Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Approach the problem sideways
Why head on backfires
Problems in general get solved by moving toward them, since running away does nothing. With a person, though, moving toward the problem directly can backfire. Picture one man deciding he has a problem with another and going to confront him about it. Now the two are in a confrontation, and it is probably not the best way to reach a solution.
The indirect route
The indirect approach comes from a theory of combat, and it applies to relationships as well. Instead of confronting the other person, the first man engages in a conversation about something adjacent to the problem. Over time that builds the relationship to a point where the other person starts to recognize that there is something on his mind.
From there the two can move toward a solution. The direct route means punching someone in the face with a truth one believes against the truth the other believes, and that is combat, with casualties. The indirect route builds a relationship in which problems get solved in a more positive way.
How did the indirect approach become a combat theory?
British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart made the case in his 1954 book Strategy, which surveyed campaigns from ancient times through World War II. He concluded that the most decisive victories came from striking where the opponent least expected, and that attacking the strongest point usually cost the most. He called this the indirect approach. The idea echoes Sun Tzu's The Art of War, which urges winning without direct battle where possible.
Why does being confronted make people dig in?
Psychologist Jack Brehm proposed reactance theory in 1966. It holds that when people feel their freedom of choice is threatened, they feel a motivation to restore it, often by doing the opposite of what is asked. Studies of persuasion have found that forceful, controlling wording produces more resistance than gentle wording. A 2013 meta-analysis by Christopher Carpenter found that simply adding a phrase telling people they are free to accept or refuse raised compliance.
How does talking about small things build trust?
Psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor described the pattern in their 1973 social penetration theory. They compared a relationship to an onion: people begin with the outer layers of safe, public topics and move gradually inward to private feelings and beliefs. Each step of sharing tends to be matched by the other person, so disclosure deepens by degrees. Their work was among the early models to describe relationships as growing through the gradual exchange of personal information.
More from Andrew Huberman
