I was running late. My wife Eleanor and I had agreed to meet at the restaurant at seven o'clock and it was already half past. I had a good excuse in the form of a client meeting that ran over and I wasted no time getting to the dinner as fast as possible.
遲到了。我跟老婆埃莉諾約好7點在飯店見面來著，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)7點半了。我的理由還算充分：因為跟某個客戶有約，所以只能先忙完再馬不停蹄趕來一起吃晚飯。
When I arrived at the restaurant, I apologized and told her I didn't mean to be late.
趕到飯店后，我急忙跟老婆道歉：我不是故意要遲到的。
She answered: "You never mean to be late." Uh oh, she was mad.
她回道：“你什么時候故意遲到過?”呃，看來老婆生氣了。
"Sorry," I retorted, "but it was unavoidable." I told her about the client meeting. Not only did my explanations not soothe her, they seemed to make things worse. That started to make me angry.
“對不起，”我說，“但事情真的推不開�！苯酉聛砭褪俏乙蛻粢娒嫒绾稳绾巍墒�，我越解釋越是火上澆油，最后連我自己也氣得不行。
That dinner didn't turn out to be our best.
自然，那頓晚飯也吃得不開心。
Several weeks later, when I was describing the situation to a friend of mine, Ken Hardy, a professor of family therapy, he smiled.
幾個星期后，我把這件事告訴了朋友肯-哈迪�？鲜羌彝ブ委煼矫娴膶＜�。聽完我的訴說，他笑了。
"You made a classic mistake," he told me.
“你可真是犯了一個典型的錯誤�！彼f。
"Me? I made the mistake?" I was only half joking.
“啥?是我做錯了嗎?”我半開玩笑問道。
"Yes. And you just made it again," he said. "You're stuck in your perspective: You didn't mean to be late. But that's not the point. The point is that you were late. The point — and what's important in your communication — is how your lateness impacted Eleanor."
“當然是你錯了，剛才就是�！彼f�！澳阋恢睆淖约旱牧鰪娬{‘我不是故意遲到的’，但這不是問題的關鍵，關鍵是你確實遲到了，而且你的遲到確實影響到了埃莉諾�！�
In other words, I was focused on my intention while Eleanor was focused on the consequences. We were having two different conversations. In the end, we both felt unacknowledged, misunderstood, and angry.
這樣說來，我只一味強調我的本意，而埃莉諾看重的卻是結果。所以，我倆講的話根本就風馬牛不相及，最后自然都會因為分歧和誤解而生氣了。
The more I thought about what Ken said, the more I recognized that this battle — intention vs. consequences — was the root cause of so much interpersonal discord.
肯的話，我越想越覺得這種“本意VS結果”的爭論正是很多人際關系不和的根本原因。
As it turns out, it's not the thought that counts or even the action that counts. That's because the other person doesn't experience your thought or your action. They experience the consequences of your action.
事實表明，爭吵的根源不在于你怎么想或你做了什么，畢竟別人體會不到你的想法或行為，別人體會到的是你的行為所帶來的后果。
Here's another example: You send an email to a colleague telling him you think he could have spoken up more in a meeting.
舉例來說：你給同事發(fā)了封郵件，說你覺得他本可以在會議上多做點發(fā)言。
He replies to the email, "Maybe if you spoke less, I would have had an opportunity to say something!"
他回復郵件說：“或許，要是你能少說一點，我就有機會插上兩句了吧!”
That obviously rankles you. Still, you send off another email trying to clarify the first email: "I didn't mean to offend you, I was trying to help." And then maybe you add some dismay at the aggressiveness of his response.
這種話顯然激怒了你，但你又發(fā)了一封郵件進行解釋：“我不是要找你茬，只想提點意見罷了�！庇只蛟S，因為同事的回復太過分，你在郵件里也添油加醋了一番。
But that doesn't make things better. He quotes the language of your first email back to you. "Don't you see how it reads?" He asks. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" You write back, IN CAPS.
可這么一來，事情反倒更糟。他把你第一封郵件的原話拷貝給你，反問道：“那你這是寫的什么?”你特地用大寫字母回郵以示強調：“我不是那個意思!”