Sage Solutions
Advice and insight about personal growth, personal development, and becoming your best self.
Sage Solutions
Disagreeing Without the Drama: A Practical Guide
Discover how to effectively handle disagreements in your interpersonal relationships in this insightful episode about transforming conflict into growth. We unpack the three main approaches to disagreements: arguments, debates, and discussions, each with its unique impact on relationships and personal development. Arguments often lead to emotional escalations, blinding us to the other person's perspective and damaging our connections. In stark contrast, debates aim to seek the truth while remaining structured and rational, allowing for a fascinating exchange of ideas.
This episode emphasizes that discussions provide the most constructive pathway to resolving differences, fostering a collaborative approach to understanding and problem-solving. We offer actionable strategies to help you cultivate self-awareness and active listening skills, manage emotional responses, and focus on shared values.
Leverage these insights to navigate your future disagreements with empathy, curiosity, and intention. Learn how to create respectful dialogues that deepen your relationships and encourage both personal and relational growth. Join us in exploring these critical communication skills, and remember to subscribe for more transformative content!
We would love to hear your feedback! Click here to tell us what you think.
https://sagesolutions.buzzsprout.com
If you are interested in one-on-one coaching, email us at:
sagecoachingsolutions@gmail.com
**Legal Disclaimer**
The Sage Solutions Podcast and content posted by David Sage is presented solely for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes. No coaching client relationship is formed by listening to this podcast. No Legal, Medical or Financial advice is being given. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast or website is at the user's own risk. It is not intended as a substitute for the advice, diagnosis, or treatment of a psychotherapist, physician, professional coach, Lawyer or other qualified professional. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical or mental health condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. The opinions of guests are their own and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of the podcast.
Welcome to the Sage Solutions Podcast, where we talk about all things personal growth, personal development and becoming your best self. My name is David Sage and I am a self-worth and confidence coach with Sage Coaching Solutions. Coach with Sage Coaching Solutions. Today's episode is all about how we handle disagreements with others, an essential skill in both our personal and professional lives. We'll explore three distinct approaches arguments, debates and discussions and learn how each of these methods affect our relationships and our inner development. Today, I'm also joined by one of our two reoccurring co-hosts, my sister Anna Sage.
Speaker 2:Hey, I'm glad to be back.
Speaker 1:Before we get into it. Our goal with this podcast is to share free, helpful tools with you and anyone you know who is looking to improve their life. So take action, subscribe and share this podcast with them.
Speaker 2:So, naturally, being your younger sister, we've had many years of experience with disagreements over the course of my lifetime and even a couple surrounding the podcast over the course of my lifetime, and even a couple surrounding the podcast. I mean yes, but luckily, as we've gotten older we've gained more skills to be able to have those disagreements in healthier ways.
Speaker 1:Well and these are generally pretty rare or just us hashing out what the best way to go about it is.
Speaker 2:No, I totally agree. I think even throughout our childhood we were really close. We never were like one of those siblings that were constantly at each other. I mean, unless I'm looking back on it from Rose Colored.
Speaker 1:No, we fought a decent amount of time. Would we have like a?
Speaker 2:big disagreement that would turn into like an argument or fight. But maybe first we should start with what is the difference between a discussion, a debate and an argument when it comes to having a disagreement about something.
Speaker 1:So let's be clear Disagreements are inevitable. So let's be clear Disagreements are inevitable. We're all human. We're not going to constantly agree with everyone else all of the time. It would be a very boring and weird society if that's how it worked. We'd all be robots.
Speaker 2:Nor should we. It's more interesting to have different points of view.
Speaker 1:Exactly Whether we're discussing ideas with our friends or colleagues, or even our loved ones. The way that we approach those differences can either build bridges or burn them down. I've come to recognize that there are three common, different approaches that people tend to use when facing disagreements. As we mentioned before, they're arguments, debates and discussions. I'd like to share a thought from the renowned thinker Nelson Mandela the greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we do fall. This quote reminds us that disagreements and conflicts are opportunities, not failures. Opportunities for growth, and we've talked about that a bunch on this podcast. That being wrong means you learned something. That failing means you learned something.
