The point of the book is to take yourself out of the emotion of the conversation, and to gain a mutual understanding without a fist fight. It helps you focus on what is most important - good communication and mutual respect.
In discussions, or arguments, with friends who do not share the same viewpoints, it is easy to disregard them as being misinformed, selfish, or stupid. But in the long run, what is more important? Winning an argument or debate -- which does not do a lot to persuade the one who loses -- or, strengthening relationships and adding to a pool of mutual understanding and respect?
I recently received this good advice from my aunt who has worked a lot in legislation and the political world:
"A good advocate is one who can disagree with people (quite strongly sometimes) and know that it's okay. It doesn't have to be negative or a personal attack or offense. There will be other issues that you will agree with them on and/or need their help on in order to affect change. It's hard for some people to understand that."
I know that I can be opinionated, but this does not mean that my objectives do not include understanding other viewpoints. I often say that I vote for policies and not for parties. This requires effort to understand policies, which I can only do through investigation. (I guess this can come across as offensive, I learned.)
I am not the best at crucial conversations, but I'm trying to be better at communicating that what I really want is mutual respect and understanding. So, if we ever find ourselves in a heated conversation, I hope we leave it better friends or colleagues than when we entered.
1 comments:
It's so true that sometimes it is best to agree to disagree, but it is really hard sometimes.
Post a Comment