Love the Janus framework for approaching disagreements. The distinction between subjective opinions and fact-based arguments is crucial here, cause most heated conflicts arise when people treat thier opinions as if they're factual claims. Tried this dual-perspective approach during a family debate last month about housing policy, and shifting from "who's right" to "why does each side see it this way" actually defused the whole thing. Stilldidn't change anyone's mind but at least we stopped treating each other like opponents in a zero-sum game.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I love the idea of pivoting to “why does each side see it this way”—genius! You not only defused the conversation, but also, perhaps, helped the others think more open-mindedly about similar topics in the future.
Love the Janus framework for approaching disagreements. The distinction between subjective opinions and fact-based arguments is crucial here, cause most heated conflicts arise when people treat thier opinions as if they're factual claims. Tried this dual-perspective approach during a family debate last month about housing policy, and shifting from "who's right" to "why does each side see it this way" actually defused the whole thing. Stilldidn't change anyone's mind but at least we stopped treating each other like opponents in a zero-sum game.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I love the idea of pivoting to “why does each side see it this way”—genius! You not only defused the conversation, but also, perhaps, helped the others think more open-mindedly about similar topics in the future.