Disagreements are rarely about values - and almost always about facts

I once participated in a just war workshop at an American Humanist Association conference. We all agreed on what constituted a just war. But when we looked at specific wars - we could not agree on whether any given war or conflict was just or not. How could that happen when we all agreed what a just war was morally?

Because - we all had different information. To reach consensus - we share information and integrate that information into our thinking.

I think - we largely - don't do that anymore. It isn't modeled for us - and it's not valued. When I get questions from people about disagreements - it's usually framed in a: how do I get other people to agree with me - framework.

This is a very self centered framework to think about disagreements. You are right and the other person is wrong - so the problem is - how do I get them to agree with me - that I am right.

We all do this - so I know you - as well as I - see ourselves in that description.

The solution is to understand your role and what is going on differently.

1) Ask yourself - what if you are wrong and the other person is right?  Shocking to think - but it is possible. When you do this - you stop trying to prove you are right and start trying to figure out how you might be wrong.  This sort of disagreement is not about winning anymore. It's about learning. And no - you don't need the other person to agree with you to approach things this way - this is about you. And your responsibilities.

2) Find out what the moral reasoning the other person is using. I assure you - the other person is moral.  Disagreements are almost NEVER about values. They are often about what we value most - but not whether we value it. So - ask them questions. Why is their proposal - moral for them? Do they acknowlege your values as well? Probably they do - but they place them lower than other moral considerations. This can lead to interesting conversations about how we weigh moral values against each other. But even if it doesn't - you can still learn a lot by asking these questions.

3) Do you have your facts right? What "facts" are they working from and are those "facts" true or not. If you are doing the first two things - they should be open to correction. But ONLY if you are ALSO - open to correction. If they aren't - don't fight them. Sometimes all you can do is introduce doubt. It's like planting a seed. You might not be there when the doubt reaches fruition - but that's ok.  If that is where they are - then consider planting doubt - a win.

These are the skills I teach in my online course - Socratic Jujitsu - how to win arguments without arguing. https://humanistlearning.com/socratic-jujitsu/

This program is also included in my certificate in applied Humanistic Leadership - https://humanistlearning.com/certified-humanistic-leadership-professional/

Conflicts and Compromise

Conflicts happen. The challenge is knowing how to deal with them effectively, knowing when to compromise and when to hold your ground.

I teach how to use behavioral techniques to diffuse conflicts and deal with harassment and retaliation.  I also teach a class on why conflict management doesn’t work when the problem is bullying.  Finally, I also have a course on how to win arguments by not arguing – called – Socratic Jujitsu.  All of these programs are science based.

Let’s assume we are dealing with a conflict that is based on a real disagreement and not with something that is actually irrational and happening because people have implicit biases that are effecting how they are interacting with others.

1)      As long as a disagreement is professional, it can be resolved.  If the disagreement is manifesting as unprofessional behavior, it can’t be. Sniping, name calling, passive aggressive behavior, interrupting, denigrating comments and more – are all unprofessional. If that is happening, what is happening, isn’t just a disagreement and those other behaviors have to be addressed before conflict resolution can occur.

2)      The key to conflict resolution is respect. Both parties must get to a point where they step back and respect that the other person is holding their other opinion for a valid reason and that once we know what that is – we can work through the differences.  Assuming there is an actual disagreement on the best way to move forward, one side can take the initiative to start asking questions so that cooperative problem solving can occur.

When should you give up? That depends. Do you feel like this is mission critical? Or not. If not – then perhaps just lodging your disagreement and then allowing whatever to go forward will be fine. Who knows, you may have been wrong and the other person may have been right. But if you are absolutely convinced this is a mission critical issue and that the project will fail if something isn’t addressed, then fight for it. Just be aware, the best way to do that is to ask questions that introduce doubt into the mind of the person you are disagreeing with.  The goal is to move from conflict to cooperative problem solving.

Want to learn more- check out these online courses:

• Winning Arguments without Arguing
• Why Conflict Management Doesn’t Work when the problem is bullyng
• How to de-escalate conflicts using science. (coming soon - visit: https://humanistlearning.com/programsoffered/ for details)

A different perspective on conflict management

Conflict management assumes that parties to a conflict have some sort of rational disagreement. But what if the problem isn’t a conflict? Or, what if there is a conflict, but it isn’t about anything that can be rationally discussed?

