and knowledge to produce quality results but has a toothache, or is running late for an appointment and can’t be bothered about quality.

Culture  is a major factor in regard to performing a task and may greatly affect the quality of the outcome. A person may have the skills, knowledge, and desire to do something well, but this may not be enough to overcome deeply held beliefs and values pulling them in a different direction. No matter what position a person holds and no matter how competent that person normally is, deeply held beliefs, values and feelings can suddenly surface and affect the quality of work or relationships.  

Broadly speaking, quality outcomes are either motivated by the desire to gain external rewards or internal rewards. The first could be called a strategy for a purpose, and the second could be called a spiritual necessity: material gain versus a sense of satisfaction and pride from a job well done, and this increases self-esteem.

Most people act from either of those motivations, depending on the situation. However, the emphasis in the work situation seems to favour attitude as a strategy for achieving a goal. Being polite and helpful in discussing differences then reflects beliefs and values about money or keeping a job, rather than caring about people or relationships. Being polite and helpful may quickly cease and the people involved can become embroiled in a bitter conflict over a relatively small matter. However, if the politeness and helpfulness was reflecting deeply held beliefs and values about human relationships, there would be little chance of disputes getting out of hand. Winning a point  is then less important than having a good relationship with other workers. 


Photo: Replica submarine in South Australia.

People come in many shapes, sizes, ages, and colours but they are all human. People gather in a variety of situations with all kinds of people, but each remains human. And whenever two or more humans gather - at home, at play or at work - there are always problems and conflicts requiring a response from each. Each person’s response is affected by different levels of power, duty, knowledge and skills, as well as the different beliefs, values and culture of each person. But, no matter what form the response takes, it is a human response.

My book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, looks at the sameness of being human and sets out the fundamental tools we need for dealing with problems and conflicts in life. The family is the setting for describing the use of each tool because everyone has some knowledge of family life and an opinion about how the various members of a family should act and be treated. For other settings, such as work or play, the challenge for all of us is to recognise the humanness of the people involved and consciously use the same fundamental tools, albeit in different ways.  The fundamental tools are:  

GROUNDED LOVE.
Grounded love is the first and most important tool. It is love grounded in equality that guides the use of all the tools described in the book. ‘Love’ includes virtues such as respect, assertiveness, care, protection, compassion and cooperation.

 In the home and personal life it can be emotional love. In a group or work situation, it is generally referred to as our duty of care, which may have a minimum level enshrined in law.

A culture of equality can exist even though people have different duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge, and they need the authority to perform those duties and meet their responsibilities.

MANNERS.
Manners are used to establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles.

EXAMPLE.
Regardless of the setting, example is the most effective way to teach and convey expectations of what to do and how to do it.  Example is sometimes described as: walking the talk; practicing what you preach; showing how it can be done; and being the change you want to see happen.

CENTRING.

Centring is focusing on something that helps you achieve the outcome you want. Sometimes it means focusing on the outcome itself and sometimes it means focusing on something seemingly unrelated to the outcome. Centring is a state of mind in which a person, the action and the outcome seem to become one.

The overall aim of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness is for Grounded Love, Manners, Example, Centring and all other tools and skills they lead to, will cease being regarded as tools, and become the normal way of relating to other people, regardless of their shape, size, age or colour.





Photo: Kakadu National Park N.T. 

Peace and happiness isn’t about being free from pain, suffering, disputes or conflict. Peace and happiness depends on the quality of our relationship with other people, with the environment and with the cosmos. The good news is that peace and happiness increases as we become more aware of our true place in the scheme of things and work to preserve it. The pain and suffering, disputes and conflict that can be part of everyday life then becomes easier to cope with.

People gain awareness of this in various ways. Some gain it through religion, others through science and some gain it through everyday experience. Many would probably say they gained it through a combination of all the above. But regardless of how it happens, the awareness is of peace and happiness increasing as we improve the quality of our relationships.

Most human spiritual and social development is the result of reflecting on the consequences of what we say and do; what others say and do; what happens in our environment; and on cosmic events. However, the direction our development takes depends on what we centre on as we reflect on these things.  Choosing what to centre on is crucial to the quality of our relationships and is a decision that needs to be made many times each day, for as long as we live.

Each decision comes at the junction of two possible paths. One path leads to the enduring peace and happiness that continues even though there may be trouble and strife. The other path leads to instant pleasure and temporary relief from life’s problems. Everyone comes to these junctions and must face the same decision many times every day throughout life.

