This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How is it possible to turn an argument into a mutually beneficial outcome?
when two involved parties are arguing, it seems to be over a disagreement where both sides of the argument want an outcome that conflicts with the opposition.
however, often both sides of the argument want the same outcome (ie. peace) and it is not a matter of getting there, it is a matter of how to get there.
how can ordinary people step in to offer advice, where needed, to create a mutually beneficial outcome for both sides of an argument?
does anyone have examples of a resolution where two sides of an argument were dealt with according to the desired goal for everyone involved? please share your experience.
Topics:
Conflict Resolution
Maaher Sayeed 10+
If the objective is to resolve the issue on hand objectively they themselves will engage in a manner that drives their argument towards a solution.
But if they are emotionally driven and they put aside the need to reason and work towards a solution, no intervention or assistance will help resolve the concern on hand unless the third party has a superior influence that forces both parties to adhere to.
Having said that, the only help one can provide, considering that they have earned the right to participate in an argument, is perhaps by providing neutral unbiased points to help both parties refocus towards “reason” and a solution. Often in the heat of an argument reason and objectiveness dies in the hands of temper and emotion and a neutral person to provide a balance will be benefitial. Again it works only if their objective and intentions are truly to find a solution.
griffin tucker 10+
-. find out if both parties are willing to work to a solution - otherwise it may be best to just walk away from the problem and deal with someone else to come to a solution. a third party - of whom can provide a balanced point of view, or as close to neutral as possible, may be required.
-. emotionally-driven arguments are best to walk away from and come back to once 'cooled off' - usually a knowledgeable 3rd party would need to be present to split up the people involved until such a time of 'cooling off'
-. to begin with, to avoid heating the situation, begin analyzing the problem at hand with either common points of view, or as close as one can be to neutral points of view.
-. providing neutral unbiased points of information - 'putting the facts on the table' - is necessary - even if thought to be known by both parties.
thank-you kindly for your advice, Maaher Sayeed.
Ben Jarvis 50+
both possiblities were simultaneously both good and bad, and even though a once-a-week inconvenience for him is not as bad as more work for everybody else all the time, it was deemed worse because it was his store after all and there continued to be no solution despite his claiming that he desired one.
i'd therefore suggest adding an insistence to compromise, and to addressing the deepest root cause of the argument rather than any effects.
Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+
1. Both sides know on what an why they are arguing
2. Both sides accept that they can be wrong and the other can be right.
3. Don't seek winning but seek the solution
4. Follow the discussion very deep, it's very often that both sides answer themselves in discussion and they just don't know it.
griffin tucker 10+
all points are very valuable in solving an argument.
Ben Jarvis 50+
for example say my neighbour was parked on my lawn, and i went over to his house to complain about it, an argument ensued and we started fighting. another neighbour came in and broke us up, so we are no longer fighting, but we are not at peace because his car is still on my lawn.
at a neighbourhood meeting setup to resolve the dispute, my neighbour could employ sleight of hand by directing attention to stopping the fights we kept getting into, thereby avoiding the debate moving to the car on my lawn that was the cause of the fights. he would be maintaining the appearance of wanting peace by saying he wanted the fights to end, while maintaining use of my lawn to park his car.
Ben Jarvis 50+
i'd like to use as an example the argument that the jewish holocaust never happened. this is absolutely false, and is demonstrably false by the huge mountain of evidence - both physical evidence and eyewitness testimony - as well as there being no evidence for the claim that it didn't happen other than wishful thinking. but that doesn't mean that the debate is not a worthy one; on the contrary the worst thing you can do is make claiming that it didn't happen illegal, because then the fools who want to cling to the delusion that it didn't happen are never smacked down with all the evidence to the contrary in the spotlight of a public forum, and so they never learn and instead are free to spread their beliefs to others in the dark.
in short, all hate speech should be welcomed so that it can be refuted and condemned, and all arguments should be pursued by both parties.
argue even when you don't disagree so as you may improve upon the decision!
