Interesting graphic which seems to encourage the user to approach conflict from a "get 'em before they get you" perspective. It started losing me at the end of #4 and completely lost me at #5. How does the developer operationally define "confrontation" and what is the developer's logic about the purpose(s) of confrontation? The graphic seems to suggest that "arguments" are by definition manipulation rather than the verbal expression of divergent points of view/goals....which may or may not invoke the tool of "manipulation." I find it more useful to understand the intentional or unintentional effect/end and/or desired outcome of each divergent point of view. Isn't that what we advocates of trauma-informed care are all about...establish where we are (personally, relationally, structurally/institutionally), how we got there/here (personal, relational, structural/institutional inputs), and illuminate/co-construct/facilitate a healthier place/ways to be (personally, relationally, structurally/institutionally)?
To point #7, I would suggest it's not just about "winning" but about something more significant and direct than "winning"...winning what/maintaining what/avoiding what/accomplishing what, etc? Fundamentally, I don't view confrontation as "winning," per se. I see "conflict" as absolutely necessary in improving (the only reality there is) perceived sub-optimal circumstances and "resolution" as illuminating/co-constructing/facilitating optimal alternatives. More nuanced discernment about purposes in the design/logic of the graphic might approach a more empowered (i.e. not about you "losing" the argument; not saying "people pushing your buttons") and, (perhaps) a more trauma-informed conflict resolution approach. Might users of the graphic be better served by a graphic that does not conflate the purpose(s) of confrontation. Need there only be one graphic about confrontation, since, logically speaking there may be multiple and cross purposes for confrontation? Hope those points are helpful.