Speaker 2:I don't remember who first told me this, but it's always stuck with me that fail can be an acronym for first attempt in learning and when you approach it that way, it's just part with me. That FAIL can be an acronym for First Attempt in Learning and when you approach it that way, it's just part of the learning process.
Speaker 1:You and I are very aligned on that. I just rephrase it a little bit different in my coaching, where I talk about how action equals success and outcomes good or bad, whether you failed or you were successful they're all really just learning.
Speaker 2:So today we're going to break down these three approaches to disagreements to help us identify which style we lean towards and learn how we might adopt more effective strategies when it comes to disagreements.
Speaker 1:Let's start with the least helpful of these three approaches arguments. Arguments are often emotional and they can quickly become heated. In an argument, each party tends to focus on proving that they're right, sometimes at the expense of truly listening to the other side. When we argue, we let our emotions cloud our judgment, which can lead to being incredibly defensive, a feeling of resentment or even full-on estrangement. One way to understand arguments is to view them as reactive rather than proactive. They usually involve a rapid exchange of opinions without pausing to explore the underlying problems or concerns. Research has shown that when emotions run high, our ability to think clearly diminishes. In fact, a study in the Journal of Interpersonal Communication noted that emotional arousal during conflicts often leads to a diminished capacity for empathy and understanding.
Speaker 2:So, in other words, when we get really heated in an argument, it becomes very hard for us to see the other person as the person that we care about and we just start to see them as the problem, as the person that we care about and we just start to see them as the problem.
Speaker 1:We get into a box where we don't see them as a person, like you said, where they just become an obstacle, an obstacle in the way of us being right. Because really, when you get into a full-on argument, the goal isn't to figure it out or to seek the truth, you just want to be right, you just want to win. Now, it's hard to acknowledge that when you're in that heated, angry state, but generally, if an argument is happening, there are clearly two sides and both sides are trying to win.
Speaker 2:So to make sure I'm understanding arguments correctly in an argument it's very much my side versus your side, me versus you, and you start seeing the other person as the thing that is in your way from being able to be right.
Speaker 1:And that's a best case scenario. Often you just see the other person as your enemy.
Speaker 2:Which is awful, because oftentimes we're getting in these arguments with people we love and care about and respect. So naturally, if both of us are seeing each other that way, you start to feel the way that they're viewing you and it makes you angry, and rightfully so, it makes you defensive, it makes you shut down or start to escalate, and that only makes matters worse.
Speaker 1:And nobody wants to lose right. Nobody wants to lose in an argument, especially when emotions are that high and the frustration is building and building, and building until you start to almost hate the other person during it. Now, not all arguments get to that point. You know some of this is extremes, but when we were talking about this earlier, you brought up that these sometimes blow up into full-blown fights.
Speaker 2:This is where people get into losing control emotionally and insulting the other person or just trying to hurt them because you feel so attacked by the other person, since they're viewing you as the opposition of them being right. It gets to a place of being so hurt.
Speaker 1:And this is where people say very hurtful things because they're feeling hurt.
Speaker 2:Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:And that's where somebody saying a terrible thing just to hurt somebody can actually lead to things like estrangement, like a total detachment from the relationship, and not all arguments get to that point. I do want to be a little bit shades of gray here. It's not that arguments are literally never useful, are literally never useful If you look hard enough. There is a situation where an argument can be helpful or is inevitable, but generally you don't want to be having it with your loved ones, with close friends. You might get into an argument to stand up for a completely unjust act or something like that, as opposed to getting into a fistfight. It could be an alternative in extreme situations.
Speaker 2:But even in those cases, it's important that you maintain an awareness of your emotional state so that it doesn't get too out of hand, where you start just saying things that you can't take back or doing things that you can't take back, because you have to remember hurt people, hurt people.