Greg Swanson
carolyn mcauley 10+
Michael Froemmcke
griffin tucker 10+
Mike Colera 10+
prakhar porwal
and supported, but the ways in which these
needs are met vary widely. Differing needs for
feeling comfortable and safe create some of
the most severe challenges in our personal
and professional relationships. Think about the conflicting need for safety and
continuity versus the need to explore and take
risks. You frequently see this conflict between
toddlers and their parents. The child’s need is
to explore, so the street or the cliff meets a
need. But the parents’ need is to protect the child’s safety, so limiting exploration becomes
a bone of contention between them. The needs of both parties play important roles
in the long-term success of most
relationships, and each deserves respect and
consideration. In personal relationships, a lack
of understanding about differing needs can
result in distance, arguments, and break-ups. In workplace conflicts, differing needs are
often at the heart of bitter disputes,
sometimes resulting in broken deals, fewer
profits and lost jobs. When you can recognize
the legitimacy of conflicting needs and
become willing to examine them in an environment of compassionate
understanding, it opens pathways to creative
problem solving, team building, and improved
relationships.
Colleen Steen 500+
prakhar porwal
Colleen Steen 500+
Rob Freda
that said it is heavily dependent on the argument. to colleen's point below if one or both sides are entrenched to the degree where they have to have their "way", common ground is difficult. I would also say that except of the broadest terms very few arguments have a common goal. I agree two parties may want "peace" but once you dig under the hood one generally finds that it is not only the path that they are widely divergent on but also either parties' idea of the optimal situation in which the peace occurs is quite different, eg what is the final landscape, who owns what, what opportunities are there, etc..
griffin tucker 10+
in my mind, it isn't at all true.
perhaps by working backwards from the goal that both parties involved want, the sacrifices that each party makes in order to reach an outcome will seem less likely to be a burden.
this being said, if i take an example of a meeting of politicians from different countries, once a meeting is over, the realisations that have occurred about all the sacrifices that have been made could appear to be more of a burden.
this is especially true when a meeting occurs behind closed doors, and then the public doesn't find out about the decisions that have been made until after the meeting, and the public also doesn't know how they came to those decisions, so the logic behind the reasoning for the decisions is hidden, therefore having the possibility of enraging some of the public, sometimes to the point of violence.
how can this be solved? transparency of reasoning for decision making is the key, as blind faith in leaders is becoming rarer and rarer.
as we all know, the truth eventually comes out, if not directly, then it is released in another form, such as protest, or loss of funds.
Colleen Steen 500+
It feels like you have touched on an important element....
"perhaps by working backwards from the goal that both parties involved want, the sacrifices that each party makes in order to reach an outcome will seem less likely to be a burden."
An application of your good idea, is that we can find common ground on which to build and bring together our individual ideas. I enter a conversation, for example KNOWING that all people probably will not agree. As humans, we have different thoughts, feelings, perceptions, ideas and opinions. So I start with that in mind. It makes it much easier in my humble perception, to be open to how the conversation evolves.
Colleen Steen 500+
Your mention of the "meeting of politicians from different countries" and "logic behind the reasoning for the decisions..." reminds me of this TED talk, which I love, and I believe to be relevant to this discussion:
http://www.ted.com/talks/devdutt_pattanaik.html
Colleen Steen 500+
You say...": the only way I have seen that work is usually when either one of the interested parties or a third party comes up with a win win solution that removes the point of conflict..."
That is a good idea, and in my perception and experience, it is often the "point of conflict" that the parties want to address, so "removing" it is difficult. We can, however, focus on other things which might help create common ground on which we can build better communication? As you insightfully say...
"if one or both sides are entrenched to the degree where they have to have their "way", common ground is difficult." And in my humble perception.....not impossible:>)
I also agree with you that "peace" may mean different things to the parties. It usually means "if you agree with me, and do it my way, we will have peace".....LOL!
