Conflict vs Challenge

It has been said that "conflict breed growth." The idea behind this is that if nothing is ever questioned nothing will ever change, and to that I agree. I wondered, though, if it's really conflict that breeds growth or if it's challenge.

This led me to ask myself several questions. Is there actually a difference between conflict and challenge? Am I just being too sensitive and wanting people to stop being so negative? Am I being too stagnant and resistant to change (it wouldn't be the first time I'd been accused of this)?

To start, I did a quick Google search on the definitions of conflict and challenge. Here's what I found:

con·flict
noun
ˈkänˌflikt/
1.
a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.
"the eternal conflict between the sexes"
synonyms: dispute, quarrel, squabble, disagreement, dissension, clash; More
verb
kənˈflikt,ˈkänˌflikt/
1.
be incompatible or at variance; clash.
"parents' and children's interests sometimes conflict"
synonyms: clash, be incompatible, vary, be at odds, be in conflict, differ, diverge, disagree, contrast, collide

chal·lenge
ˈCHalənj/Submit
noun
1.
a call to take part in a contest or competition, especially a duel.
"he accepted the challenge"
synonyms: dare, provocation; summons
"he accepted the challenge"
2.
an objection or query as to the truth of something, often with an implicit demand for proof.
"a challenge to the legality of the order"
synonyms: test, questioning, dispute, stand, opposition, confrontation
"a challenge to his leadership"
verb
1.
invite (someone) to engage in a contest.
"he challenged one of my men to a duel"
2.
dispute the truth or validity of.
"employees challenged the company's requirement"
synonyms: question, disagree with, dispute, take issue with, protest against, call into question, object to
"we challenged their statistics"

Now as I read those I see pretty much what I expected. To me those words are very similar but they have a few differences which I find important. In conflict we see this concept of clashing and quarreling, arguing, incompatibility, colliding. In challenge we see the concepts of test, question, dispute, call into question, object to. In one we see lots of negative connotation whereas in the other we don't. However, they both clearly talk about questioning what's going on and possibly changing things.

Now it could be said that a conflict is a challenge and that's not wrong. What I'm saying is while there may not be a large denotative difference in the phrases "conflict breeds growth" and "challenge breeds growth" there does seem to be a connotative difference. I believe that focusing on that difference can lead to a difference in how thoughts and ideas are presented. In my opinion if one seeks to cause conflict there is more likely to be more negativity than if one seeks to cause challenge, but both can spur on change.

An example. If person A makes a claim and person B wants person A to think about it and possibly change their perspective they can start a conflict or a challenge. A conflict would possibly look like "Person A, you're dumb and wrong. Your whole system is broken and your claim is so false it's laughable." Whereas a challenge would look more like "Person A, I disagree with your claim. Here's why. [person A's stance most likely with reasoning and evidence]."

In the challenge version I still wasn't flowery or weak. I still firmly and upfront explained that I disagreed, but in the conflict version I mocked the person I was having a discussion with. While we could always hope that people sift through the negativity to find the message inside doesn't it seem like a smoother discussion if person A doesn't have to dig to find the actual question person B has?

My questions to you all are:

Do you think that there is a difference between "conflict breeds growth" and "challenge breeds growth?"

If there is a difference, is it important to think about which one we focus on?

Which one do you believe is more effective and why?

Or am I just ridiculous for coming up with this and need to focus my time on other things? :laugh: (I suppose I could be right and still be ridiculous and in need of refocusing my time.)

It is not really a matter of "Differences" and is more a matter of "Context"

I say this because, Even the Negative Connotations of a Conflict can breed good, resourceful and educative growth. If we only seclude our lives in Peaceful yet challenging atmospheres....we would never truly be challenged. In other words....we would be short cutting our greatest potentials because the moment someone brings a negative conflict into our safe bubble we would crumble because so and so said a mean word!

HOWEVER

That is no reason for anyone to go flying off the handle, insulting and downgrading people because things are not going their way. And then turn around saying their behavior is warranted because its somehow challenging other people. In this context it would be apt to say the person causing conflict is failing the challenge of social communication.

A challenge. It takes determination to face a challenge such as sky diving or running a 5k marathon. But it takes bravery to walk into the fires of conflict and hold your own morals and composure up to the challenge it presents.

When it comes to interpersonal relations I view these two things exactly opposite of how you described. I view a conflict as two persons, entities, points of view etc as on the same footing and both are in a struggle with each other to modify or otherwise come to an understanding and subsequent acceptance of the others worldview. What ends up happening most of the time in these sorts of efforts is that both points of view end up being modified. That is as long as the struggle remains objective and does not devolve into a personal battle of insults or otherwise personal attacks. We must maintain a dispassionate perspective outside the context of the argument itself in these situations or they become useless encounters.

