The aim of accusations is clear. They are intended to induce the partners to behave the partner is desired. But why does that seemed necessary? The intention behind the menu population attend is not difficult to detect, the other should do something or leave something to make the accuser feel better. So, that certain of his needs are met in reproaches, it is always about the world of needs of the reproaching person especially as such needs that he alone does not know how to fulfill or that he alone cannot fulfill alone because he needs somebody else for it. The accusing person is in a certain dependency with regard to his needs.

If there were no dependency, no reproach, what makes sense? For example, if you use a stranger, have you ever give me a massage? He will love will say why should I have nothing to do with you? accusations against independent persons are useless and in the case of dependent presence, they become a critical means of communication and an attempt to exercise power. Basically, every reproach demands, have a need fulfill it. The reproach, however, does not transform the need directly but indirectly by pushing the demand and the claim for fulfillment forward and concealing the actual need.

This disguise does not change the fact that behind every accusation is a neat if you keep this in mind, the deeming rule accusation will become much easier, which I will show later. Some people communicate their needs mainly indirect, for they often do not know how to express a need without reproach. This has to do with the way in which needs were communicated in the original family. The reproach attitude Islam and childhood and therefore finishes. In this respect risk poachers often belong to the subject area of the inner child. By the way, there's another e learning curves of mine for dealing with the inner child.

Let's come to the question why the accuser uses the means of indirect communication of accusation. He could also ask whether the other person is ready to meet a need. There are two reasons for this. Why he does not ask first The accused does not want to us because he believes he has a right to fulfilment, his needs and he can enforce it with power. Second, the accused does not know his needs and therefore cannot express it directly. But how can it be that somebody doesn't know his needs besides his accusations?

Please, because he's only real fixed expectations. He knows his claims without recognizing its sources. This can be explained with a small demonstration. A couple has arranged that he does the laundry and she does the ironing. She comes home but an unreasonable mate. She makes a strong accusation plus some via division schema.

What information can she provide a board at this moment disturbed by emotions Let's just ask her. Why are you making this accusation? Now? Yeah. What did you expect? Not as the mesh is all about uncovering some new game accomplished, the woman can spend 10 justly express her expectations, but does not tell about her need.

It's often the case, the own needs, mostly outside of the consciousness. Therefore, one cannot always immediately recognize what one is missing. One is focused on making something work, for example, one's own job, or the peg of that or getting along with the children. Another reason why needs are sometimes not recognizable is that they are changing or have changed. Then you think you know them, but you don't notice the change. So you Can reproach without knowing your needs.

I would like once again to make it clear that what are the motives of the accusations are they're always in direct communication of needs. Logically therefore accusations can be used to throw conclusions about the underlying needs.