几天前和同事开会,我居然发怒。今天早上开车,右转弯等直行车辆的时候,后面的车子不耐烦的摁喇叭,然后我和他对骂。事情不大,但是我的情绪波动不小。如果是以往,我最多笑笑,随他去吧。不过这两件事情接连发生,我想我需要想想,或者说重新想想“如何与人相处”这个问题了。

我以前与人相处的原则很简单:与人为善,敬而远之,以不爆发直接冲突为最高目标。我不会主动损害任何人,有问题,能让开就让开,只有在必要的时候才面对面的处理。而我面对面处理冲突的能力往往不怎么样,经常是有理的事情变成了没有理。我好像一直都没有怎么学会。

也许,我到了需要改变一些的时候了。也许我需要主动的面对冲突,让别人走开?

几天前发怒,更多的是因为我厌恶那种低效而不负责任的态度。主持会议的人居然自己不准备,不知道自己要讨论什么,不知道什么人才是相关的人,也最后不了了之,没有任何结果。我事后才意识到,我自己的发怒,从同事的角度看来,更多的是一种狭隘的自我保护,因为讨论的对象恰恰是我写的文件。我不愿意在别人面前指责说同事不知道该如何处理开会这个问题,而我的这种善意,到最后却让我在其它同事面前显得难以相处 — 如果不是及其难以相处的话。

或者换一个角度看问题:我需要为了维护别人的脸面去损害自己的形象吗?或者更深刻一点:如果冲突不可避免,我如何处理?我的原则是什么?以自己不受伤害为原则–然后对方可以无所顾忌的一次又一次的重来?以对方退让为原则?还是要打痛对方,让别人不敢想第二次?任何一种选择,都没有对错。因为任何一种选择的背后,其实是选择如何与人相处。或者说,选择自己成为一个什么样的人。

我一直说我选择“简单”。我想做一个简单的人。那么在这件事情上,所谓的“简单”,究竟是什么?我现在没有答案。而只有在这个时候,我才突然更深刻的理解到Jonathan Ive 说到的关于简单和简约的关系:

Simplicity is not the absence of clutter; that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That’s not simple

— or short: Simplicity is not simple

人被改变的机会其实并不多。对于我,读到Steve Jobs的自传是一个机会。我开始学习和思考如何才能stay focus. 而读到Jony Ive的文字,我突然意识到,他们两个人的确是密切相关的。所有John Ive的设计原则,如果有一个统领的话,就是Steve Jobs的那条 be focus。如果说“聚焦”是“道”的话,那么Jony Ive的设计原则则是将“道”变成“术”的指导原则。所以虽然 Steve Jobs不在了,但是只要他的思想的确是被Apple这个公司所继承,Jony Ive就不会是跛脚鸭。

回到我自己的思考。我仍然想做一个简单的人。在我看来,一个简单的人只能是一个be focused的人。如何做到聚焦,则大概需要用到Jony的原则了:simplicity

我没有回答我自己一开始提出的问题:如何与人相处。但是我似乎找到了一条通向答案的路:simplicity,或者用中文来说:我需要找到如何让自己成为一个“简约”的人。一个简单的人,应该是“简约”的。简约,在这里是清晰,坚定,有自己的目标,定位,原则,同时这些所有的品质会在第一时间明明白白的传递给别人。事实上,我不需要回到我原来的问题:如果冲突不可避免,我的“度”在什么地方。“度”不是问题。或者说,它仅仅是一个浅层次的问题。“度”的后面,是我如何表达我的观点,如何让对方清晰的了解到“我”这个人的态度。问题不在于我怎么做,而在于对方如何选择和我相处。

我需要更多的思考,但是我想我找到了一些思路。我需要感谢这篇文章和Jony Ive

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/13-most-philosophical-jony-ive-quotes-3490442/

The 13 most philosophical Jony Ive quotes

* Simplicity is not the absence of clutter; that’s a consequence of simplicity. Simplicity is somehow essentially describing the purpose and place of an object and product. The absence of clutter is just a clutter-free product. That’s not simple.

* Design is a word that’s come to mean so much that it’s also a word that has come to mean nothing.

* It’s very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better.

* Very often design is the most immediate way of defining what products become in people’s minds.

* So much of what we try to do is get to a point where the solution seems inevitable: you know, you think “of course it’s that way, why would it be any other way?” It looks so obvious, but that sense of inevitability in the solution is really hard to achieve.

* That’s an interesting thing about an object. One object speaks volumes about the company that produced it and its values and priorities.

* When our tools are broken, we feel broken. And when somebody fixes one, we feel a tiny bit more whole.

* I think there is a profound and enduring beauty in simplicity; in clarity, in efficiency. True simplicity is derived from so much more than just the absence of clutter and ornamentation. It’s about bringing order to complexity.

* The memory of how we work will endure beyond the products of our work.

* You have to deeply understand the essence of a product in order to be able to get rid of the parts that are not essential.

* I figured out some basic stuff: that form and colour defines your perception of the nature of an object, whether or not it is intended to.

* Our goal is to try to bring a calm and simplicity to what are incredibly complex problems so that you’re not aware really of the solution.

* We don’t do focus groups – that is the job of the designer. It’s unfair to ask people who don’t have a sense of the opportunities of tomorrow from the context of today to design.

Advertisements