September 27, 2022

Always outperform others in words is a behavior with low EQ

There is no doubt that always be better than others in words, is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen.

How tired it is to get along with such a person, this is a short story of a patient suffering from “eloquence” seeing a doctor.

The doctor politely said to the patient: Please sit down.

The patient is not happy: Why do you want to sit? Do you want to deprive me of my right not to sit?

I couldn’t talk anymore at once, and the doctor decided to change the topic of personal harm to ease the atmosphere: the weather today is good.

As a result, the patient still didn’t buy it and said: pure nonsense! The good weather here does not mean that the whole world is in good weather today.

For example, in the Arctic, the weather today is very bad, with strong winds, and the long night, icebergs are hitting…

The doctor explained: I said that the weather today is good. Generally speaking, it refers to the local area, not the global one. Everyone understands this way too!

As a result, the patient retorted: Does everyone understand that it must be correct? Does everyone think that it is correct must be correct?

The important part of seeing a doctor is consultation. He always adopts an uncooperative and confrontational attitude, and the doctor has no way to see him.

He retorted and argued eloquently, but forgot the really important purpose of this trip.

When a person always wants to beat others in words, the purpose of his words is no longer to communicate, but to defeat others.


The eloquent is self-denying from others

I was also a patient with “eloquence” and it took a long time to overcome the problem of “speaking better than others”.

When I first went to college, I was dragged by my classmates to sign up for the selection of the debating team of the college. I was originally interested, but after watching a few classic international college debate videos, I became fascinated by the feeling of fighting.

As a result, after several trials, not only did I fail to be selected, but I also suffered from “debating sequelae.”

I don’t participate in debate competitions anymore, but all the problems in life seem to have become my debate. As long as I grabbed it, I must tell right from wrong.

I reflexively question, refute, and look for loopholes. I attack and sophistry, always trying to dominate others.

I relied on my cleverness and articulate, always reluctant and aggressive, like a fighting cock, I must push the opponent to a corner before I will give up.

As small as whether Angelababy has plastic surgery, as large as whether the death penalty should be abolished in China, my eloquence can turn a small chat into an unhappy quarrel.

No one likes to be questioned and rebutted, no one likes to be forced to surrender. The result is conceivable. That time was when I grew up and had the worst popularity.

But I didn’t realize how annoying I was at all.

Until one day I saw a passage from the British philosopher Locke in “On Educational Films”:

“The purpose and purpose of real reasoning is to obtain correct ideas about things, make correct judgments about things, distinguish between true and false, right and wrong, and act accordingly.

Then, don’t let your son grow up in arguing techniques and styles,… don’t let him envy others to argue.

Unless you really don’t want him to be a capable person, but to become a non-essential quarrel, stubborn in arguing with others, take pride in refuting others.

What’s more, it is to doubt everything, believing that it is impossible to find truth and the like in disputes, and only victory can be found. ”

I began to reflect on the true meaning of the debate.

The mechanism of the debate determines that everyone defends the established position, and everything serves to support their own arguments.

No one cares about right or wrong, everyone only cares about losing and winning.

Its rules require that the debaters always beat their opponents in words.

Therefore, the participants in the whole process refute for the sake of refutation. No one will listen to the opinions of others, and no one will modify their own opinions.

The debate game is wonderful as a performance, but it is bad if the game habit becomes a habit of thinking.

Bernard Shaw once said:

“If you have an apple, I have an apple, and exchange each other, each of us still only has one apple;

If you have a kind of thought, I have a kind of thought, and exchange each other, each of us will have two kinds of thoughts, or even more than two kinds of thoughts. ”

What is communication? It is two-way communication, which is the exchange of ideas.

But when a person just wants to prove that he is correct, you have a thought, I have a thought, and exchange each other, there is still only one thought.

This kind of communication will not enrich the thoughts, but will only get more and more impoverished.

My mistake is to take the set of debates into the usual discussions and exchanges, and into daily interpersonal communication.

The people around me not only don’t think I am powerful, but also think that I am self-righteous, paranoid and narrow, not only do not admire me, but also isolate me and stay away from me.

For me, to always beat others in words, besides satisfying a little vanity and gaining a little sense of vain accomplishment, what’s the point?

We should discuss for real knowledge, not to overwhelm others.

The true communicators of ideas should be humble, they actively seek consensus and are willing to admit deficiencies.

For them, refuting others is not the most important thing, but gaining a clearer perception is more valuable.

Later, I came into contact with a member of the debate team, and I found that the temperament of the debate team in her suffocated me, and the aggressiveness that could not be concealed in her words was even worse than that of my unsuccessful player.

Even if she can speak and articulate, even if she is a conversing general, I think she is a bad communicator.

What are good communicators like? They are like what Eckhart Toli said in The Power of Now:

“You can speak your thoughts clearly and firmly, but you don’t need to attack or defend.”