Speaker 1:Which is why, for the sake of this podcast, I don't want to be 100% black and white here. But if we're trying to be pragmatic here or practical but if we're trying to be pragmatic here or practical you should just avoid having arguments. They're so generally unhelpful as an approach to a disagreement. You're not really going to learn from what the other person is saying because you're too busy trying not to lose and trying to win, and so is the other person, so they're not really hearing what you're saying. So you're better off just rounding up and saying no.
Speaker 2:Yep, if you feel yourself getting to a place where a well-intended discussion or debate starts to turn into an argument, having that awareness of the shift is so helpful to say you know what we need to pause, we need to separate a little bit, take some space and come back to this so that this can continue to be a disagreement framed in not seeing the other person as an opponent or a problem or an obstacle, and not trying to approach the conversation with the intent of being right or winning.
Speaker 1:I do want to say we're all human. There are going to be times where an argument happens. So you can't hold yourself to such a standard that, if you ever do it, you're now shaming yourself, beating yourself up and saying that you're a terrible person. That's equally unhelpful, if not significantly more. It's going to happen occasionally. So try your best not to get into an argument and use one of these two other approaches. But if you do get into an argument, first go and repair the damage that you've done and second, have some self-compassion Repair with yourself.
Speaker 2:All right. So we've established, for the most part, arguments are not the most helpful way to approach disagreements. So what is one of the other ways to approach disagreements that's more helpful than an argument?
Speaker 1:The next way that we can approach disagreements is through a debate. Debates are a little confusing sometimes for people because they can have two different meanings and two different goals, and the reason that this gets confused is because of things like debate clubs or debate teams.
Speaker 2:Or even how debates are approached on TV through things like the presidential debate.
Speaker 1:Which, frankly, most of the time, those end up being like half arguments. Yes, so let's be clear in what we mean when we're saying a debate. Debates, as we're defining them, are structured and goal-oriented. In a debate, the focus is often on trying to find the truth, and the best way to do that is to make the case of whichever side you are on in the debate as persuasively as you can and by presenting as many logical arguments and actual pieces of evidence as possible. This approach values the exchange of ideas in a more formalized way. The most important part, though, is to keep it not emotion-driven, and in a non-formal debate, you don't have to stick to one side.
Speaker 2:Both people can kind of flip-flop back and forth, because the goal is really to hash out the truth, not necessarily have only one side that you're representing. So the differences between a debate and an argument are a debate seeks to find the truth on a topic or on what you're disagreeing about, whereas an argument seeks to win, to be right, and a debate is not emotion-driven. It's intended to be purely logical, truly trying to flesh out all of the pieces and evidence of a disagreement and understand what really is the truth here, without feelings involved, whereas an argument naturally involves feelings because you get defensive when you approach things from a point of view of I'm trying to be right and therefore you need to be wrong.
Speaker 1:Yes, right, exactly. And the problem is that this gets muddled by things like debate teams, where the goal of the activity is to teach people to be good debaters. So because it's a club, because there's two teams, there is a winning and losing. Now they're trying to get people to have good debates by incentivizing them to win, and the way that you win in a real debate team or club is by actually making good arguments, by being persuasive and having lots of good evidence. So it's not that it's totally different, but people misunderstand the goal of a debate as being to win, like it would be in that very specific setting. But in real life, there aren't really winners and losers. The idea is to seek the truth. When we do this through a debate, it can lead to incredibly interesting conversations. A well-done debate can be both invigorating and enlightening when both parties are committed to fairness and mutual respect and actually learning the truth. Unlike in arguments, debates require you to pause and think through your thought processes before you're saying things, so that you're actually producing logical arguments.
Speaker 2:They may also require some time to be able to look up and find resources and studies and references, to think beyond what you already know and find facts and information to help you flesh out the truth.
