Tractatus on Emotional Management - (ENG)

1.Disagreement is inherent to social life.

1.1. Agreeing is a relationship between two people.
1.2. Being fair is an individual quality.
1.3. One cannot agree with everyone and be a fair person.
1.4. Being a fair person implies disagreeing when necessary.
1.5. Always giving in is incompatible with being just.
1.6. Never giving in does not imply being fair.

2.Disagreement is not equivalent to conflict.

2.1. Conflict emerges from the emotional management of disagreement.
2.2. Disagreeing does not necessarily imply a confrontation.
2.3. Separating disagreement from the accompanying emotion is essential for pacific coexistence.

2.3.1. This ability defines a functional person.

2.4. A functional person is capable of yielding and sustaining positions with balance.

3.Total agreement is suspicious.

3.1. When two people always agree, perhaps one of them is cognitively redundant (has stopped thinking).
3.2. It is also possible that one of them simply systematically yields.
3.3. Systematically yielding can be a strategy of affiliation or submission.

4.Discrimination can take subtle forms.

4.1. Never agreeing with a specific group implies systematic invalidation.
4.2. This invalidation, even without institutional power, constitutes a form of discrimination.
4.3. Discriminating is applying a systematic bias that is not based on content, but on the source.

5.The structure of language conditions the possibility of agreement.

5.1. The more specific the language, the easier it is to see who is wrong.

5.1.1. The more specific and factual the language, the harder it is to agree.

5.2. The more abstract and general the language, the easier it is to simulate agreement.
5.3. Superficial agreement can camouflage deep, unspoken disagreements.
5.4. Vague words serve to avoid conflicts, not to resolve them.

6.Not all disagreements are resolved equally, and power determines their evolution.

6.1. If the topic is verifiable, data decides.
6.2. If it is not, negotiation power decides.

6.2.1. With equal power, the right solution is a 50/50 solution.
6.2.2. If one wins over the other, it means they have more strength, not more 'reason'.
6.2.3. If one party systematically imposes over the others, they have more negotiation power.

6.3. Relational power often decides who can disagree and who cannot.
6.4. Relational power is not always visible: it can be symbolic, emotional, or structural.

7.Personal traits influence the style of disagreement management.

7.1. Empathetic people (who easily align with the interlocutor's mood) tend to yield to please, to the detriment of the process's justice.
7.2. Methodical people (who usually prioritize internal coherence) tend to prioritize justice to the detriment of pleasing.

8.The perception of being right does not indicate emotional intelligence.

8.1. People who believe they are always right are narcissistic or seek docile environments.
8.2. Emotional intelligence is reflected in the ability to live with the possibility of being wrong.

8.2.1. Emotional intelligence is characteristic of functional people.

8.3. Emotional intelligence is not related to the perception of being right, but rather to the positive perception of being wrong.

4 Theses:

1. The winner of an unverifiable disagreement is not "who is right," but who has more symbolic or emotional power.
2. When two people never argue, one of them is paying an invisible emotional price to maintain peace.
3. The more abstract the language, the easier it is to fake consensus.
4. The obsession with 'being right' is inversely proportional to the ability to learn from mistakes.

Picture by Miggy Rivera (pexels.com)