Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World with Religion in it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Naturally, this is not a full proof/complete list.  These approaches are just the more common constructive conflict resolution techniques that I have learned in my conflict resolution studies.

All of that sounds nice, I can hardly find objection to any of it, except insomuch as to say that some of the directives are counterproductive to each other in practice....while that may be a problem if we were forming some logical proof of x, it isn't in the context of trying to align action, particularly when there are competing interests, say between embracing diversity while also preserving individual uniqueness.  That said, in the "big tent" theory of humanity, there are some examples of diversity that I, personally, will not embrace, and would much sooner eradicate.  

That's probably why I shouldn't be in charge of anything more complicated than a shovel....and even the shovel might be a little risky in my case.  

Or, rather than right hook each other and lose brain cells, why not right hook the problem in the jaw together and have more coherent and complete memories as a result? 

I was assuming that the problem -was- the other guy.  If it's not, ofc we beat the shit out of the problem together, we're practically built for collaborative head smashing.  

I like this.  Based on my studies of conflict resolution, our primitive  fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses lead to attacking, avoiding, and accommodating (known as the three A's), which are viewed as negative conflict management tools (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).  However, this ultimately depends on the context.  If we found ourselves existing in a state of nature, then the fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses would actually be good conflict management techniques, as they would help ensure our survival.  In addition, if we find ourselves in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood or are held up at gun point, then our primitive reflexes may make the difference between life or death; thus, in this context, trying to apply the constructive conflict resolution techniques listed above may lead to negative conflict.

I could only suggest that we -do- exist "in a state of nature"...at all times, everywhere.  There is no environment in which a human being has somehow extricated themselves from nature, or extricated nature from themselves.  Imagining that we have is to begin with flawed assumptions..and doing so cannot be expected to yield reliable or accurate results.

However, our primitive reflexes can get us into trouble in our personal and professional relationships (especially in workplace/organizational contexts): they often breed misunderstanding and poor conflict management. Thus, our primitive reflexes inhibit our ability to meaningfully connect with others (Dana, 2006; Patterson, 2012): social connection is what makes humanity unique; it is the essence of our progress and growth (Lieberman, 2013)).  Hence, the constructive conflict resolution techniques that have been discussed in this post would seem to be relevant to our multicultural world where interdependency is vital to the success and growth of our species.  Do you see things differently?

I do, at your job...you're fighting for your food in a different form.  There are many people who, because you have secured that particular resource, are starving.  It all seems civil to you, from where you sit...but that has more to do with a screen that the supposedly civil have erected between themselves internally and externally, imo.
 

I like the example that you used with your wife.  Many people already do manage conflict well on an individual scale.  However can we take those skills and apply them on a global/intercultural scale?  This is the question that I’m interested in answering, which was poorly communicated by me in the thread title, op, and other posts of mine in this thread. 

I think that we -do- resolve our conflicts in a similar fashion on a global scale.  We aren't engaged in perpetual all out warfare.  We actually try to talk our way through things, for a long time..for example as civilians are getting bombed out of hospitals, rather than go straight for the punch.  In many cases, in my opinion, our newfound aversion to violent action is implicitly or explicitly responsible for the deaths of those people.  Even when we do, eventually, resolve the conflict diplomatically...that resolution has already been paid for in blood.  So me, I'd weigh the price in blood of soldiers (for convenience lets say I give them the value of a half a civilian because they're volunteers, trained for combat) against the price in blood of kids crushed under buildings by canister bombs.  That, top me, can turn the nastiest bit of military conflict into a positive resolution technique, and the price in blood of civilians can turn the diplomatic solution into a negative technique - as I alluded to with the example of appeasement in ww2.  

Hence, would you say that LeBaron's approach of improving intercultural competence is useful in helping us constructively manage cultural differences and handling conflict more constructively on a global scale? What are your thoughts?

I do think it's useful to -us-....but that probably has to do with my being raised in the ingroup which conforms to her positions.  I'm not so sure how useful it is when dealing with The Other™.  Or in the most dire sorts of conflict scenarios.  I won't waste my time tryng to talk an insurgent out of whatever it is he's planned to do.  Whatever it takes to get rid of him with a quickness.   I do all of this -knowing- those things mentioned above, acknowledging his point of view.  I have great respect, as a former combatant, for combatants...but none of it, to my mind, makes the lethal solution the less optimal solution in his case.  There are some things you can't talk or understand people out of, and those are the things we, generally, go to blows over. More on this at the very end-

Naturally, human conflict is not so simple, but the above example (this was one of the first lessons I learned in my conflict resolution program) reminds me to ask the following questions: if parties are in conflict over scarce resources, then have they fully explored all of the possibilities? Have they clearly communicated why the resources are so important to them?

"Fully exploring all possibilities" runs the risk of invoking bare fantasy.  Generally,we have an incredible aversion to both our own death and killing others (it;s notoriously difficult to get soldiers, even, to shoot each other - it takes conditioning)so... when people are willing to kill and die over, say, an orange....they've likely explored all -available- alternatives.  Chances are, they;ve told the other guy that they were starving,. they can be seen starving, they've tried to steal the orange in dead of night. The other guy just won't let go of the orange, either just because, or because he, himself, is in the same position. Whether there is some possibility, if only they could achieve it together, to handle it differently is an irrelevance in that scenario. Dues ex machina.

Now, if we're discussing the sort of mutual understanding referenced, don't we also have to include an understanding of the validity of some other groups violent and oftentimes negatively valued responses to our own and to others actions? To put it another way, is i simply impossible to make the case for horrific violence, or are we being intolerant and expessing a deplorable lack of empathy and understanding when we fail to recognize that for some (and even for us)..life is a matter of life and death? That you can;t get ahead of some problems, you can; talk your way around them...and despite the civil patina of our modern lives, beneath it the world practically seethes with the sort of misery that none of our ingroups understanding will ever be able to solve? It;s in his context, in an acknowledgement for the nature of the world as it is rather than our scrubbed descriptions of it or what we might wish for it to be, that our propensity for violence explains it's utitlity and advantage, that it becomes a positive conflict resolution technique...and to avoid it like taboo is to do what taboo always does. Create perversion, -create- problems.