Look, what did you do in the opposite direction?

After reading a joke, I almost dislocated my chin:

A group of people went to a hot pot restaurant for dinner. Suddenly, a person had loose bowels and went down to the bathroom on the second floor under the guidance of the waiter, only to find that the only bathroom was written with the words "fault maintenance". I really can't control that much, so he sat on the toilet and let it go. How carefree! ?

When he came down from the second floor, all the guests on the first floor were gone. He finally found his sister hiding under the counter, and her sister said, "I just don't know which SB upstairs is taking a shit." Can't you see that the toilet upstairs is broken? I fell directly from the second floor and smashed the electric fan with that shit. " . . . . . "

..... Ha ha ha, I didn't think I would answer this? What does this joke have to do with this topic? Answer: Do the opposite!

Ok, let's talk more seriously. Doing the opposite is actually an unexpected problem-solving thinking. If used properly, complex problems will often be solved.

Here are some stories that deeply inspired me to think about solving problems. I didn't do it, but you can do it if you understand the problem-solving ideas in these examples (the examples are from the classic "Change", which is emphasized).

The first story

This was a riot in Paris in the19th century, and the army commander was ordered to open fire on the mob to clear the scene (to suppress the riot). The commander ordered the troops to enter the shooting position and aimed one gun at the crowd. Then, there was a terrible silence. At this moment, the commander drew his sword and shouted, "Ladies and gentlemen, I was ordered to open fire on the mob, but what I saw in front of me was a group of honest and noble citizens. I ask you to leave the square so that we can aim at these thugs! " As a result, when he said these words, the crowd in the square dispersed in less than a few minutes.

The commander faced the dangerous crowd. In the face of this problem, the general method is to fight violence with violence, but generally doing so will make the problem more deadlocked: because the troops are armed and the masses are unarmed. There is no doubt that the hostile situation will continue. The commander did the opposite-first of all, he jumped out of his confrontation with the masses and framed a situation acceptable to all the people present, so the original tension and ineffective solution (violence against violence) was safely solved.

What is the second story? The relationship between probation offenders and probation counselors.

Ideally, the two should have a completely trusting relationship (the purpose is to gain trust), because the psychological counselor is to help the probation worker and understand his current life. But in fact, there is only a certain degree of understanding between the two people, and the counselor himself also pretends to be a government bureaucrat. Therefore, if the probationer commits atrocities again, the counselor will never have a chance to find out this situation again. Even if the counselor tells his client that "you should trust me" (this is the general method), he can only gain a little trust from the probation officer. Obviously, trust is spontaneous, not acquired by command. When we train psychological counselors, there is a very strange but useful way to solve the problem, that is, the psychological counselor tells the client, "You don't have to trust me completely, and you don't have to tell me everything."

In the end, the defender's statement not only won the considerable trust of the suspended person, but also clarified the untrustworthy dilemma of his role, thus establishing a feasible working relationship foundation.