An older blog that I wrote before I became ardent on hubski.
At least I don't think I ever posted it. If so, I'm sorry for wasting your time and space.
Handy information here, if you are feeling genuinely sorry and no one believes you.
Apology accepted. Seriously though, saying sorry is only the beginning of an apology, the contrition phase. The real work comes in recognizing when you're about to make the same mistake again, then tempering your behavior. An apology is essentially worthless without effort to rectify your behavior the next time a similar situation arises. Although I think the thing itself itself is very important, I'm of the belief that actions speak louder than words, that people should be judged with more weight by the way they respond to mistakes than by whether they make them in the first place.
I've said before that most conflict comes from acting on assumptions, and its hard to rescind those assumptions and apologize afterwards. But, as I think Kleinbro has said, apologies have a lot of power. I like all of the points you make, lil, and I try to incorporate them when I need to say sorry. But I feel like a lot of the time, people can't apologize using this method (i.e. genuinely) because of how difficult it is for most people to apologize, and the fact that these sorts of apologies require an amount of self-reflection that is difficult a lot of the time. I think the biggest step to get past that initial hurdle is to make the conflict less about "winning and losing" and more about solving an issue together. Us vs. the problem, I guess.
An apology is an attempt to repair a damaged relationship. For that repair to happen, both parties have to want it. Getting to that point is half the battle. Once you're there, somebody has to swallow their pride and admit their injurious actions. Doesn't necessarily have to be the party most at fault - has to be the party that most wants peace. It still might not work. It's a mistake, I think, lil, to "#2: acknowledge the effect on the other person." Assumptions are often what got you there in the first place. You may have no idea why the other party is pissed off and you're going to get a lot further if you give them a chance to air their grievances than you will if you attempt to fill in the blanks for them. You also open yourself to this: if you figured out why it was such an injury, why did you do it? "Well, I'm an idiot." No you're not, I don't associate with idiots and if I thought you were going to do something idiotic I wouldn't have gotten in league on this in the first place. By attempting to play the idiot card you're throwing my judgment into question as well as pissing me off. #3 and #4 may flow from the conversation that happens, but don't front-load them. Have them in mind. I ripped thenewgreen a new one for this. I asked to mix it. He asked if he could post it. The answer was "yes" in both cases. From his perspective, it was a cool thing he wanted to share. From my perspective, it's bullshit having your work held up against a standard you are unaware of and invited for scrutiny by people whose opinions you don't value and whose presence you resent. The problem? For TNG, this was "music is great, these people are great, let's share the great." For me, it was "my girlfriend thinks the guitar is too loud. Fix it." And that phase of my life is over over over. I'm in the credits of Pro Tools. There are plugins with presets organized under my name. My hair is a bird. Your girlfriend's opinion is invalid. I didn't spend three days in the mud on $80k worth of gear to be told "I can hear the plug-in-ishness of the amp sound now, especially in the sustained notes" when I'd replaced some bullshit $150 Line Six plugin with an $2000 chain. My offense was entirely rooted in having my work subjected to critique by people who hadn't earned the right. TNG, to his credit, bent over backward apologizing. Said many many extremely nice, extremely contrite things. He did, however, misunderstand the source of my anger... and per point #2, attempted to tell me why I was mad, rather than asking. And as a consequence, I stayed mad for a good three weeks. I've since apologized to TNG for getting so pissed off and, as far as I know, alles gute. However, "Step 2" added many many days of anger to the problem. Steps 3 and 4 never happened and don't need to - "don't do that" is pretty simple.Tagging ghostoffuffle, T-Dog and jonaswildman because I'd like to know what you think..
kb, thanks for reading and responding. I appreciate it. #2 is problematic - but I'm not sure it should be tossed out. You're right that a) we don't really know the effect on the other person and would be making a possibly false assumption. For that reason, it should be said tentatively. Maybe instead of You suggest that if I show an awareness of the other person's feelings, I might also be opening myself up to this response: "if you figured out why it was such an injury, why did you do it?" Maybe, if the person is still totally and justifiably pissed, they might say that -- but I doubt it, because this is the apology for after the blow-up. This is the apology for when you finally have realized that maybe what you did was hurtful. By showing the impact of your crappy action, in my world, the other person really feels understood. Take just now, for example: I just returned from a two-week trip and my current spousal unit is trying to connect with me, so he invites me downstairs to watch an inning of the ball game and promises to hold my hand. When I join him, he's eating, and then he jumps up to find out some info on the computer, then he answers some email. The inning ends and he's still on the computer, so I remind him that he invited me down to watch the game. He makes a bunch of "I'm sorry but this and I'm sorry but that." Now, if he had just said, "Oh shit - I got distracted. You must feel ignored or misled." I'd go, "yeah, that's it exactly" and I'd believe his apology and we'd sort it out from there. The conversation is a connecting one, not a disconnecting one. Do you see what I'm getting at? #2 is problematic mostly because it's so damn hard to put yourself in the other person's shoes and imagine how your own behaviour made them feel. To imagine yourself as hurtful (especially when you see yourself as helpful and heroic) is very very difficult. But because it is hard and almost impossible to do is no reason for me to leave it out as a possible step. OK - have at me."When I behaved like that, you must have felt completely misunderstood, falsely accused, and disconnected from me."
maybe something more tentative like, "I guess you felt . . . Is that it."
