Every person has their own way of thinking, believing, and generally speaking, this will eventually conflict with the views and values of others. In order to get our point across or to find out what other people believe and why, we will need to negotiate to reach an understanding. Mary Roach writes about some personal experiences she had with arguing in her essay "Meet the Bickersons," which humorously accounts her trials with relationships. To be sure, there are many benefits and also disadvantages from arguing; knowing what to say, how to say it, and when can be the deciding factor. Mary’s personality traits when arguing are defensive, sarcastic, overreacting, and she is prone to crying very easily. Therefore, her ex suggested a technique called active listening, which is supposed to allow you to understand what your partner is trying to communicate to you and make arguments fairer and less combative. Then both you and your partner take turns expressing what they think there partner is trying to say. Unfortunately in Mary’s case, the system was exploited; they began arguing over a way to limit arguing, which caused more problems than it solved. I believe when you over complicate and subject yourself to those types of constraints, frustration can easily manifest. Though I think arguing is important socially; arguing shows a person’s position on issues, allows others to show their point of view, and allows arguers to come to an understanding of reasons for those views. Arguing may be helpful, if people could get their ego out of the way. There may be beneficial information to gain, moreover, you work together to find the best option for the situation. Though, the problem is when arguments stop being constructive and become obnoxious. Those types of arguments are usually over petty things without a real purpose, or something they are trying to achieve. So, respect is crucial; being too pushy could be damaging. Just because views may be different, does...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document