E03 Conflict Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

Anyone disagreeing with you probably has no reasonable contribution to the argument.

OR

Disagreements usually mask what we’ve yet to feel courageous enough to vulnerably share.

Anankelogy

You hear someone boldly make a claim contrary to what you know must be true. If you don’t challenge it, you risk letting them act upon their false information. You could suffer as a result. So what do you do?

You quickly announce, “I disagree!” You challenge their beliefs. You want them to bring receipts. You confront their skewed views. You prepare your proofs. You rush to dispute, to debate, to emphasize your differences.

Honestly, how well does such an approach work? It’s easy to convince ourselves we’re acting on facts when actually we’re driven by our biases. We interpret available date in our advantage. We measure what is true by what we feel will ease our needs. We believe what we need to believe.

If only focused on easing my discomfort, I don’t need to know what is really bothering you. If I feel I must avoid discomfort, then I must avoid the specifics that drive our differences. Ironically, this easily keeps me trapped in pain.

Need-response

Need-response prioritizes specifics over generalizations. Sure, generalizing has its place. But we tend to overuse that tool. Need-response helps to reacquaint us to our overlooked specifics.

It’s easy to fool ourselves that we’re being rational when we’re actually being rash. It’s easy to be tricked by our confirmation bias, as we seek only the information confirming our beliefs. Even when those beliefs trap us in pain.

Reactive Problem

Problems abound when rushing into debate. Take the hot button issue of abortion for example. Rushing to debate skips what may matter most. The prolife side misses vital details strengthening the prochoice stance. The prochoice side overlooks particulars cementing the prolife stance.

The prolife activist arguing for the new mother to keep her baby fails to appreciate a mother’s unspoken trauma of losing autonomy over her own body from years of endured sexual abuse. The prochoice activist arguing to let any woman terminate her pregnancy fails to appreciate the consequences to those who rushed into this enormous decision and continue to suffer deep, deep regret.

You can apply this to any politicized or adjudicated contested issue. When each side jumps to assert their differences, they leave little to any room to appreciate the nuance driving their differences. Opposition often gets stuck on overgeneralized assumptions. The most relevant specifics too easily get ignored. Problems persist, perpetuating the pain that’s supposed to be eased by the debate.

Responsive Solution

Need-response addresses one of the key motivations for missing relevant specifics: discomfort avoidance. The more you can embrace life’s natural discomforts, including the sharp pain involved in resolving some needs, the more prepared you are to relate to relevant specifics on all sides.

Need-response offers a free program for stretching your comfort zone. You learn you can tolerate much more physical and emotional discomfort than you likely assume. You learn to embrace discomfort to resolve more needs to remove cause for pain.

Next, need-response offers an inexpensive programfor turning conflict into opportunities for deeper connection. You learn how to not get so easily defensiveness during a conflict. You learn to consider the inflexible needs so you can defuse the tension.

The first program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your easement orientation. The program helps you to shift your orientation from prioritizing relief-over-resolution or prioritizing resolution-over-relief. You learn to endure the discomfort of any unpleasant details.

The second program addresses what anankelogy identifies as your conflict orientation. The program helps you to shift your orientation from staying guarded to staying open during conflicts. You learn to relate to the specifics fueling conflicts before they’re even revealed.

Responding to your needs

How does this principle speak to your experience of needs? Post in our Engagement forum your thoughtful response to one of these:

• What if the other side tries to manipulate me with fake details?

• What if there’s no time to explore details?

• Too much detail could distract from solving the conflict.

• What about those who disagree simply to disagree and enjoy the fight?

Instead of selecting one of these, post your own engagement feedback about your experience with the subject of this principle. Remember the aim is to improve our responsiveness to each other’s needs, toward their full resolution. If you’re new at posting here, first check the guide below.