Can two people disagree and both be right?

I came across something this morning that started me thinking about the issue of disagreements between people. In essence, the question was raised "Can two people disagree and both be right?" The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes."

It has been aptly said that we each see life through our own lens. We interpret the world and make our decisions about life based on our own experiences, intentions, and values. We sometimes find ourselves in disagreement with someone because our "take" on the situation differs from theirs. So who's right in such a situation? Quite often, BOTH people are right. Each is looking through their own, individual lens at the situation and feels the need to take action based on their own needs. Unfortunately, life often calls for both people to act in some sort of accord, which seems to pose a problem because you can't have it both ways. This is where a real shift in thinking must take place.

First, both people must consciously come to realize that the situation calls for a higher level of thinking - a level at which each person can somehow satisfy their needs AND allow the other person to do the same. This may seem impossible at first and, admittedly sometimes it may very well be impossible, but such cases are actually rarer than one might think. Operating out of the mindset that it is NOT impossible, changing our level of thinking is the key to two people (or even a whole group of people) reaching that magical point of "synergy" where everyone has their needs met.

Second, everyone involved must explicitly agree that the situation calls for a shift in energy. It is absolutly essential that everyone stop investing energy in fighting for his or her "cause." It may only seem natural to go to battle with a specific objective in mind, but that is false thinking. What is important - indeed necessary - is the ability to search for answers and solutions that will satisfy everyone and that can not and will not happen until everyone is willing to "stop the train" and shift their energy to searching for mutually beneficial solutions. This is when the real magic starts to happen.

Third, everyone must be willing to be vulnerable for a little while. This is not the same as voluntarily becoming "weak" or "passive." Instead, it means being willing to openly share your own needs and concerns and at the same time REALLY LISTEN to and UNDERSTAND the other side's needs and concerns. Until you are willing to actually do this, you are doing nothing more than fighting for your own cause and you've forced the situation back to a point where it is probably unsolvable. The beauty of actually listening to the other side's needs and concerns is that you might very well start to see at least a tiny shift in your own thinking. This "stage" of the "process," to loosely use these terms, is where many people often find that they have been dealing with what is known as a "false dichotomy." A false dichotomy is a situation in which it seems there are only two choices on the table when there are probably numerous possible solutions... if not an INFINITE number of solutions. So often we fail to uncover/discover the other possible solutions because all our energy is spent of standing our own ground.

Fourth, everyone involved must "suspend their assumptions." For an in-depth discussion on this idea, I would refer the reader to the writings of Peter Senge, et al, in a couple of marvelous books: "The Fifth Discipline" and "The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook." But for purposes of this discussion, please understand that "suspending" our assumptions does NOT mean "stopping" or "pausing." Instead it is best described as sort of hanging them on a thread in front of us for everyone to hear, look at, and consider. And I do mean consider... I DON'T mean "shoot down" or necessarily adopt, either. Each person must be given the opportunity to openly state his or her needs. EACH ONE... Capital letters, emphasized, underscored... E-A-C-H O-N-E. Until everybody's real needs are understood, the best solutions will not show themselves. It just doesn't happen. Let me share with you a little bit of Native American tradition, here...

In Native American Councils, "Hoops," or "Circles" (gatherings for in-depth dialog) a talking stick is often used. Used in conjunction with the talking stick is the "answering feather." A brief aside is due here: dialog (from the ancient Greek "dia" + "logos") means everyone truly SHARES and EXPLORES equally. This is not the same as "discussion," which traced backed to its origin is more akin to "bombardment." What we are after here is true DIALOG, so let's stop using the term "discussion" from here on out. Now, back to the talking stick and answering feather...

The talking stick is passed around the "hoop" or group. Only the person who is holding the stick is allowed to speak at that moment. He or she is allowed to fully express their thoughts and concerns. If someone has a question or needs clarification or further information from the speaker in order to better understand what he or she is expressing, they must hold up the answering feather. It's sort of like raising your hand in a meeting or a class, except that traditional Native Americans take this courtesy VERY SERIOUSLY. That may sound similar to the expected courtesies in meetings today, but there is one significant difference: a Native American would EXPECT someone to raise the answering feather. He or she knows that not everyone fully understands the thoughts being shared until they in turn share their need for further information. Too often in meetings today, we assume that everyone else has enough information to understand us, or even worse (and perhaps more often) we get defensive if someone raises a question or asks for more information. This is a very common problem which stems from another underlying (and dangerous) assumption: the idea that if someone asks a question it means that they are attacking our position, when it is very likely they are not. Unfortunately, this errant assumption that QUESTIONS = ATTACKS frequently ruins any possible chance of real dialog and problem solving. Why? Because this assumption automatically throws us back to "discussion" and thinking we must defend our individual positions.

The talking stick and answering feather are passed around until EVERYONE is satisfied that their ideas have been fully shared and everyone feels that they have all the information that they need to understand and consider everyone else's concerns. This may sound like a lengthy process, but it is rarely so. Even better, by investing the time for real dialog in the beginning, much time is saved in the long-run. It cuts WAY down on how much time is spent clearing up misunderstandings and disagreements that arise later because something was left out. I have attended many Native American hoops, and I can assure you with absolute certainty that this idea is NOT unwieldy or time consuming. It does not lead to "paralysis by analysis," because the people involved in the dialog - with a little experience and thinking - stop getting so easily distracted and getting caught up on wild tangents that just aren't necessary. It is very focused. And the focus comes from (and only WHEN) all the dialog participants are truly willing to get out of the "attack and defend" mode and shift to the mode of asking "What other possibilities might exist here?" This question just doesn't arise in people's minds and can't when they are spending their energy formulating attacks and defenses to what is being said.

Fifth, the question must be openly raised: "What other possibilities are there for us, besides the ones we thought before were our ONLY choices?" If everyone involved reaches this point, which is possible even with groups that have a strong history of warfare, although it takes time and practice (and possibly a little (or a lot of) neutral "coaching), some marvelous things can happen and people can begin to "soar" in the skies of problem-solving. Although some of them might be "hacks," there are really good "dialog facilitators" out there who can and will help individuals and groups through the process. It is a good investment to bring a neutral facilitator in, especially when dealing with issues that have been particularly "touchy" or volatile in the past... or when the participants have a strong history of warfare.

It is possible for people to disagree and everyone be "right" - at least from their own perspectives. With a little learning and practice (and maybe a little help from time to time) the possibilities for solving problems and dealing with seemingly nasty, thorny dilemmas grow exponentially.

I send up prayers for all my brothers and sisters for peace, love, happiness, and prosperity in life. May the Creator and the Spirits gift us all abundantly with these.

- Whispering Eagle, October 11, 2007 -
share on: facebook