Understanding > Convincing
I’ve been wondering recently:
What would happen if we focused on understanding others and not convincing them?
What would happen if everyone valued understanding more than convincing?
Reflecting on conversations in my past I wonder what would be different if I focused more energy on deepening my understanding of an opposing perspective in lieu of convincing someone of my perspective?
It’s very difficult to change someones mind — even harder to change someones behavior. With the current divissiveness nationally [in the USA] as we see a deeper, more extreme, and painful divide growing — one of the things I see is people trying to convince more.
They’re getting louder, stronger, and more aggresive in their arguments. While there may be a place and time for this I can’t help but ask — what would happen if all sides challenged themselves to acheive deeper levels of understranding of those they oppose?
When the conversation stops progress stops. My suggestion: we need to stop running away from each other while shouting over our shoulder exclaiming why “we’re right” and “you’re wrong”.
What if: we run towards each other and say/ask some of the following questions:
- I want to better understand your perspective.
- Would you explain that more?
- What do you mean when you say [x]?
- How does this impact you?
- What experience led you to this conclusion?
- Let’s find some facts we can agree on.
- If we do what are they?
- What upset you about what I just said?
- How can we work together?
What possibilities arise with this shift?
In the end the notion of Win Win [Win] seems more achevible if we challenge ourselves to understand instead of convince. Maybe Michael Scott & Obama articulate it best?
One of the sparks that sent me down the “Understanding > Convincing” rabbit hole was rereading “Getting To Yes” by Roger Fisher & William Ury. In the book one of the points they emphasize is “Face the problem not the people”
Specifically they suggest literally sitting on the same side of the table and looking at the problem together. I find this tactic to be very tangible. What are we doing today to sit on the same side of the table and face the problem together?
It can be challenging to drive action out of reading an article or pondering “what ifs”. In exploring this notion of “Understanding > Convincing” the question I am asking myself is “Am I doing everything I can to fully understand the perspectives that are not my own”?
If this connects with you I’d invite you to challenge yourself by asking the same question. Try and catch yourself convincing when you could be understanding. If you’re feeling generous share what observations you make in the comments when you prioritize understanding > convincing in future conversations.
Like this story? Click the heart below. It helps others see the story. Thanks!
