Seeing Through Somebody Else’s Eyes
One of the hardest things to do during disagreement is to genuinely try to see the situation from the other person’s perspective. A lot of people hear that advice and immediately think it means giving in, but that is not what I am talking about at all. Listening to somebody does not require me to say, “You are absolutely right, and I was wrong.” That would be conceding, and understanding is something altogether different. I can hear your reasoning without adopting it as my own. I can understand how you reached your conclusion without believing your conclusion is correct. That little distinction can change the entire direction of a difficult conversation. Too many arguments become battles because each person believes listening somehow weakens his own position. So instead of listening, both people spend the entire conversation preparing their next defense. Nobody is learning anything because everybody is protecting territory. I have learned that sometimes the strongest thing you can do is put your defense down long enough to understand what is actually happening in the other person’s mind. That is not weakness; that is emotional discipline.
Understanding Is Not Agreement
There is a difference between saying, “I understand what you are saying,” and saying, “I agree with what you are saying.” Folks confuse those two statements all the time. Understanding simply means I have taken enough time to grasp your reasoning, your feelings, or your experience. Agreement means I have accepted your reasoning as correct. Those are two completely different things. I may understand why somebody is angry and still believe the way he handled his anger was wrong. I may understand why a person made a particular decision and still believe it was a poor decision. I may even understand the history that caused somebody to see me a certain way without accepting his judgment of me. That is why listening should never make us afraid that we are somehow surrendering ourselves. You are not giving away your position just because you allowed another human being to explain his. In fact, hearing somebody carefully often puts you in a stronger position because now you know what the real disagreement is. Once you understand what is underneath the words, you can respond to the actual problem instead of arguing with the noise surrounding it.
You Cannot Make Anybody Listen
Then comes the question people always want answered: after I listen to them, how do I make them listen to me? The answer may disappoint you because there is no magic phrase that can make another person do something he has decided not to do. You cannot control somebody else’s willingness to understand you. You can only control how you enter the conversation and how you conduct yourself once you are there. That lesson can be frustrating because human beings naturally want fairness. We think, “I listened to you, so now you owe me the same courtesy.” In a reasonable relationship, that should happen, but life does not always hand us reasonable people. Some folks want an audience, not a conversation. Others want victory, not understanding. A few people have already decided what they believe before you ever open your mouth. You cannot force openness into a closed mind. What you can do is create the best possible conditions for openness and then decide how much energy you are willing to spend if the other person refuses to meet you halfway.
Ask Better Questions
One of the best ways I know to calm a tense conversation is to stop leading with accusations and start asking better questions. The word “why” can sometimes sound innocent, but in the middle of conflict it can come across like an indictment. Ask somebody, “Why did you do that?” and he may immediately hear, “What is wrong with you?” That puts a person on defense before the conversation has really begun. There are softer questions that invite somebody to explain instead of forcing him to justify himself. I might ask, “How long have you felt that way?” or “When did you first begin seeing it that way?” I could ask, “Where did you learn that?” or “What happened that led you to that conclusion?” Those questions open doors because they communicate curiosity rather than judgment. More importantly, they force both people to slow down. Instead of throwing conclusions back and forth, you start uncovering how those conclusions were formed. Sometimes you discover that the argument you thought you were having is not the argument at all. The real issue may have started years before either one of you entered the room.
Let Them Empty the Glass
I like to think about difficult conversations as two people standing there holding full glasses of water. My glass is filled with everything I want to say, and yours is filled with everything you want me to understand. If I immediately start pouring my water into your glass, it has nowhere to go because your glass is already full. That is what happens when we rush into explaining ourselves before the other person feels heard. So I begin by asking questions and allowing you to pour some of your water out. Tell me what happened. Tell me how you saw it. Tell me what bothered you and why it mattered. Every answer empties a little more from your glass because you no longer have to fight so hard to make me understand. Eventually, if the conversation is healthy, there is some room left for what I have to say. That is usually the moment when another person becomes curious enough to ask, “Okay, how did you see it?” Now I am not forcing my perspective into a crowded space. There is finally somewhere for it to land.
Being First Changes the Temperature
There is something powerful about being the first person in a disagreement to stop fighting for the microphone. Most people walk into an argument expecting resistance, so when resistance does not immediately appear, it changes the emotional temperature. Instead of saying, “No, that is not what happened,” you say, “Tell me what I am missing.” That question can catch somebody completely off guard. Suddenly the person who came prepared to defend himself realizes that somebody is actually listening. In many situations, that creates reciprocity because reasonable people naturally become more willing to listen after they have genuinely been heard. It does not happen every time, and anybody who promises that it will is selling something. Some people will take all the understanding you give them and never return a drop. But most healthy conversations have a rhythm to them. One person speaks, the other understands, and then the roles reverse. Sometimes somebody has to have enough maturity to start that rhythm. If I can be that person without sacrificing my dignity, I lose nothing by going first.
The Difference Between Conversation and Combat
I have noticed that many disagreements become destructive because people treat conversation like combat. In combat, somebody must win and somebody must lose. Every sentence becomes ammunition, and every mistake becomes something you save for the next attack. Healthy communication cannot survive very long under those conditions. A conversation should not require the destruction of one person’s dignity so the other person can feel victorious. There are times when I can disagree with somebody completely and still understand how he arrived where he stands. That understanding may even help me explain my own position more clearly. If I know what matters to you, I know where our disagreement actually begins. If I understand your fear, I may realize that arguing facts alone will never reach you. If I understand your experience, I may also discover assumptions in my own thinking that deserve another look. None of that requires me to abandon myself. It simply requires enough confidence in my own position that I do not become frightened whenever somebody sees the world differently.
Reasonable People Matter
There is one condition underneath all of this that we cannot ignore: the other person has to possess some degree of reasonableness. Communication techniques are powerful, but they cannot transform somebody who has no interest in communication. You can ask thoughtful questions and still encounter somebody determined to misunderstand every answer. You can listen patiently and still meet somebody who interprets patience as permission to disrespect you. You can show empathy and discover that the other person intends to use your empathy against you. That is when wisdom has to enter the room. Listening does not mean tolerating abuse. Understanding does not require endless conversation. Sometimes the healthiest conclusion is realizing that somebody is not prepared for the kind of discussion you are trying to have. When that happens, stepping away may be more productive than continuing to explain yourself. Communication requires two willing participants. One person can open the door, but he cannot drag another person through it.
Summary
Listening to another person’s perspective does not mean surrendering your own. Understanding and agreement are different things. Good questions often create more progress than accusations. Asking how, when, or where can encourage explanation without immediately putting somebody on defense. Giving people room to speak may make them more willing to hear you afterward. You cannot force anybody to listen, however. Some people simply do not enter disagreements with a reasonable spirit. Knowing the difference protects both your peace and your dignity. The goal should not always be winning. Sometimes the greater victory is understanding exactly where both people stand.
Conclusion
I cannot control whether somebody chooses to understand me. I can control whether I listen carefully, ask thoughtful questions, and speak with enough confidence that disagreement does not frighten me. Sometimes when I empty another person’s glass first, he makes room for mine. Sometimes he does not. Either way, I do not have to surrender myself just because I chose to understand him. That is the difference between listening and conceding. One requires wisdom. The other requires giving up something you believe. I have learned that I can do the first without ever doing the second.