Couples tend to have “interesting” fights about politics. Politics get to the core values that people have. You can learn a lot about someone based on their voting behavior and what they value in life. What they put up with, what dealbreakers they have for politicians and political parties… Can you disagree with dignity about these things or do you have unproductive conflict? What power plays and ego moves do you notice in couples? Let’s look at how we do this in the world and guess that perhaps couples have similar struggles.
Sometimes a new situation arises where we cannot possibly have all the information and must act now to save lives. As we learn more, following a well-known effective process, we adapt our approach, as we should. Some people struggle with adapting to new information. They don’t like that we learned more and as we learned more we changed the strategy, as businesses, military, governments, schools, churches often do.
Since it is new, I’m skeptical. I don’t easily trust. I want you to reassure me with data. I want to see the impact on others before I join. I want to know you are using an excellent process to get there. I want to know about the peer review. I want answers to the questions I have. I want more data. I want to see the approach change as you learn more, as it should. I want to see that it works and I might never buy in. If you challenge me, I will double down and never change my mind. I might dig in and only look for data which reinforces my opinion because I can never be wrong, or at least never admit it.
At a certain point, I think you know more than I do about it. I don’t have to trust you. I have that right. I also have some responsibility- similar to the “drink chlorine” crowd. That’s if you follow ethics.
If I don’t trust you, I can just do my own thing- as long as I’m owning my ethical responsibility in the situation. Getting in the way might actually make things worse.
Getting in the way with useful information, trusted information and info that can be replicated- is part of peer review. Don’t mistake that with an uninformed opinion, please. Don’t mistake that with an opinion that is meant to deceive and hurt.
Perhaps the people don’t have enough context or have a logical error in their process and could benefit from a peer review to ensure they’ve considered the process and impact. That’s a better process that is put in place to scrutinize the concept, the idea. If it can hold up to scrutiny, then we proceed until more information is available.
Sometimes I give examples that seem foreign to relationships, but they do relate if you look closely. Always look for patterns. What do you notice about the patterns of the past few blogs?
Yes, I argue for fair conversations and integrity and eliminating logical fallacies so that the logical argument has a chance for success, but what else?
How do you feel when you realize you are wrong?
Do you take responsibility for the accuracy and precision of your words?
Do you own up to your responsibility for the impact of your behavior and words?
You are not only allowed to challenge, you have a responsibility to challenge information that sounds off. Make sure you are listening to understand, not just to prove it wrong. The goal is understanding or the goal is ego satisfaction – your choice.
When you and your partner have arguments, does the logic hold up to scrutiny?
Are we being honest about the process of arguing?
Are we having these logical arguments with integrity or are we changing the rules so that we can never be wrong?
Do you have a system for having these types of conversations so that all parties are privy to the rules of engagement and you hold each other mutually accountable?