A challenge on the other hand to me implies that one person is superior to the other and is challenging the other to come up to his standard or modify the lesser point of view to the higher and better evolved one. I think in these sorts of contests it is better to use challenge as an approach to conflict. When someone presents a conflicting point of view to yours consider that as a challenge to remain objective and keep the conversation on track towards some resolution, even if that resolution is non-agreement.

What I see to often is that people don't consider conflict as positive personal challenge. To often they lack the character development to keep from viewing it as a personal attack or slight against them etc and they begin to fire back in unproductive ways. Thus the conversation becomes a slap fest where nothing is accomplished except a loss of respect. This seems to be especially prevalent on the internet, the place most removed from reality! To allow someone else you encounter across a keyboard to generate that sort of negative energy within you is the epitome of irony in my opinion.

"Do you think that there is a difference between "conflict breeds growth" and "challenge breeds growth?""

You need a stimulus for growth to occur. Whether it's conflict, challenge, sunshine, water, positive or negative . Without a stimulus there in no motivation, starting energy for change to occur and you end up on the sofa eating pop tarts, drinking soda while watching rerun cartoons on the boob tube wishing your life was better.

Do you think that there is a difference between "conflict breeds growth" and "challenge breeds growth?"

Yes, I believe that conflict, as you said, involves a level of anger or heat to it where as challenge tends to be more fact based and emotionless. At least in my eyes

If there is a difference, is it important to think about which one we focus on?

Yes, I think it's important if for nothing else of minding your words. If you are mindful of your tone or how your message can be taken it's far less likely that you will be taken in a manner you did not intend.

Which one do you believe is more effective and why?

I think as a whole challenge is more effective than conflict as its less likely to get people to close off. However, sometimes conflict is very much needed for growth. At times a soft testing or pushing will work with someone at other times a smack to the head is what it takes to get their attention.

I used to say Conflict breeds growth.

Its a big part of the Dark path.

A really big part, as in foundational.

However, its fairly juvenile, and after many years, I refined my thoughts on it.

Cancer, breeds growth. Even a stagnate pond will breed growth....Growth, in this case means absolutely nothing, as it can mean you are growing worse.

Conflict brings change.

How you handle that change will tell you a lot about yourself, if you are able to develop the ability to objectively listen to the feedback of responses, choices, actions, and there consequences.

What you learn about yourself, and how you handle that change in knowledge of yourself, because of the change in atmosphere, environment, personal relationships, etc,etc, conflict brings, that will determine whether or not you will gain something from it, or, run and hide from it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Oy00cEnpY

If I may I would add a word to connect both on any level. That is that, "Crisis precipitates change."-Deltron 3030 (predecessor to the Gorillaz) both conflict and challenges can be viewed as crisis in most scenarios and change as growth. As it is though there is a time and a place for both, growth continues in all times however, as growth is measured in movement outward the direction is in most cases only relevant to the individuals perspective. That's just my 2 cents though.

Much Peace,
Tim

I don't think the terms are exactly comparable but close enough for popular usage. Gotta watch shifting the temporal frame when assessing it, but I'd probably say growth occurs after conflict, and that the conflict itself might as well be just another shift in a balance - prompting change. Growth to me implies a capacity to continue, versus change which is just any ole shift. In fact I'd imagine continued conflict would tend to retard growth. Conflict tends tp depleted the participants such that the side which wins is the one that was able to last the longest. But viewed in shorter timeframes, bubbles of growth do occur from conflict for sure eg lots of jeeps are made during a war, their numbers grow at the expense of other things, but at the end of the war no-one needs as many jeeps. So perhaps change is better viewed as shifting and shaping growth, as Khaos video says the 'focus' changes. In effect then, using conflict for personal growth could be seen as attention seeking to bring focus onto oneself - at the cost of others perhaps. Just different ways to construct and manage focus.

But to me conflict seems to imply a complex of real uncertainty (ignorance), real risk (loss) and real sacrifice (waste). Perhaps they are the anti-tenets of TotJO!! Lol, so trying to generate conflict without those things probably ranges from belligerence, harassment to stupidity depending on the capacity of the opponent to retaliate. And so in comparison, challenge to me seems more structured to shape focus for effect with perhaps more respect to the circumstances and efficiency of the effort. Not to imply that challenge cannot be about risk, sacrifice or uncertainty but I think I run into semantic walls at that point as conflict can be a challenge. I guess they are different scales of struggle with a bit of overlap but also reference external circumstance in different measures of control.

Conflict is the only was to get your point across. Even then nobdoy listens until you're dead.

But to me conflict seems to imply a complex of real uncertainty (ignorance), real risk (loss) and real sacrifice (waste)

Why such negative connotations?