Speaker 1:A good debater tends to engage in this kind of mental exercise, where they challenge assumptions while trying to carefully articulate their own views and sometimes the views of the opposing side. Let's say you and I are going to have a debate about something, but we're both generally in agreement. Then one of us has to occasionally flick over to like a devil's advocate. Yes, because we have to be looking at things from the other side, which is why debates require you to see the issue from multiple different angles. It's a very shades of gray approach. You want to figure out the nuance. You want to figure out the balance, the truth of the matter. You can't just be one side only and not looking at the whole picture.
Speaker 2:We even did that for this topic. We sat down and talked about everything that we thought about it and did some research and then I played devil's advocate like but what about this, what about that? To try to make sure that what we were presenting was clear and accurate.
Speaker 1:Right, we talked about this in our episode with attorney John Sage. Our father called Think Like a Lawyer. Lawyers have to do this all the time. They're essentially in one big structured debate. They have to understand the other side just as well as their own side if they're going to make good, structured arguments. Now I'm re-bringing up the word arguments in this format to reiterate that arguments has two different meanings. The first meaning is what we defined. Structuring an argument or a point for what you're trying to say is a totally different meaning, Right.
Speaker 2:There's a nuance, there is a totally different meaning.
Speaker 1:Right there's a nuance there. When conducted in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, which requires intellectual humility, debates can be a brilliant way to hone your critical thinking skills. One participant in a recent leadership workshop observed that debate is not about winning, but about expanding our understanding of the issue at hand. This perspective reminds us that even if we don't end up changing our minds, the process can enrich our own thoughts and reveal unexpected insights. It is important to note, however, that debates can be a slippery slope. There are often two clear sides, and this means that it's easy to get competitive, and if the goal shifts from learning to winning, that's a quick slide to an argument. So the key to keeping it a debate is to remain open-minded, to catch yourself if you feel like you're trying to win, and always be ready to incorporate new information from different perspectives you and a coworker, or you and anybody, really disagree on something that doesn't necessarily need to be studied to determine the truth.
Speaker 1:Should we put ketchup or mustard on this hot dog?
Speaker 2:Yeah, do we want tacos or hamburgers for dinner?
Speaker 1:You don't really need to find the truth, because there isn't a the truth.
Speaker 2:Exactly, but you do need to come to a mutual understanding. So I would argue the most helpful way in those circumstances is to have a discussion. What you're disagreeing on as my side versus your side in a discussion, you approach as us, the two people in the discussion versus the problem that we're trying to solve together. In this way, especially when it comes to disagreements in a relationship that could become hurtful and could turn into an argument, when you intentionally both try to approach it from an us versus the problem mindset, you remove the problem from the other person and are better able to see them from a compassionate, empathetic lens. You're able to see them as the person you love and care about and keep their needs and your needs.
Speaker 1:Separate from the fact that you're disagreeing right.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And from the way that we're defining a discussion, because there are lots of different types of discussions. What we're really talking about is a discussion surrounding a disagreement. What we're really talking about is a discussion surrounding a disagreement and I think, where arguments are about winning and debates are about the truth, I would say that a discussion is really about understanding.
Speaker 2:Right In an argument.
Speaker 1:You seek to win In a debate you seek the truth and in a discussion you seek to understand and solve a problem together or, alternatively, agree to disagree. Not every disagreement is always going to resolve in agreement.
Speaker 2:True, but even within agree to disagree, you could still gain a better understanding of the other person's point of view and thoughts and feelings on something. So, ultimately, you're still seeking understanding.
Speaker 1:Well, I think in the first place, you're looking to see if you can both agree with this us versus the problem approach, true, and then you're hashing out whether, after understanding each other, you do agree or just naturally don't, and, depending on the situation, that can be totally fine. I would say it's probably the most constructive approach when it comes to resolving differences. In a discussion, the emphasis is more on an open dialogue as well as collaborative problem solving, because we have that us versus the problem approach. There's a focus on active listening, empathy and especially, on mutual respect. Unlike arguments and debates, discussions are less about who is right and more about understanding and connection. Discussions invite us to slow down, pause and ask what can I learn from the other person? It's a very mindful perspective to take. This mindset can be transformative. When we engage in discussions, we create a space where differences are seen as opportunities for growth, not as threats. So let's consider the following when two people truly discuss a challenging topic that they're disagreeing on, they both leave with a broader perspective.
