Ask. Then recommend.
I came to an aha moment recently regarding the fallacy of the "see the other side of the argument" approach to understanding other people and other viewpoints.
While trying to see the "other side" sounds good and right on first pass, there's nuance missing that can lead to far worse division than it actually solves.
Think about it: How often are we faced with issues and disagreements that are simple enough to be boiled down to just two sides?
No, no, no, NO!
Life is complex. Disagreements are complex.
For instance, you can be pro-gun because you worry about government overreach. Or because you support hunting. Or because you believe gun ownership to be the best way to defend your family and those you love.
And you can be anti-gun because of the role these weapons have played in some of our greatest tragedies as a society. Or because you are an animal-rights activist. Or because you believe in dealing with society's offenders through social services and not through violent means.
When we merely seek to see the "other side" of complex issues, it oversimplifies and categorizes us into warring factions, and it prevents us from seeing the vast, gray middle where most of us actually reside.
When we merely seek to see the "other side" of complex issues, it oversimplifies and categorizes us into warring factions, and it prevents us from seeing the vast, gray middle where most of us actually reside.
This "you're either for us or against us" approach to conversation causes us to fall into a courtroom debate-like back and forth, where we attempt to factually out-do those whose views we oppose.
But we're not in a courtroom, and there is no judge or jury deciding our fates.
The reason so many disagreements end at an impasse is because we try to force what is important to us — our individual truths and convictions — onto someone else, believing that our view represents one side of a mere two-sided argument.
We think our beliefs are the only answer to every question the "other side" could possibly conceive, and my friend, it's just not that simple.
So what's the approach we should take?
We must seek to find common ground instead of seek to be right.
Amongst all the messiness and gray area that we swim in on a daily basis, no one is ever going to agree on everything. But, we can find something to agree on.
"But Michael, I don't see any way I could possibly find common ground with people who want to restrict our rights to own guns."
"Michael, I can't fathom trying to find common ground with anti-abortionists."
Really?
You don't think gun owners and anti-gun activists can agree on the goal of creating a safer society for everyone?
You don't think pro-life and pro-choice advocates can come together and agree on the goal to make life more viable for everyone?
I believe they can, and this common ground can be the building blocks upon which cooperation, co-creation, and trust are built. Because more voices can always be added, and the common ground still maintains its integrity.
We must speak to others in terms of what is important to them, and find the common ground between our views.
We so often think that by understanding other viewpoints, we're validating a belief or opinion with which we don't agree, and that feels threatening to us and our own beliefs.
The reality is that by understanding differing views and positions better, it can expand our ability to find common ground because we can articulate what is most important to everyone involved.
How do we begin to do this?
Well, as I wrote earlier, stop trying to present your case like a prosecutor in a murder trial, and instead, follow the advice of Stan Pearson.
Stan was my guest on episode 29 of The Follow-Up Question, and his advice on how deal with conflict, disagreements, and opposing views is to "ask, then recommend."
Ask questions to better understand what matters most to people and why they believe like they do.
Recommend resources and information to them to help them see what you believe.
It's an incredibly powerful way to navigate difficult conversations without judgement, and without falling into the "both sides" fallacy.
