The on our planet usual form of communication is language. In oral or written form. Thus knowledge can be passed on and therefore only joint projects can be implemented. Because we use so far, yet this type of transfer is often to check how reliable is this form of communication. Can a proper transfer of knowledge to pass without distortion actually be ensured?
From this angle the table situation looks very different. Person B obviously plays are just as good or her own role. And acts as if he or she is something else, B2. We now push the two played selves to the table, what does our conversation look like?
Speaks played A2 I actually played with the B2-I?
WRONG! A person is namely aware that person B plays a role. Smart as person A, he or she kicks course not. He or she sees the situation and speaks to those B, B3, of which he or she believes that it is the other really. I.e. A person does not talk to the real person B, but with what he or she believes that person B, B3. This come in every conversation between two individuals, three egos present in each individual. As a rule, one has a conversation between the self-played and what one believes the other is me. While there is still a real self of the other person!
This makes it clear that it is necessary, in order to take in the other of the position at each call. And to see things with his or her eyes. So it is vitally important to any discussion with the actual I speak of the other.
Also learn to read in books between the lines. We live in a world full of people. The man in itself allows us the closest, and the most suitable object of study. At the same man is the most interesting, craziest, most unpredictable and most amiable study opbject there is. While we understand other people better we understand ourselves better. And in turn will be able to assess our fellow man better. In other words, there is no I without You! The person we are for another man, who sees the other in us does not correspond to our true self. The image, which others make of us and stirs our interest constantly. We try to get clarity about the image that others have of us. We want to know how they see us with their eyes. We call this the meta-perspective.
This new perspective of our mind creates a new identity level. We get a new identity with. We see ourselves as if we believe others see us. We get a meta-identity.
Our behavior is a certain part based on experience we have gained in our lives. Both our experience and our behavior are equally constantly in relationship with others. And is also influenced by the behavior of our fellow man. Our behavior stands or falls with proper communication. Man is as good as he can communicate.
This is the ability, in order to achieve an optimal conversation gradient. By means of taking the trouble to see things this way and to understand, as seen by the caller and experienced. This also means that if the thoughts interrupted course of your conversation partner, you know him or her successfully traced. And he let his thoughts close hallway.
By this we mean the relationship between the two callers. Communicate from the heart. They have sympathy or antipathy?
The reality is what keeps someone for real, for real.
The BWR-triangle can, of course, be larger or smaller. The sum of BWR, that someone is the sum of his or her qualitative skill. And the BWR-triangle can only grow, if all three of the angles at the same time be larger.
The heat in relation to the other party is of course from case to case different. Because we know that every corner of the BWR triangle needs grow, a non-biased attitude irritating callers is urgently required. With a negative attitude toward the partner, no communications have a positive result. And often not even realized.
A very acute angle of the triangle BWR is the reality. Because everyone has their own reality. Reality is, what does someone really for real. But should the same reality even for the interlocutor true? For one, the police is a great friend because of certain experiences and the other is the police a great enemy because of other experiences.
Reality is always subjective. For example, while one person has had a very positive experience with the police. Because the policeman grandmother helped to cross or has seen a friendly face an infringement by the fingers. Does the other person have some dramatic experiences with the police. Such as radar control, fine touch, arrogant agents or revocation of license. It would certainly be difficult for both people to understand each other on the issue of the police. One would have praised the police, what the other person probably can not be said. There would be two different realities.
But if you accusatory finger pointing at others, three fingers point to yourself. In the communication process, it is wiser to say that you have expressed in the wrong place to say that the other has misunderstood. That shows you that you have the right attitude to develop yourself.
The meta-perspective and BWR triangle in communication