Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
Diplomacy evolved initially to deal with problems in the relationships between countries.
Instead of leaders infuriating each other and making decisions in the heat of the moment, they learnt to send emissaries who could state things in less inflammatory ways, who wouldn't take the issues so personally, who would be more patient.
Within a negotiation with someone, there is often a request that they change in some way.
A diplomat knows that it is futile to state the call to change too directly as many insist on having their way. Behind the arguing may lie a need for appreciation and esteem.
Diplomats know the intensity with which humans crave respect. Diplomats take the time to show that they have bothered to see how things look through the other person's eyes.
Diplomats perceive that people want to feel heard as much as they want to win their case. Therefore, diplomats put effort into securing the overall relationship's health so that smaller points can be won along the way.
Diplomats know that fear holds people back and therefore offer love and reassurance.
They know too when recommending change, they are not speaking from a position of perfection. For a recommendation not to sound like mere criticism, the diplomats know to admit to their own shortcomings: "And I am, of course, entirely mad as well…’’
A diplomat is serene in the face of bad behavior, such as a sudden loss of temper.
They don't take a wild accusation or a mean remark personally but understand that the person who bangs a fist of the table may be worried, frightened, or just enthusiastic - conditions that should instead invite sympathy.
A diplomat understands that there are moments to sidestep direct engagement. They don't teach a lesson whenever it might first or most apply; they wait until it has the best chance of being heard.
They can disarm difficult people by reacting in unexpected ways. They might nod in partial agreement to unfair criticism and declare that they've often said such things to themselves. In the face of a tirade, instead of getting defensive, the diplomatic person might suggest some lunch.
A diplomat has given up on the ideal out of mature readiness to see compromise as a necessary requirement in an imperfect world.
The diplomat may be polite but is willing to deliver bits of bad news. We should say that they're fired, that their pet project isn't going ahead, but instead pretend there is a glimmer of hope. Real niceness means helping the people we are going to disappoint to adjust as best we can to reality. The diplomatic person administers a clean blow and kills off the torture of hope, accepting the frustration that's likely to come their way.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
Straightforward people are easy to be around with because we know exactly what the issues are from the start. There is no need to guess or infer or translate.
If they don&...
Complicated people are very unsure about the legitimacy of their own desires, making them unable to let the world know what they really want and feel.
They may initially appear to agree with everything you're saying, but later on, their reservations will become known. They will say they want to join you for dinner but will inwardly ache for an early night. They will give the impression of being happy while crying inside. They will say sorry when they want you to apologize.
The root cause of confusing complexity may come from fear of how an audience might respond if our real intentions are known.
The origins may have started in childhood. A child becomes complicated when they are given the impression that there is no room for their honesty. A child may have received irritation or open anger for their honesty.
The modern world equates the intelligent person will the well-read person. It's difficult to think of anyone arriving at any worthy insights without having read an impressive n...
The premodern world was obsessed with asking, "what is the point is of reading?" They had answers too.
The modern world has adopted an Enlightenment mantra that states there should be no limit to how much we read because we read in order to know everything. We don't read to understand God or to follow civic virtue; we read to understand the whole of human existence.
This maximalist legacy of the Enlightenment idea of reading is present within the publishing industry, within the way books are presented to the public at school and in shops, and within our own guilty responses to the pressure to read more.
We almost all have a character inside our minds that tends to visit us late at night when we're very tired, telling us terrible things in order to destroy our self-confidence and self-c...
You could tell everything as a tragedy, or you could tell an equally valid and far kinder story. You could say that you made some serious errors, as every human will, and you paid the price for them. Nevertheless, you tried to be good and loved a few people properly. Despite everything, your heart is in the right place.
The difference between hope and despair depends on the way of telling conflicting stories from the same facts.
... who has been internalized. You're speaking to yourself as someone else once talked to you or made you feel.
You should acknowledge your failures and be happy to make amends. But you also have to stand back from this critic and question what they are doing in your mind. They don't have a right to walk as they wish through the rooms of your mind.