Colleen Steen 500+
I suggest that to turn an "argument into a mutually beneficial outcome" it is helpful for the participants (or at least one of the participants) to give up the idea of "winning" the argument. It is important to recognize that we are all different, with different thoughts, feelings, perceptions, perspectives, ideas and opinions. If we genuinely want to have a beneficial discussion, it is important to give up the idea that we are "right"....that our way is the only "right", "good", "best", etc. It is important to really listen, hear, and try to understand each other. It is important to be well aware of our intent, and how to manifest "peace", if that is indeed what all parties are seeking.
Yes....I have an example to share:
Years ago, I was mediating with 3 convicted felons...father, mother and son. They were all angry....all trying to blame the other for their "problems", not listening at all to one another or really caring about the fact that they all contributed to what they were experiencing. I encouraged them to stop screaming at one another with accusations....got them to speak truthfully and look each other in the eye while expressing their anger, insecurities (fear) to one another. Did the experience change their lives? Who the heck knows? For that one session, however, they got a taste of something different that MIGHT help facilitate something different in their personal relationship.
griffin tucker 10+
this makes me wonder if video-phone conversations are more likely to solve an argument than regular audio-phone conversations, since emotion can be more clearly displayed via body language and can be reacted to accordingly.
that being said, i've had video-phone on my mobile phone for a very long time, and never use it, even though i could in many, many situations. sometimes i even prefer to use text messaging instead of a phone call, too, which i think a lot of the younger generations are similar to in this regard.
video-phone opens up the possibility of seeing each other's eyes and facial expressions, and could even reduce the likelihood of a disagreement from even beginning to occur, just because of our subconscious want to get what we want out of a conversation the best way possible - without arguing.
Colleen Steen 500+
That being said, your idea of video phone helps more than no video. I believe that if we listen carefully and really hear the other person, we can still have good communications electronically.
griffin tucker 10+
i'd like to see if there is some kind of formula or event (controlled or uncontrolled) that changes a potentially aggressive argument into an agreement.
Rob Freda
START may be a notable exception to this as the US had no reason from a strategic perspective to slow the nuclear arms race which was a massive drain on the Soviet economy and part of the NSC directive to effectively destroy that economy. US knew that to compete USSR would have to spend a much higher portion of their GDP than the US (i think something like 20% vs 3%) and that eventually that diversion of resources would destroy the basic structure of the Soviet state. So there was an agreement that had no ostensible benefit (given that the likelihood at that point of nuclear war was pretty low) to one party but that the party agreed to anyway. Of course the NSC might have decided the Soviets were already done and they better draw down the number of nukes in case the USSR collapsed catastrophically so I may be wrong here.
R H 20+
griffin tucker 10+
would it then be possible for both parties to trust an independent party to solve the argument?
R H 20+
Rob Freda
greg dahlen 20+
As a general rule, I think in life it's always important to be humble and to keep in mind that you could be wrong about your position. Many times I've gone at someone thinking I was so smart, but as I listened to them and asked more questions, I realized they were more knowledgeable and correct.
I think it's also quite important to clarify any point you don't understand in the other's statement. Even if it's a small point that doesn't even seem to have to do with the main point. Sometimes clarifying one small point will open the door into understanding the whole other point of view.
If you find yourself at odds with a serviceperson, and you aren't getting anywhere, you can politely ask to see their supervisor. Many times a supervisor has been able to clear up in three minutes what I couldn't get from the first person in twenty minutes.
griffin tucker 10+
i was looking for a logical formula to solving any argument, but now i'm not so sure it's possible.
perhaps i was being too simplistic...
Random Chance 30+
Don't use it.
The word is "you"
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Once discussion moves to personal attacks, prospects are slim for learning about anything other than personal aggressive behaviors.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
One would then pray and hope that wisdom prevails. If truth is embraced in all things and peace is pursued in all honesty; then, Love prevails.
edward long 100+