3 ms·

“First, acknowledge the disagreement and paraphrase the opinion of the person disagreeing to make sure ...” YOU understand their position. This is a fundament

“First, acknowledge the disagreement and paraphrase the opinion of the person disagreeing to make sure ...” YOU understand their position. This is a fundamental mistake in this process that happens at the beginning and everything that follows is made worse because of it. You don’t rephrase a person’s position to make them “feel heard.” What’s important is to get to the meat of why they hold that position, in case you are disagreeing with a misapprehension of their position, or you are disagreeing with a solution because you didn’t really understand the underlying problem a person is trying to address. Often the real disagreement is a layer or more below the area where conflict is manifesting. It more often is a result of information asymmetry or a difference in priorities or perception of reality by the stakeholders. This is the single most important part of engaging in productive disagreement, and without it much time is wasted, resentments are formed, non optimal solutions are generated, and disagreements resurface repeatedly but transformed such that they appear as new disagreements.

wisty 7y ago
While there can be misunderstandings on your side, or deeper issues at play, if you don't acknowledge the other side's arguments then they'll assume you didn't understand them (they will think they have really compelling arguments) or that they didn't make them clearly or forcefully enough.
- ergothus 7y ago
  I think the above poster's point is less about dealing with that misunderstanding and more against emptily restating the oppositions argument with the purpose of making them feel heard, WITHOUT expending any effort to actually understand their arguments. Your point that people will restate their position if they don't feel like it's understood is valid. That doesn't remove the annoyance when someone SAYS the understand the point but clearly demonstrates that they don't. Obviously both parts are very helpful: You should actually listen and consider the points being made to you, AND they should be shown that you have done this. Skipping either side is bad, but a lot of advice tells you to focus on the second, and not nearly enough tells you to do the first.
  - whiddershins 7y ago
    Yes, thanks for clarifying my comment for me. I mean, if we go all the way with this, I would say many times the person expressing an opinion may not actually realize (or be able to express) all the factors going in to their position. If you seek to deeply understand their stance, they often start to understand it with more clarity as well, and sometimes you can then engage at the inflection point level and create a win-win.
protomyth 7y ago
“First, acknowledge the disagreement and paraphrase the opinion of the person disagreeing to make sure ...” To expand on your point, I was taught that a person is just being ignorant if you cannot argue your "opponent's" position to their satisfaction. You really don't have to believe one word of it but understanding where their reasoning has taken them is vital to understanding your own position. It will help you decide that what you believe is reasonable and has been properly tested. It will also have the value of telling you if there is a real disagreement or the fog of one human trying to talk to another is obscuring what should be an agreement. Nothing is as stupid and painful as two people arguing past each other.

wisty 7y ago

While there can be misunderstandings on your side, or deeper issues at play, if you don't acknowledge the other side's arguments then they'll assume you didn't understand them (they will think they have really compelling arguments) or that they didn't make them clearly or forcefully enough.

ergothus 7y ago
I think the above poster's point is less about dealing with that misunderstanding and more against emptily restating the oppositions argument with the purpose of making them feel heard, WITHOUT expending any effort to actually understand their arguments. Your point that people will restate their position if they don't feel like it's understood is valid. That doesn't remove the annoyance when someone SAYS the understand the point but clearly demonstrates that they don't. Obviously both parts are very helpful: You should actually listen and consider the points being made to you, AND they should be shown that you have done this. Skipping either side is bad, but a lot of advice tells you to focus on the second, and not nearly enough tells you to do the first.
- whiddershins 7y ago
  Yes, thanks for clarifying my comment for me. I mean, if we go all the way with this, I would say many times the person expressing an opinion may not actually realize (or be able to express) all the factors going in to their position. If you seek to deeply understand their stance, they often start to understand it with more clarity as well, and sometimes you can then engage at the inflection point level and create a win-win.

protomyth 7y ago

“First, acknowledge the disagreement and paraphrase the opinion of the person disagreeing to make sure ...” To expand on your point, I was taught that a person is just being ignorant if you cannot argue your "opponent's" position to their satisfaction. You really don't have to believe one word of it but understanding where their reasoning has taken them is vital to understanding your own position. It will help you decide that what you believe is reasonable and has been properly tested. It will also have the value of telling you if there is a real disagreement or the fog of one human trying to talk to another is obscuring what should be an agreement. Nothing is as stupid and painful as two people arguing past each other.