Speaker 2:Sometimes it's a broader perspective on the topic, sometimes it's a broader perspective on the other person, or sometimes the other person leaves with a broader understanding of you.
Speaker 1:I like that this discussion approach is especially valuable when it comes to personal development, where our relationships can serve as mirrors reflecting our own areas for growth. A discussion allows us to remain curious about our own beliefs while gently challenging those that may no longer serve us.
Speaker 2:But I'm sure you can imagine how important it is that both parties in a discussion are on the same page about what intentions are behind that discussion.
Speaker 1:Honestly, I think you could say that for all three of these. If one person believes that they're having a debate while the other person believes they're having a discussion, it's going to be a weird conversation that probably isn't going to go the way that either person is looking for.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. We've had that many times because David is somebody who really is passionate about having debates. He really enjoys seeking the truth in different topics, and while I sometimes can enjoy those kinds of conversations, I'm not always as passionate about the topic that he wants to seek the truth on and I don't always have the time and capacity to be able to talk about something and flesh it out. I'm just, you know, I don't share that same passion all the time.
Speaker 1:Sure, no and it makes sense. Sure, no and it makes sense. And I think through having several discussions about disagreements when it came to debates, we gained a lot of the insights that we're talking about today about the differences and the points behind them and why they all have different goals. And while they're all about disagreements, it's important to do that check-in and make sure that both people are looking to achieve the same goal. If you can tell that somebody is really not up for a debate and you're trying to debate them, you're not going to have a good time and you're much more likely to have that just turn into an argument time and you're much more likely to have that just turn into an argument.
Speaker 2:Same thing with discussions If you are approaching something within us versus the problem mindset and seeking to understand the other person, but the other person is coming to try to be right or seeing you as the problem, it's going to turn into an argument, no matter how well-intended one party may be. So before you have a discussion, I've found it very helpful to reiterate the intentions. First, to say listen, let's approach this as us versus the problem. Let's make sure that we stay calm. And if we get to a place where one of us starts to be emotionally escalated or starts to be taking on a mindset of I'm right, you're wrong, or even I'm trying to figure out the truth here and not truly just seeking to understand the other person's perspective or point of view, then we need to pause and shift, or maybe even take space and come back to it at a different time when we can be aligned on our intention.
Speaker 1:What I will say, though, is that it doesn't always play out like that. Sometimes we don't realize that we're disagreeing on something, or have the awareness of it until we're in the thick of it. We've already went back and forth on a couple different points in the disagreement, so you're not always going to have the opportunity to have like a ground setting ahead of time, but you can always take that pause and say, like hold on, what are we trying to accomplish here? Right, because I can tell that we're disagreeing and I'm not looking to get into an argument, and then you can kind of assess are we really trying to figure out the truth about something, like what time something starts at?
Speaker 1:Not everything always has to even be one of these. There are certain topics that you can just avoid altogether if you know that it's only going to become an argument, and there are certain things that can be solved by Googling it without having to have a whole debate or, you know, argument or full discussion. Sometimes the truth is findable like that, you know, and you can save a whole lot of time by accomplishing the same thing.
Speaker 2:Right. Other times people are so emotionally invested in something they disagree on that it's just not possible to truly have a debate or a discussion, and the only way that that's going to turn into is an argument. So the best thing you can do if you don't want to have that argument is just to set a boundary of.
Speaker 1:This is a topic that we can't talk about together boundary of this is a topic that we can't talk about together, and there's a couple topics that lend themselves to that very heavily, which is why we generally don't cover them on this podcast.
