To master the art of standing firm in a conflict, a person must first acknowledge their own fears and learn how to respond to them. In a conversation with RIAMO, Sofia Sulim, a Candidate of Psychological Sciences, explains that recognizing what fears arise during a dispute is the first crucial step toward constructive defense. She emphasizes that fear often centers on losing relationships, facing negative judgments, or severing connections, and that naming these concerns openly is a powerful release that clarifies the path forward. This awareness helps the individual approach the discussion with more clarity and less defensiveness, which in turn increases the chances of reaching a workable outcome rather than simply exploding into confrontation.
Sulim further argues that defending a position should never devolve into a hollow standoff. Instead, the aim should be defined by what the person seeks to achieve through the dialogue. When the goal is clear, the conversation can be steered toward practical solutions rather than emotional clashes. The expert notes that recognizing a personal need behind each stance makes it easier to articulate it directly and honestly. The moment a speaker can state what is important and what would be unacceptable, the process of resolving the issue becomes more straightforward and less prone to escalating conflict. This approach invites cooperation, reduces misunderstandings, and fosters mutual respect in difficult exchanges.
From this perspective, approaching conflict as an opportunity to fulfill a genuine need rather than a battle to win can transform the dynamics of the exchange. When people speak concisely about their essential requirements, they invite the other party to respond with intent and consideration. This shift from combativeness to collaboration allows for adjustments, compromises, and clearer boundaries, which ultimately protect relationships while preserving personal integrity. The discussion becomes a joint problem-solving effort rather than a confrontation, and that change in mindset often leads to more durable resolutions that satisfy both sides.
Historically, other professionals have also weighed in on the topic. For instance, a former psychologist highlighted the common obstacle many individuals face: the difficulty of saying no. This observation aligns with Sulim’s emphasis on identifying personal needs and communicating them directly. When a person learns to articulate a boundary or a preference succinctly and respectfully, they reduce the chance of resentment building over time and create space for healthier, more honest interactions. The takeaway is simple: clarity about one’s needs, paired with a calm and direct delivery, is a powerful tool for preserving relationships while maintaining personal boundaries. This perspective offers practical guidance for anyone who wants to defend their position without sacrificing rapport in the process. Cited from an interview with a practicing psychologist, the principle remains consistent across diverse contexts and relationships.