Speaking of words is a relationship killer

Always be better than others in words, not only hinder the real exchange of ideas, but also a killer in the workplace and intimacy.

A top student who graduated from a first-class university is full of economics and debating ability. Every time the department has a meeting, the boss asks his opinion. He talks freely and has ideas. The bosses appreciate it.

It’s a pity that everyone doesn’t like him. When things need to be coordinated, people in other departments are rarely willing to cooperate with him, and people in the same department are not willing to accompany him in the battle.

He is actually very good, but the problem is that he likes to crush others in IQ, eloquence and ability.

When he disagrees with other people, he always talks about the other person dumb.

Those who have verbally suffered from him are expecting him to make a fool of himself.


In an intimate relationship, there is no winner.

There are too many places where two people are in love, living together, or getting married.

To squeeze the toothpaste from the home should be squeezed from the middle or from the end, who will wash the dishes tonight, can you check the other’s mobile phone, how the salary is spent, how the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law get along, and how the children are educated can all cause disagreements and conflicts.

If the two parties are not constructively negotiating issues, rather than arguing about who is right and who is wrong, any one of them may cause a bloody storm at home.

Lan Lan is my best friend, and every time she quarrels with her boyfriend, she has to force her to bow her head and admit her mistake.

In fact, for her, it doesn’t really matter who is right and who is wrong.

What she wants is attitude.

For her, every quarrel is a test of whether you love me or not.

If the boyfriend loves her enough, he will follow her, let her, coax her.

If her boyfriend refuses to give in, she will use her emotions to control her. If she is angry and loses her temper, she will cry, and if she cannot cry, she will fight cold until the other party apologizes.

But his boyfriend is a confession, he likes to reason with Lanlan, and he must tell right from wrong.

If two people like this get together, trivial things can go a long way.

The ending of a quarrel is often:

Man: OK, OK, it’s all my fault, okay

Woman: What do you mean by “Okay”, what is your attitude?

Man: I have admitted wrong, what do you want? There is no end?

Woman: You dare to shout at me, try shouting again.

In the end, the two ended up breaking up because no one would give in.

Every quarrel is a drain on their feelings, and the life together creates more pain for each other than happiness.

In fact, in an intimate relationship, always thinking about defeating each other, arguing against each other, and proving that you are right about the other party’s loss, will only result in a lose-lose situation.

I’m not saying that girls can’t be emotional. Sometimes they lose their temper, which makes the petty temperament very cute. On the contrary, love that is too rational can turn into stagnant water.

I’m not saying that boys cannot reason with their girlfriends, but people have both a rational side and an emotional side.

But after all, our communication cannot leave emotions alone. Effective communication must first deal with the emotions of others.

No one likes to be questioned, opposed, attacked, or forced to admit mistakes.

I especially agree with the sayings that “a spoiled woman is the best life” and “a spoiled man is the best life”, they have a soft persuasive power.


Always beat each other in words, it will create an atmosphere of confrontation between the two sides.

The purpose of communication is to resolve conflicts constructively, but when two people are in a state of confrontation, communication becomes destructive.

Suppose a situation, a dual-income family, and neither of the couple wants to wash the dishes after dinner.

Couples who can constructively resolve conflicts will first find a consensus, that is, both people agree that the husband and wife must undertake housework.

Then discuss a plan that is acceptable to both parties and clarify the obligations: for example, those in charge of cooking do not need to wash dishes, those in charge of washing dishes do not need to cook, or wives wash dishes on one day and husbands wash dishes on two days.

But if the goal of both sides is to defeat the other, they will spare no effort to prove that the other side should wash the dishes.

Comparing miserable first, harder than anyone else recently;

More than credit, more than who paid more for the family;

Then reveal the short, look through the old accounts and list the dissatisfaction one by one;

Finally, it escalated into a personal attack, labeling the other party as selfish, lazy, not virtuous, inconsiderate, lack of family responsibility, etc.

But what’s the point of doing this? Whether it’s more miserable, more meritorious, short-lived, or personal attack, it hurts feelings very much, but they hurt each other, and they didn’t decide the issue of washing dishes.

Even if one party compromised that day to temporarily stop the fight, in the future life, the dishwashing problem will still become the fuse of contradictions at any time.


Never forget the real purpose of communication

Why do we always can’t help but beat others in words?

This is our nature.

Our nature likes to outperform others, and we prefer to have the upper hand in all aspects than to fall behind;

We naturally like others to identify with ourselves. When someone opposes or doubts, we will involuntarily defend ourselves and use our own voice to overwhelm the voice of opposition and doubt;

But this kind of desire pulls us farther and farther in the conversation. It makes us forget the true purpose of communication, and forget what is really important to us.

Always be better than others in words is the lowest EQ behavior I have ever seen.

If you meet such a person, without hurting the principle, you might as well give the other side a pointless victory.