The choice is to centre on our own needs, or to centre on the needs of the relationship. Regardless of whether the ‘other’ is a person, the environment or the cosmos, centring only on our own needs is at the expense of the other and damages the quality of the relationship. The consequence of that damage may not be immediately apparent, but it does exist. The next junction reached may be only seconds away, where we again have to decide between increasing the damage done at the previous junction or take the other path.

Nature and the cosmos are very forgiving and will allow us to simply start again at each junction throughout life. However, other people at each junction have a choice. They may allow us to simply start again; they may impose some condition before resuming the relationship; or they may terminate the relationship. The quality of our relationships, and therefore our happiness, really is our choice. 


Photo: North Island New Zealand.

By Bob Myers.

Just because people live in the same house doesn’t mean they live in the same world. There are numerous examples of this from listening to people describing a situation.  Two people describing how a dispute started can have entirely different stories; supporters of opposing sides describing a football match seem to have watched different games; and witnesses to a crime can’t agree whether the culprit was a small female or a large bearded male. 

People communicate from their own interests, abilities and the meanings they have for things. So, two people can interpret a scenario very differently. You are the expert on your needs, and how you would like those needs to be met. No one else knows your problems like you do, because you live those problems, and you know what you can do and what you can't do. Each person is an expert on their own needs, so we should all listen to the experts. Some of the reasons we don’t listen are:

1.            We think that ‘to listen’ means ‘to agree’ with what is being said.

2.            We already know the answer to the problem and can’t wait to reveal it.

3.            We are afraid if we listen we might come to agree and have to change.

4.            We have to win every argument because we lose face when we lose an argument.

5.            We have slipped into the habit of letting our thoughts wander to other things.

6.            We are too busy thinking up what we are going to say as soon as we get the chance.

The list could go on but these will do to illustrate the point that listening is not easy. You have to put effort into listening so you understand the other person's world. Then you can check your understanding by asking the expert; the person you were listening to. Simply say what you believe was meant by what was said. In other words, paraphrase to make sure you understood the message. ‘Now let me see if I heard you correctly. What you said was......... and you were frustrated by this. Is that right?’ The person will either say, ‘Yes, that's exactly right’ or will correct you until you get it right.

When you listen to others you can expect to be shown the same courtesy. If you are interrupted, say something like, ‘I listened to you so I could understand your view and now I want you to do the same for me’. Another advantage is that your reply is based on a sound understanding of the other person's views. You have more influence because the points you raise can include their views; what you disagree with and what you agree with. You may find that the area of dispute will shrink considerably because understanding brings out the virtue of compassion, which cannot live alongside aggression.

Being open and honest about your view generally leads to identifying the real problem. Unfortunately our competitive world teaches us to hold back and not trust each other with information that could be used against us. Putting the viewpoint in terms of safety and fairness helps get over this hurdle because it’s easier and less threatening. Being open and honest means taking a chance.

The usual image people have of conflict involves some form of violence or heated argument but conflict can be as simply as two people wanting to use the toothpaste at the same time. You may think these minor incidents are too insignificant to qualify as conflicts but they can provide a clue to problems in the relationship. It isn't the size of the incident that matters. The way it’s handled can lead to a big blow-up. The use of the toothpaste may be the trigger that ignites a powder keg of resentment about an unequal relationship in which one has 'had enough'. It could also be the focal point of a clash of egos that could end in bloodshed because each is driven to maintain dignity or self-esteem.

Regardless of whether we are talking about conflict in a family, at work or community, the same deceptively simple conflict resolution guidelines apply. People who respect each other listen until they understand the other’s views before honestly stating their own views, tend to seek solutions that meet the needs of all involved.

Abortion is classed as a taboo subject, and that's reason enough to talk about it. It seems to me that the conflict waged between pro-life and pro-choice people will go on forever, simply because both sides are bogged down and spinning their wheels in an unwinnable argument over the morality of abortion. This is a shame because I believe both sides actually agree on the most important aspect of abortion and could work together to prevent a great deal of suffering. (I should state here that I am anti-abortion, which is easy for me because I will never be faced with the decision.)

Pro-choice people are not evil and are not stupid. In general, they readily accept the need to restrict human choices when there are sound, logical reasons for those restrictions. Failing to win them over to the anti-abortion camp doesn't mean we have lost or are wrong, we just don't have a convincing enough argument. And I doubt that we ever will because most anti-abortion people say, "I am against abortion, but in cases where......" Any exception means even pro-lifers realise there is a subjective choice involved.