Speaker 1:Politics, religion and, actually, more recently, nutrition have all become such emotionally charged and heated topics that it's pretty rare that you're going to get somebody to change their mind. They're so entrenched in their point of view, and I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with having a firm point of view on any of these things. I'm just saying, statistically speaking, of view on any of these things. I'm just saying, statistically speaking, your chances of quote unquote changing someone's mind on any of those topics are very low and the chances that you're going to slip into an argument are very, very high. Now there's a time and a place to discuss or debate these things, and if somebody is attacking you know one of your points of view, I understand that you might want to stand up for it. I'm not trying to tell no one to ever have these conversations, but I am saying be realistic about your expectations surrounding them and then make your decisions based on that.
Speaker 2:So here's a very clear example, in case you're feeling a little bit overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information that comes with all three forms of disagreements. When was this? A few months ago, a month ago.
Speaker 1:This was a little before Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2:I want to say Okay, so a little before Thanksgiving, david and I were at his apartment, and Hannah Hannah was there too.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the three of us were discussing what we wanted the next topics of the podcast to be about, and we each had different thoughts and approaches to what would be best for the podcast.
Speaker 2:Naturally there was some disagreement there and David approached it from a debate trying to seek the truth of what's the best approach for us to use moving forward for the podcast, and in doing so, was taking different points of view, trying to play devil's advocate.
Speaker 1:Even to my own points, like just to try and hash out the best way forward in my eyes. I was trying to get as many different ways of looking at it so that we could sort of optimize, which isn't always necessary, but sometimes it can be helpful to really get something down to a T.
Speaker 2:Now I hope Hannah doesn't mind me speaking for her in this moment, and if she does I'd be happy to repair that with her but Hannah and I both in that conversation started getting a little bit emotionally escalated because in our past sometimes debates have turned into arguments and so sometimes when someone starts having a debate, it's easy to start getting emotionally escalated and to start to feel defensive and that started to turn into an argument and unfortunately we didn't recognize right away the shift. We didn't have that awareness of. Hey, this has now turned from a debate to an argument have that awareness of.
Speaker 1:Hey, this has now turned from a debate to an argument. Well, I will say this was a little bit unique and is a little different than what we've been talking about, because there were three parties. Yes, I do think that you and Hannah were more aligned on your thought processes than me and I do think it shifted a bit, but I believe it became more of an argument between you and I than her. I think she more retreated from it when it started becoming like that and you and I, based on having more of a past growing up together, many little dumb fights when we were kids, having a much longer history of disagreements and stuff like that got more into that entrenched pattern of falling into an argument and I think it really hit a point where you and I got frustrated and she was a little more of a bystander at that point.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I agree. I think I should reframe that a little bit. Hannah and I were more aligned in our thinking and therefore David started feeling I mean, I don't want to speak for you, but you started feeling a little defensive, and we started getting defensive and then Hannah shut down and I got activated, essentially, you know like fight or flight.
Speaker 2:Hannah had flight, I had fight. And then, because neither David or I recognized right away that it had shifted to an argument, it started to be a little bit of shouting and things like that, but luckily we did eventually get to that awareness. I said I need some space and I stepped away and I regulated myself and I used my strategies and then we all, after some space and time, came back into the room and we were able to have a discussion that included repairing the hurt that was caused, having some of these huge realizations of oh, we were approaching this as a debate and an argument when really we needed to be having a discussion and treating this as us versus the problem. And when we made that shift, we were able to come up with the best solution for how to move forward. For the podcast.
Speaker 1:And part of it was because we didn't do the exercise that you were talking about, where we set the intention ahead of time. Right, I was looking at it from a debate, so then I was getting frustrated when I was the only one going off of my own viewpoint, bringing up counters, doing some devil's advocate to myself. It felt very unified, with the two of you being on the same page and not really saying anything otherwise. I think that's where I started to get frustrated, because, even though I don't think that was the intention in my mind, the story I was telling myself was that it felt dogmatic and then, over time, as it became an argument, both of our nervous systems get dysregulated and then, as Tanez had said in a previous episode, that that makes a huge. It's very hard to show up. Right us to even thinking about doing this as a topic.
