Express Agreement With the Part That’s True
The ancient philosopher, Socrates, was a master of dialogue. One of his standard procedures was to carefully discern what was true about what others had said. In the book, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When the Stakes Are High, the authors share a technique similar to the method of Socrates.
A crucial conversation is defined as “a discussion between two or more people where: (a) stakes are high, (b) opinions vary, and (c) emotions run strong.” Crucial conversations are often handled poorly. They can quickly devolve into conversational combat. A way to create a more cooperative environment when conversations turn “crucial” is to look for and acknowledge the partial truth in what the other party has said. In a debate, we fight to be right; in a dialogue, we work together to find the truth.
To illustrate the difference in these two modes, imagine a scenario in which a wife confronts her husband about coming home late from work. She might say, “You’re late again. Dinner is cold but that doesn’t seem to bother you very much, does it?” In debate mode, the husband might respond with an argument saying, “I’m just trying to provide for this family. Besides, I’ve been on time every other day this week. It’s not that big a deal.” This response is likely to escalate into a heated argument.
If instead he were to slow down, acknowledging what is true, he might say, “You are right that I am late and I see that dinner has gotten cold while you were waiting for me. I am trying to provide for our family and I’ve been on time every other day this week.” The second response is much less likely to devolve into a full-blown argument and it is more fertile ground for dialogue.
What if there is absolutely nothing you can agree with in what the other person has said? The authors then recommend acknowledging the other person by showing that you understand where they are coming from. You might say, “I can see why you might say…” or “I understand that you think…”
One word of caution about this technique is to be careful to follow up your statement with the word and rather than but. And is integrative. But tends to be combative. Compare how these two statements might land during a crucial conversation: “I understand that you think that I’m always late but frequently I am on time” vs. “I understand that you think I’m always late and frequently I am on time.”
This week, I invite you to ask yourself:
What are crucial conversations I’ve had in the past? In the ones that did not go well, what partial truths could I have acknowledged? Had I done so, how would things have changed?
Where does my current conversational posture land on the spectrum of dialogue vs. debate? What would change for me if I grew in my ability to discern and express agreement with partial truths?
God Bless,
Dan