The argument as to whether a woman should or should not have the freedom to choose abortion is like arguing whether a man has the freedom to choose to suicide. There is no escaping the fact that it's the woman who makes the decision. She may have no choice about getting pregnant but she has the say about ending it. Others can decide whether abortion is legal, but making it illegal doesn't remove her choice, it only adds a different dimension to her choice. Other people can provide options and alternatives, they can provide counselling and put pressure on her to decide either way but the fact remains that the decision is hers to make. If denied a safe method, she can decide to use unsafe methods. It's impossible to deny her the choice unless she is closely guarded 24/7. She has the choice; it's really only a matter of whether a safe way is part of that choice.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. I believe those who advocate abortion on demand are against abortion as such. They are not pushing for women to get pregnant just to assert the right to have an abortion. They want women to have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. These same people would go to great expense and effort to save a wanted pregnancy or to save a very premature baby. The key word is 'wanted'.

People on both sides of the abortion debate are intelligent and caring and probably agree that every pregnancy should be welcomed. Most anti-abortionists would be over the moon if they could halve the number of abortions performed each year and I believe pro-choice people would be just as pleased if the number of unwanted pregnancies dropped by half.

The question is, ‘Which is more important, winning an argument or reducing the number of abortions?’ Both sides could achieve a great deal by pooling their passionate energy and cooperating to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The combined resources of both camps could study the causes of unwanted pregnancies and then unite to eliminate those causes. We can do it if we really want to.


Bob Myers,
Author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

Conflict is inevitable, even in ‘love relationships’. Resolving conflict can be difficult, even for people centred on improving the quality of a relationship. It’s difficult because the urge to win or to get even for past wrongs is so much a part of our culture. We need to acknowledge that we are under the influence of these urges whenever we are faced with conflict but also be aware we can counteract that influence. 

It’s much easier to resolve a conflict or solve a relationship problem when we start from the cosmic viewpoint that all humans are equal and think about how that should affect what we say and do. When a relationship is grounded in equality, the people involved will centre on the problem, or conflict, at hand, including the emotional effects and any material loss or damage that needs to be put right. In a relationship of equals, there is no competition; no desire to dominate or thought of retribution. However, as soon as one views the other as ‘the enemy’ and begins focusing on winning or seeking revenge, the chances of peacefully resolving the problem takes a nose dive.

Conflicts are more likely to be resolved peacefully when those involved share the same worldview and have common goals. Religious people should have the advantage in this, since they aspire to share the same worldview, but even religions are notoriously competitive on all levels of interaction. This applies from the level of ‘which is the one true religion’ upwards. And resentment over past injustices has lingered between religions for centuries. Even though organised religion has failed to lead the way in conflict resolution, it is possible for anyone to start the ball rolling in their own life.

Even if the other person in a dispute is intent on winning and therefore not interested in equality, any person who is grounded in equality, and centred on the principles of nonviolence, is in a strong position to gain a fair outcome, and turn an ‘enemy’ into a friend. Therefore, when faced with a conflict, the first thing to do is remember that equality is the true ground for human relationships, and then centre on obtaining an outcome consistent with that base.

Once you are grounded and centred, there are four guidelines to peaceful conflict resolution. It’s ironic that if these guidelines were used to guide communication between people in everyday life, there would be few negative conflicts to resolve. The guidelines for conflict resolution (or for avoiding negative conflicts) are:

·         Respect the other person.

·         Listen until the other person’s views are understood.

·         Be open and honest in sharing your own views.

·         Make agreements for the common good. (Seek win/win solutions)


Bob Myers, author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

We fight because our culture taught us to fight.  We had no say in what we were taught as children so it’s not our fault that we fight.  However, each of us can do something about the way we handle disagreements now, simply because we have a choice.

Human behaviour is always complicated so let’s simplify it a little by comparing two couples born and raised in the same culture who are faced with the same conflicts in their relationships. Both couples live in a culture that measures success by wealth and power. Both couples are high achievers who want to do well in a society that idolises winners.

Competition and Domination are known as couple number one. These two are lovers who usually walk hand in hand and are seldom apart. Even when they are apart, they continue to flirt with each other. This flirtation can be a lot of fun but sometimes turns nasty, especially when Domination tries to control Competition by imposing revenge or punishment.

Couple number two is comprised of Cooperation and Equality. These two are also lovers who usually walk hand in hand but sometimes they enjoy spending a little time apart or walking separately, confident in the enduring strength and quality of the relationship.