Speaker 2:Yep. No, it ended up in a very beautiful discussion and in me understanding you better and hopefully you understanding me better, and setting some healthy boundaries for how we need to move forward and making sure that we are on the same page, because neither one of us enjoys getting in arguments. It feels awful.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, nobody likes. Well, I shouldn't say that.
Speaker 2:Maybe there's that one guy that just.
Speaker 1:No, there are people that definitely like arguments, but I don't enjoy arguments. I can enjoy debates, but I don't enjoy arguments, and I think it's also. I want to touch on one other thing that came out of this. Boundaries are also important when it comes to disagreements. Many people think of boundaries like a fence that keeps others out, and sometimes it functions that way, but boundaries are really standards that you're setting for yourself. Now you may have specific boundaries surrounding other people, but the intention behind a boundary is to hold standards for yourself out of self-respect.
Speaker 1:The problem, when people view boundaries as them being fully about the other person and I'm not necessarily saying that you were doing this, I'm just saying it can be a slippery slope If used incorrectly. People can weaponize boundaries, because the point of a boundary isn't to chastise other people. You're not setting traps for them. They shouldn't feel like they're walking across a minefield or stepping on eggshells. If you take that approach, the other person's just going to get really frustrated. The point of a boundary is not to set rules that you punish people for crossing. They're standards that you're setting for yourself. You're supposed to cut off a conversation if you have a boundary around a certain topic or way of conversing as a standard or way of respecting yourself. It's not really about them, and I think that's what you did when you took a step back and said I need space.
Speaker 2:Yes, and I think the first time I tried to set that boundary with you, I wasn't super clear in what the boundary needed to be, and so therefore, we had to have a discussion to figure out what the right boundary was, because the boundary I initially tried to set I remember you saying like so then I just can't talk to you at all about any of that. You know, like you, you were like. That breaks my heart.
Speaker 1:The problem was, I think it actually boiled down to this the way that you set the boundary was on me, yes, and not just that. It was so in specific that it basically was like I won't tolerate being disagreed with.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, it definitely was important for us to talk through and discuss the boundary itself, which I would highly, highly recommend doing with the people in your life. Don't just set it in your own mind In some circumstances, Sometimes you have to.
Speaker 2:Where it's not. It doesn't have to be a wall where it can be a little bit more flexible at least, and you can have a conversation with somebody. You know that they're going to approach it from a healthy, open point of view, like David would. It's okay to be able to talk through. Hey, I feel like I need to set a boundary here, but what should that look like? What's fair? And that's kind of what we did, because my first attempt was a fail. It was, you know, I tried to say you can't do this when it was like, nah, really it needs to be. I need to protect myself in this way, Like I need to say you can't do this, when it was like, no, really it needs to be. I need to protect myself in this way, Like I need to be able to take space and step away if it's getting to this place.
Speaker 1:To be clear, though, I don't think your intention was that. No not at all you were trying to protect yourself. Yeah, you just didn't think through all of the different ways that that could play out.
Speaker 2:Right, and when you shared what the impact of my words were when I tried to set that boundary, then we were able to realize oh, that's not what I intended and we figured out a more reasonable boundary.
Speaker 1:Right, because the point of boundaries isn't to make people walk on eggshells around you.
Speaker 2:Not at all. No, it's supposed to be to protect your well-being.
Speaker 1:Now we've went off on a bit of a tangent here, yeah.
Speaker 2:Let's get back to it. So, if we were to summarize the big, key details, key takeaways for you to take away from this episode, it's that there are three different forms of conversation that you can have when having a disagreement An argument, a debate and a discussion. The arguments are, of the three, the least helpful in being able to come to a mutual understanding. In a disagreement, arguments are heated and angry. They have two opposing sides and they approach with the goal of trying to win or be right, with the other person becoming the obstacle to that goal. Arguments are the ones that can turn into fights and to estrangement and just not good stuff. Debates, in the form that we're defining them, can have one or more sides.