We humans are tribal animals. People who are in our tribe, we like, people who are not we don’t. If we have a problem with someone’s behavior, we almost always label them as a problem and as other and as soon as we do that, everything they do, we will find a way to fault them.  This is tribal thinking and it’s REALLY common and it’s not rational, it’s instinctual.

What basically happens is – we decide we don’t like someone (often for rather arbitrary reasons) and then we find ways to rationalize our dislike by looking at what they are saying and/or doing and taking issue with it.  These then become the basis of our “conflicts.”

While the individuals involved can almost always articulate why they are in “conflict” with another person, the conflict itself is actually a manifestation of an underlying behavioral and instinctual dynamic that is playing out.  In these cases, resolving the conflict doesn’t actually resolve the real conflict.

This is why effective approaches to conflict management are designed to help the conflicted parties see each other as valid and human. It’s about bringing the “other” person into the fold of the tribe, however that is defined by them. Once that happens, the parties can usually start rationally discussing the “conflict” and resolve it by coming to some sort of agreement.

But sometimes this isn’t possible because one side or the other will just flatly refuse to see the other person as valid. When this happens, another approach is needed because, what is happening, is beyond reason. What is needed in these situations is a behavioral approach.  The goal is still to help the individuals see each other as valid. It’s just that in some cases, people’s tribal habits are so ingrained, they can’t just – overcome them rationally. These people need to a behavioral intervention to help them break the bad habit of tribally segregating people.

This is also one of the reasons why humanistic leadership is so important. The basis of the approach is to view everyone as part of the same tribe so that that we minimize tribal thinking in the first place.

To learn more – check out this online course.
Why Conflict Management Does Work When the Problem is Bullying - https://humanistlearning.com/conflictresolution/

Disagreeing – Professionally

The goal of any professional, or rather anyone who considers themselves to be professional, is to disagree civilly. That is what makes a professional a professional. They don’t get riled up.   This is professional, not personal.

That’s the ideal. The reality ... yeah – most of us get riled up. So, the question is – how can we maintain our professional standards of conduct and still disagree and still be heard and still make our point when other people are taking it personally.  And how can we not take it personally when they so clearly make it personal?

To Accept Yet Dissuade

How to balance debate between understanding and disagreement so that learning actually takes place.

Humanists love to debate. It is an opportunity to flex our mind muscles and to learn and think more rigorously. When done right, debate is an opportunity for us to learn and to think different and to perhaps even change our minds.

All too often, debate is used as a tool of anger and frustration. This is especially true when the stakes are high as they are when we debate public policy. Instead of debate, what we get is arguments for and against that are not designed to enlighten but to persuade and win.  This is why so many people choose to demonize people who disagree with them.  It is easier to consider your debate opponent as inhumane than to concede they might have a valid point.

When discussing this difficulty in an online class I recently taught, one of the students, Phillip said the following, “To accept yet dissuade... Delicate politics I yet still learn! While I try to understand all it is sometimes difficult to know how others come to understand or exactly what background led to their beliefs.”

Despite my professed desire as a Humanist to not make assumptions about the motives of other people, I still fail at this at times. There is the ideal about how I should act and the reality of how I do when challenged or frustrated. The question is how we can respond to disagreement in a way that is consistent with our ideals. How can we habitualize rational debate and disagreement without letting our egos get the better of us?

Personal experience and research shows us that understanding and accepting that the person you disagree with has reasons for holding the views they do helps us focus on them as individuals rather than on the points they are trying to make. The benefit to this approach is that it helps us focus on the real problem this person is concerned with as opposed to the superficial issues they are actually debating. When we make it our responsibility to find out what those reasons are, we at least fulfill our obligation to learn from debate even if our opponent does not.

Accepting that you can’t force people to change their minds, allow you to focus on whether or not you are learning from the debate as you should be.

Do you have any stories about a debate or disagreement that changed the tone and nature of the debate simply because you stepped back from your ego? Please share if you do.