Here's a guess: I read "Acknowledge the effect on the other person" as "acknowledge the effect to that person" whereas you might mean "acknowledge the effect to better apologize." From my perspective, "acknowledge the effect on the other person" is Step Zero: apology begins with empathy and without an attempt to put yourself in their shoes, you aren't really going to internalize your crimes. We're imperfect, however, and the process is going to be a lot smoother if you attempt to figure out where you fucked up and then give them the opportunity to fill you in without your preconceived plan of attack getting in the way. Had you written "acknowledge the effect on the other person (but keep it to yourself until your apology is accepted)" I'd agree 100%. By saying "I'm sorry for ignoring you, it didn't occur to me that you might not want me checking my email while we hang out" you're also saying "I'm sorry for checking my email while we hang out" and very specifically not saying "I'm sorry for not holding your hand while we hang out" which may, in fact, be a far more important apology to make. Putting yourself in the other person's shoes is perhaps the most important social skill you can learn. Emotional intelligence has a much stronger correlation with success and happiness than intellectual intelligence does. Most people use The Golden Rule as a platitude to explain karma; few people use it forensically.
Ah, the crux of every apology. Unfortunately, this often results in the person receiving the apology not recognizing that the apology is less about saying, "I harmed you, and I'd like your mercy," and something more closely resembling, "I value our relationship more than I value my pride, so I'd like to do what I can to fix this, starting now." However, a one way apology rarely, if ever, can work, because even in the case when one person clearly wronged another, it's still up to the party who was wronged to accept the apology, explain fully why they reacted the way they did, and to forgive. Although I didn't follow that thread, and I have no idea what happened there, it's interesting and instructive to have the anatomy of a conflict and the ensuing apology laid out. I think many conflicts could be avoided by clearer explanations of why we're angry or upset in the first place. I'm personally terrible at expressing negative emotions, but mainly that leads to me just getting more upset down the line (sunlight being the best disinfectant and all). Step 1 is next to impossible if you don't know what the specific thing that made the other person upset is. Sometimes we harm each other with the best of intentions in mind. Perspective is impossible in the case when you've not had a shared experience with the other person. Ignorance is only bliss for the ignorant.Once you're there, somebody has to swallow their pride and admit their injurious actions. Doesn't necessarily have to be the party most at fault - has to be the party that most wants peace. It still might not work.
For me, there are some cases though where I need an apology, not like want, or think it would fair, but need because if it's not said, the relationship suffers. Also this point is a sort of crossroads, because if someone is so adamant about not apologizing, are they really taking my feelings into account? If they aren't taking my feelings into account, why are we anything beyond amicable acquaintances? My ex-boyfriend was like this.how difficult it is for most people to apologize, and the fact that these sorts of apologies require an amount of self-reflection that is difficult a lot of the time.
Gooooood don't even get me started. She couldn't apologize to save her life, and decided that she'd rather break-up up than apologize for what she did. Both people should have an understanding of what to do next after a conflict without some dramatic declaration of "this isn't ever going to work." That's a sign of defeatism, of giving up when things actually get difficult and only wanting to stick around when things make you happy. That's not someone I'd want to continue spending time with.My ex-boyfriend was like this.
I think that when an apology is not promptly offered, especially for an egregious mistake, it's very telling. People know when they fuck up or do something wrong. (Certainly in more extreme situations at least.) And when it's not offered, the relationship should suffer because clearly the one person isn't willing to acknowledge they did something wrong for whatever reason - because they're a coward or because they're too proud. (Ironic how it's both sides of the spectrum.) If I don't agree with someone who is raising something I've done to make them upset I will tell them I am sorry they feel that way. I do apologize. I just only apologize for what I feel is merited. At that point I have acknowledged the other person's ruffled feathers and it's about "where do we go from here," if it's a person I even want to have that conversation with. There are truth be told a few people (2) who I would not even say "I am sorry you feel that way" to. But they are people who I no longer care about how my actions make them feel
by the way, I hate hearing, "I'm sorry you feel that way." It seems like a complete rejection of my feelings and not an apology at all. Maybe "It sounds like not making it to the Star Wars movie really upset you. It upset me too. I wish I hadn't been sick and I could have followed through with my suggestion to go. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?"
It really is, that to me is a red flag on anyone... whether romantic, friendly, professional, acquaintance.... and the "where do we go from here" conversation is one that works only if both people are willing to let go of any negative feelings they had about a situation and heal things. Mutual humility is favorable in the pursuit of resolution and concord between contentious parties. Going beyond just recognizing someone's ruffled feathers, discerning how our own actions were unskillful in that they put as odds with another: If we can discern that, then apologizing becomes genuine, and we benefit as well as the other. We apologize healing each of us benefitting us in the now and then seeing how our actions were the cause of previous conflict, we can abandon those actions so it doesn't happen again–that benefits ourselves in the longterm. Of course in the case where we did have good discernment and saw that our actions were not the cause of someone's contentiousness, then there is nothing we can do.I think that when an apology is not promptly offered, especially for an egregious mistake, it's very telling.
At that point I have acknowledged the other person's ruffled feathers and it's about "where do we go from here," if it's a person I even want to have that conversation with.
I'll be sure to think about it when I need to apologize for something it's very useful.