Both of these couples face the same conflicts in their relationships and both are well aware of the guidelines for resolving conflict. The main difference is in the way each couple interprets those guidelines.  People living in a culture that glorifies winning are encouraged to centre on their own needs as they follow the guidelines and use them to gain an advantage over their opponent. Therefore, Competition and Domination have no problem keeping to the guidelines, even though they know their interpretation of the guidelines will result in one of them losing in some way. The four guidelines for conflict resolution are very simple:

1. Respect your opponent.
2. Listen until you understand your opponent’s point of view.
3. Openly and honestly express your point of view.
4. Seek solutions you and your opponent can live with.

 
Cooperation and Equality, on the other hand, try to centre on the relationship itself as they struggle to ignore the competitive influence of the culture they live in. Their aim is to find a solution to the conflict that will improve the quality of their relationship and strengthen it. They sometimes find it difficult to centre on the relationship itself but know they must guard against the training they received in early childhood to be competitive. They know that if they start fighting as they negotiate a solution, it’s because some kind of competition or domination has crept in and caused them to centre as individuals rather than remaining centred on the relationship itself.

People in competitive mode argue to determine who is right and who is wrong. There has to be a winner and a loser, so the aim is to win. Parliament works that way and so does the legal system. People in countless meetings across the country try to convince other members to vote for their ideas as they debate topics and sometimes an argument can become nasty. Over a lifetime, we witness countless movies and hear countless stories about people settling disagreements with the power of words and sometimes with weapons. It is all around us every day of our life so it’s no wonder we fall so easily into the adversarial way of settling a dispute. And it’s no wonder winning has, so far, been so important to us.

Instead of seeing conflict as a competition, we could change what we centre on so we see it as an opportunity to find a cooperative outcome that strengthens the relationship. 

The dynamics of this apply to conflict in any situation and at any level. That is why I use family situations in my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, to promote cooperation and equality.  


Bob Myers.

People tell us we should forgive and forget but forgiveness does not necessarily include ‘forgetting.’ To forgive is to remember an event without resentment or wanting revenge. We can forgive someone even while we are angry and hurt, or wanting our hurting to be recognized.

Some people believe that forgiving means  wrongdoers don’t have to face the consequences of their actions, or have to make amends, but neither of these has to be part of forgiveness. Forgiving is not about letting the wrongdoer off the hook, it’s about freeing yourself from the destructive torment of hate and resentment. Not forgiving can condemn yourself to a life of misery; of being battered in a stormy sea while the wrongdoer goes sailing on in calm waters, happily unaware of the hate that threatens to drag you down.  

It can be quite foolish for a woman in a domestic violence situation to ‘forget’ this man is likely to react violently in certain circumstances.  It can be foolish because the same thing is likely to happen next time he is faced with the same circumstances. It can be irresponsible because it fails to protect other people from being affected by his actions. It also fails to help the perpetrator, and that can sometimes be the most serious failing because helping the perpetrator face up and make amends helps all those he will have dealings with in the future. 

Forgive and forget’ can contribute to continued violence, to the extent that forgiveness  becomes just another part of the ‘cycle of violence.’ When that happens, forgiveness is still necessary for your own sake, but there should be conditions attached to any reconciliation. This is important in domestic violence. Many people find it difficult to understand why a woman remains in a violent  relationship being beaten by her partner, especially if she has opportunities to leave. However, the emotional and psychological forces involved can make it very difficult for her to leave, especially if the man is well aware of those forces and uses them to trap her in a power game he may actually believe is love. He is partly right in that belief but it is his love of power, rather than love for his partner. 

Women in domestic violence situations can mistake feelings of dependency as love, which can be made more complex by cultural or religious beliefs about a woman’s role in regard to sex and love. When she does muster the courage to leave, her partner may be devastated and crumble into a broken, sobbing mess pleading for forgiveness and making all sorts of promises to be good. This part of the game is an attempt to hook the woman’s compassion and her need to be wanted, which often works. So she forgives him and after a blissful few weeks he slowly returns to his old habits, and the cycle of violence continues.

Reconciliation does not have to be part of forgiveness. Before reconciliation can be successful, the cycle of violence needs to be broken by the abuser successfully completing an attitude-changing course on establishing and maintaining a relationship based on equality. Ideally, the woman should also successfully complete such a course before considering reconciliation. Forgiveness, forgetting and reconciliation are three distinct and independent concepts that may or may not be tied together.

Bob Myers.