Why is it important to be able to say “no” at the right time? What would the world be like if we didn’t know how to refuse at all? It would be a world of parasites and crazy people, says psychologist and psychotherapist Polina Gaverdovskaya.
Few people really know how to say “no”. After all, no — this is a place where I am no longer ready to move my border. And coexistence with people (in the family, kindergarten, class, camp, university, at work) involves compromises, that is, continuous shifts of this very border in an unknown direction. It is considered good to yield. Entering someone else’s position is correct. In all languages there is an analogue of our expression «enter my position.»
“What, are you sorry?”, “Give in, you’re a girl”, “Give in, you’re a boy”, “Give in, you’re older”, “Give in, you’re smarter”, “greedy beef”, “God ordered to share «…
Did you hear familiar voices? I am yes.
It is usually very easy for a person of middle age (and older) to give in: many years of training have been completed. Another thing is worse: it is not clear where the limit is. How many times do you have to give up? How many times to share? How many (times) to lend? When to ask for money back? How to do this so that no one is offended?
A world where people do not know how to refuse gives birth to parasites and madmen. Parasites go on begging and begging, lunatics go on giving and giving. Some always agree to share, move, skip forward, lend, give time, turn a blind eye to theft or betrayal. Others get used to asking endlessly, sitting on someone else’s chair, taking other people’s things and other people’s food and waiting for more, pounding loudly with a spoon on a bowl. You will probably be surprised if I now say that they are all the same people.
The lack of a timely “no” drives everyone crazy: both those who avoid saying no and those who get used to taking too much. If we remember that everything in nature is harmoniously interconnected, then it is clear that homeostasis once puts the eternal giver in front of the need to start taking back: otherwise you will die. What to do if you took so much from you, and you agreed so much that there was nothing left? Steal the loot, of course.
Parasites and lunatics switch roles all the time. Today I gave my own, embarrassed to say «no», tomorrow I will take someone else’s because «it’s okay.» After all, it is customary to consider anything as the norm, if it is … average. “I gave you a loan a month ago or did your work on the weekend, so I had a “moral right” not to finish mine by throwing it off to you. Oh, didn’t I warn you? You too». A world without borders is a world of psychopaths.
“No” is sobering: a boundary appears. One decides: enough is enough, and even dares to say it out loud. “No,” he says, “the fifteenth cookie (the eighteenth time in debt) will not be.” The one to whom this is addressed thinks: really, you will have to get up and go for cookies yourself (finally go to work). One learns to refuse, the other learns to do something himself. And both of them now know that there is a limit. And both are better for it.
- Why are we afraid of rejection?
Lyrical digression
As you know, US politicians have been «playing» with the death penalty for several hundred years. Either they introduce a moratorium on it, then they remove it again, then they expand it, then they limit the circle of crimes that should be punishable by death. And to this day in different states a different state of affairs in connection with this type of punishment.
Many sociological, psychological and other studies have been carried out on this topic, but I was interested in the following. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, based on reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in states that have a moratorium on the death penalty or it has been abolished, the number of crimes committed is consistently lower than in states where this type of punishment practiced (for the period from 2000 to 2005, this difference averaged 38,1%).*
Paradoxical but beautiful fact, right? There are many interpretations of it, but the following one is closest to me. It is clear that the existence (and application) of the death penalty is a clear boundary that an entire state draws before people: «For murder or treason, we will kill you.» Why doesn’t it work? I think it’s because allowing killing is more powerful. In a country where the state can kill, I can too.
* rae.ru/forum2012/248/1032?go=article_add&id=248#_edn8