OK, now that you've pulled in the bigger picture I see where you're gong with this. I sometimes refer to this as disarming your opponent, making changes the other person wants so there is nothing more s/he can complain about. Then the focus rest squarely on him/her. What you propose is along the same lines, except rather than making specific changes, you take away that person's excuse to deflect the argument back on to you.
Well... you are getting the concept better, at least, but no, you don't manage your emotions to give yourself a tactical advantage (although, you can). If you are managing your emotions to gain tactical advantage, you are doing so with the intent to manipulate (either the person or the situation). And that isn't good, bad, or otherwise, so long as you are very clear on your own intent (this is where you could enter into the realm of being a very evil person).
Quote:
My problem in the past was trying to understand exactly what message needed to be delivered. That meant knowing what was my crap and what was hers, learning to spot a deflection when I saw it. These issues are beginning to come into better focus for me lately, so I can turn some attention to the delivery method.
Uhm. Okay. I kind of get that. Seriously, if you get the chance... take a look at that link I posted. It's really worth the read, and it's pretty quick.