Speaker 1:Because both people should be trying to view it from as many different perspectives. So you might actually have more than two sides, you might have seven.
Speaker 2:They are not emotion-driven when done right, yes and they seek the truth. The goal is to find the truth on the disagreement, not to be right or wrong or win or lose. And finally, a discussion should be calm. It shouldn't be about taking sides or pinning yourself against the other person.
Speaker 1:Or I guess you could say there's one side.
Speaker 2:Right, there's one side and it's us versus the problem should be the intent or the goal, and you should be seeking to understand both to understand the disagreement, that topic that you're disagreeing about, better, and also to understand the other person better, their thoughts, their point of view, what they care about, what intention they bring, how they feel, because it should be based in connection. You have discussions with people that you care about, that you have a relationship with, whether that's a personal or working relationship.
Speaker 1:Now that we've outlined the three different approaches to a disagreement, let's explore some actionable strategies that we can use for moving through and choosing which one suits the right scenario. First, cultivate self-awareness. Begin by recognizing your natural tendencies in a conflict. Do you find yourself escalating into an argument regularly or preparing for a debate, or do you tend to lean more towards a discussion? Journaling or even recording your thoughts after a disagreement can provide valuable insights into your individual patterns. Next, practice active listening. Take the mindful approach, as Laura Sage says curiosity and non-judgment. In any disagreement, especially in a discussion, active listening is paramount. This means truly hearing the other person's point of view without immediately formulating your counter-argument. Try summarizing what they've said before responding. This is what we called reflective listening. You might say, if I understand you correctly, you feel that and then restate what they said. This simple act can transform your conversations. Third, manage your emotions. Arguments often flare when emotions run unchecked. Techniques such as deep breathing, pausing before you speak or even taking a short break, like Anna said, can help you manage emotional intensity. Remember, the goal is not to suppress your feelings, but to respond with clarity and intention. Another strategy would be asking open-ended questions, whether you're in a debate or a discussion. Open-ended questions invite exploration rather than confrontation. Instead of asking why are you wrong, consider asking what experiences led to this perspective. This subtle shift in language can lead to a much richer and more empathetic conversation and, last, focus on our shared values.
Speaker 1:In disagreements, it's easy to get lost in the details. Taking a step back to identify shared values or common goals can realign the conversation, keeping it as a discussion. Ask yourself what do we both care about here? Focusing on your common ground can ease the tension and open the door for this collaborative problem-solving that comes from a us-versus-the-problem discussion. Disagreements, while challenging, are also powerful opportunities for growth and learning by understanding the differences between arguments, debates and discussions. By understanding the differences between arguments, debates and discussions, we can choose more consciously how we engage with others, and by setting the tone and making sure that you're aligned in your expectations with the person that you're disagreeing with, this helps keep you on track for the intended type of disagreement. Whether you find yourself caught in a heated argument or you're ready to dive into a thoughtful discussion, each encounter is a chance to learn, to empathize and to evolve.
Speaker 2:We hope that, as you move forward and inevitably have disagreements, you choose to have discussions or debates, depending on what goal you're trying to accomplish. And therefore improve your relationships, both personal and professional.
Speaker 1:As well as your understanding of many different topics or situations or people.
Speaker 1:Remember the goal isn't to avoid disagreements entirely, but to transform how we experience them. By leaning into empathy, active listening and curiosity, you create a space where even the toughest conversations can lead to profound personal development. I invite you to try the strategies that we talked about during this episode the next time that you find yourself in a disagreement and remember you are enough and you deserve to fill up your inner cup with happiness, confidence and self-compassion. Thank you for listening to the Sage Solutions Podcast. You for listening to the Sage Solutions Podcast. Your time is valuable and I'm so glad you choose to learn and grow here with me. If you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe so you don't miss out on more Sage advice. One last thing the legal language. This podcast is for educational and informational purposes only. No coaching client relationship is formed. It is not intended as a substitute for the personalized advice of a physician, professional coach, psychotherapist or other qualified professional.