Comments on: Don’t Agree On The Facts? How to Dialogue Anyway

By: How to Communicate Boundaries So You Can’t Be Manipulated—or Manipulate Others – kritik.com.my

Sat, 18 Jun 2022 05:09:05 +0000

[…] My first suggestion is don’t apologize if you don’t believe you’ve done wrong. Instead, have a conversation about facts. […]

By: davidmaxfield

davidmaxfield — Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:26:16 +0000

Great observation! I used the “Miami flooding” example in the hope of spurring this kind of conversation. My experience is that the undeniable facts about flooding will create enough mutual purpose to support collaboration around short-term solutions. My hope (or pipe dream) is that this short-term collaboration will build enough trust to allow a frank discussion of the longer-term problem, the possibility/probability of climate change. As people collaborate in productive ways, they create virtuous cycles of trust, collaboration, success, and trust. Not always, but often enough to take notice.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:06:22 +0000

I’m struck by this example: “For example, it’s a fact that streets in Miami Beach flood far more today than they did ten years ago. Citizens there don’t need to agree on climate change or global warming to know they have a problem on their hands.”

True! The next question is: Do they need to agree on climate change or global warming to determine what the best solutions are? I can see that treating the theory as an open question and starting from a common pool of facts could be helpful to start a group of people on a path toward dialogue about an undeniable problem. Do you think they will ultimately end up with the same story if they are successful in addressing the problem? In Crucial Conversations, if I remember it correctly, we’re trying to come to a common understanding, so we’ll probably end up with at least a similar story . . . even though there might be some differences. For example, some people might be prepared to take action to address climate change as “insurance” against the possibility that it contributes to the flooding even if they are not as convinced as their neighbors that it certainly does. To what extent can crucial conversations work with differing or semi-differing stories after dialogue?

By: Peter Eastman

Peter Eastman — Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:19:08 +0000

I love the Content, Pattern, Relationship rubric.
I see several different things happening in these examples that might be helpful.

I agree that the ‘Milk’ discussion might be about trust – but it also might be about communication style. So, I might (in my advance plan for the conversation, since on the spur of the moment I WILL screw this up) say, “When we discussed getting milk, what did you think was the next step? What can I say next time to make sure you understand I am asking you to do a task? What do you suggest I ask you to make sure we are both in agreement about the next step?” All of these are much more likely to protect our relationship and improve our communication going forward – and, if I am actually dealing with an untrustworthy person, let me know that it isn’t me, since they won’t hold up their end, and a new tactic will be required.

Whenever I think of facts, I am drawn to the concept of models. Every assumption we draw is based on a model of reality – sometimes just on our perception, sometimes carefully measured, but always less complex than reality itself. Usually, that means a model that has enough of the whole in it that our decisions and reactions work for us on an everyday basis. For example, everyone I know says, ‘the sun rose”, even though that isn’t true – the earth spun! But, sunrise is completely useful as a model as long as I never need to leave the ground, but counterproductive worse than useless if I need to do anything in space.

So, finding where are our models compatible would be a more accurate way of looking at this, then are our facts better.