In the previous article, we explored typically problematic conflict dynamics. Inasmuch as there are many ways of problematically arguing; there are also very effective ways of resolving the problems between us. Consider that for a moment, ‘the problems between us.’ When it is our goal to give attention to our connection, we use methods which create more distance. As many of us have perfected the dead-end argument, let us consider how to develop skills to collaborate and connect when discussing that which is meaningful to us.
“All is fair in love and war,” was first written by poet John Lyly. It seems that many take this idiom to heart when arguing with our loved ones. What would it be like if we were to develop discussion guidelines? What rules, spoken or unspoken do you hold for dialogue; what rules spoken or unspoken does your partner hold? The above questions are valuable as many assume that all are working from the same guidelines, and in reality generally not. Without basic rules for arguments, there is an overwhelming likelihood for poor outcomes. At the end of the day, discussions, or arguments are an opportunity to learn and grow with each other. The points below are but some of the guidelines which foster productive discourse and discussion. *While the above guidelines are helpful, it may be even more powerful for you and your partner to create your own rules for conversation.*
- Keep your voice cool and calm
- Avoid using swear words
- Talk to, not at
- Avoid using “you,” or “why”
- “Strike when the iron is cold.”
- Inquire into background
- Check for understanding
In any discussion, there is the basic goal to be at least heard and understood. So why is it that we use tones and volume which keep us from being heard and understood? In the final analysis, when voices are raised or speaking in anger our audience is not able to fully appreciate and understand what is being conveyed through the aggression of the argument made. All you hear when being yelled at is someone yelling and being aggressive with you, which precludes any ability to fully understand what the speaker is saying. Moreover, when confronted with aggression our instincts are toward defense or reciprocal aggression. When we speak calmly and cooly, people tend to be more able to understand our thoughts and feelings.
In the same vein with the above guideline for conversation, using swear words in anger tends to be counterproductive. People interpret swear words in anger directed at us as being clearly heard as aggression. And as above, when we are confronted with aggression, we tend to respond with defensiveness and/or reciprocal aggression. Both of which do not lead toward meaningful collaboration. What is your goal in conversation; it is to be heard and understood. When others swear at you, or in anger it creates a barrier to a productive partnership and meaningful mutual understanding. The above two guidelines are examples of “talking at” others.
We can all understand the difference between being talked at and talked to, or spoken to. When people talk at us, we really aren’t able to understand what is being said to us. When talked at, all we hear is someone aggressively talking at us. It isn’t really possible to fully understand what is being said. Defiinitionally being talked at is one sided. Conversely, when we are talked to, or spoken to it creates a relaxing atmosphere, or space in which to partner in resolving a concern or problem. It is when we are talked to, that we can have a meaningful conversation. And what is the ultimate goal for conversation? It is to collaborate over information and partner in a a solution. It isn’t only our tone, volume, or cadence of speech which can be problematic, it can also be our choice of words.
The words we choose can also greatly impact the quality of our conversation. We all have had experiences where we chose the wrong words and inadvertently ended productive conversation. The focus of this guideline is to examine unproductive words that derail our goal for resolving problems or finding productive solutions. The words we explore are by no means exhaustive. The words of focus for this article are “you,” and “why.” These particular words tend to be heard as aggressive. And what have we learned from the previous guidelines? We learned that when we are faced with aggression we either fight or flight, meaning we succumb to aggression or defense. Moreover, when aggressive or defensive we are not going to have any sort of productive conversation. Think about it. When we are highly emotional we rarely ever find solutions which are helpful. It’s when we’ve set aside our emotions and thought about a concern objectively.
Irvin Yalom in his book “The Gift of Therapy,” suggests we “strike when the iron is cold.” What does this mean? It means that we don’t discussed things when we are heated, angry, or highly emotional. As stated previously, we are less able to discuss anything productively when highly emotional. When discussing highly emotional content when highly emotional, we tend to decline to mere ego, or self defense. And when engaged in ego-defense, any conversation or discussion turns into a zero-sum game, which is to say lose-lose. As previously discussed, lose-lose arguments don’t lead to connection but further disconnection. In the final analysis, at the very least we are looking for understanding, and connection through understanding from our partners.
How often have we seen or experienced discussions where the participants in the discussion are not on the same page? We have all witnessed this phenomenon. And when that happens, people can debate, discuss, and argue all they want. But the fact remains that they aren’t talking about the same thing, which is why making sure all parties are discussing the same fact pattern. How might one “check-in” with our partners to ensure subject congruence? One easy method is to ask the following question, “help me understand where you’re coming from.” This one question helps in a few ways. It can pause our ego involvement and focus on the objective facts of the matter. Additionally the question helps us more fully understand what thoughts and feelings underlie your partner’s position. My Father used to say, “the bigger the front, the bigger the back.” What he meant was the more impassioned one is in a discussion, there will be equal background information to which we aren’t privy. At the end of the day, we want to be on the same page as our partner, as well as empathize with our partner.
A corollary to checking in or inquiring into the background of your partner is checking your understanding. In a discussion, there are typically a flurry of information being sent back and forth. And our own perceptions, beliefs, and interpretations are usually filtered through our own subjective experiences. Additionally, our own subjective experiences may not overlap well with objective facts. So, as a technique it is helpful to take a moment and think about what you’ve heard, and check to make sure you’ve heard it the way it was intended. For example, ” I heard you say (your interpretation of what was said), is that what you meant to convey? If you are correct in your interpretation, they you will get an affirmative response. If then you’re incorrect in your understanding, then this gives your partner an opportunity to help you more fully comprehend what is being conveyed to you.
As stated earlier, the above list is by no means an exhaustive list, but productively inclusive enough to be empowered in conversations. This is the whole point of these articles, to begin a path of productive conversation which brings us closer to our partners and our goals. Reflect upon those conversations with your partner where you both are on the same page, and constructively discussing matters objectively. How do those conversations feel? They feel really good, right? When having those discussions, you feel connected to your partner. In those conversations, we feel not only connected, but empowered together. And that empowered together feeling is a feeling of collaborative agency. In other words, together, we can do anything.