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.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
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!