March 4, 2025 • 45 mins
Discover how to effectively handle disagreements in your interpersonal relationships in this insightful episode about transforming conflict into growth. We unpack the three main approaches to disagreements: arguments, debates, and discussions, each with its unique impact on relationships and personal development. Arguments often lead to emotional escalations, blinding us to the other person's perspective and damaging our connections. In stark contrast, debates aim to seek the truth while remaining structured and rational, allowing for a fascinating exchange of ideas.
This episode emphasizes that discussions provide the most constructive pathway to resolving differences, fostering a collaborative approach to understanding and problem-solving. We offer actionable strategies to help you cultivate self-awareness and active listening skills, manage emotional responses, and focus on shared values.
Leverage these insights to navigate your future disagreements with empathy, curiosity, and intention. Learn how to create respectful dialogues that deepen your relationships and encourage both personal and relational growth. Join us in exploring these critical communication skills, and remember to subscribe for more transformative content!
We would love to hear your feedback! Click here to tell us what you think.
https://sagesolutions.buzzsprout.com
If you are interested in one-on-one coaching, email us at:
sagecoachingsolutions@gmail.com
**Legal Disclaimer**
The Sage Solutions Podcast and content posted by David Sage is presented solely for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes. No coaching client relationship is formed by listening to this podcast. No Legal, Medical or Financial advice is being given. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from this podcast or website is at the user's own risk. It is not intended as a substitute for the advice, diagnosis, or treatment of a psychotherapist, physician, professional coach, Lawyer or other qualified professional. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical or mental health condition they may have and should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. The opinions of guests are their own and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of the podcast.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to the Sage Solutions Podcast, where we talk
about all things personalgrowth, personal development and
becoming your best self.
My name is David Sage and I ama self-worth and confidence
coach with Sage CoachingSolutions.
Coach with Sage CoachingSolutions.
(00:29):
Today's episode is all abouthow we handle disagreements with
others, an essential skill inboth our personal and
professional lives.
We'll explore three distinctapproaches arguments, debates
and discussions and learn howeach of these methods affect our
relationships and our innerdevelopment.
Today, I'm also joined by oneof our two reoccurring co-hosts,
(00:51):
my sister Anna Sage.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Hey, I'm glad to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Before we get into it .
Our goal with this podcast isto share free, helpful tools
with you and anyone you know whois looking to improve their
life.
So take action, subscribe andshare this podcast with them.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So, naturally, being your younger sister, we've had
many years of experience withdisagreements over the course of
my lifetime and even a couplesurrounding the podcast over the
course of my lifetime, and evena couple surrounding the
podcast.
I mean yes, but luckily, aswe've gotten older we've gained
more skills to be able to havethose disagreements in healthier
ways.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Well and these are generally pretty rare or just us
hashing out what the best wayto go about it is.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
No, I totally agree.
I think even throughout ourchildhood we were really close.
We never were like one of thosesiblings that were constantly
at each other.
I mean, unless I'm looking backon it from Rose Colored.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
No, we fought a decent amount of time.
Would we have like a?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
big disagreement that would turn into like an
argument or fight.
But maybe first we should startwith what is the difference
between a discussion, a debateand an argument when it comes to
having a disagreement aboutsomething.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So let's be clear Disagreements are inevitable.
So let's be clear Disagreementsare inevitable.
We're all human.
We're not going to constantlyagree with everyone else all of
the time.
It would be a very boring andweird society if that's how it
worked.
We'd all be robots.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Nor should we.
It's more interesting to havedifferent points of view.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Exactly Whether we're discussing ideas with our
friends or colleagues, or evenour loved ones.
The way that we approach thosedifferences can either build
bridges or burn them down.
I've come to recognize thatthere are three common,
different approaches that peopletend to use when facing
(03:01):
disagreements.
As we mentioned before, they'rearguments, debates and
discussions.
I'd like to share a thoughtfrom the renowned thinker Nelson
Mandela the greatest glory inliving lies not in never falling
, but in rising every time we dofall.
This quote reminds us thatdisagreements and conflicts are
(03:24):
opportunities, not failures.
Opportunities for growth, andwe've talked about that a bunch
on this podcast.
That being wrong means youlearned something.
That failing means you learnedsomething.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I don't remember who first told me this, but it's
always stuck with me that failcan be an acronym for first
attempt in learning and when youapproach it that way, it's just
part with me.
That FAIL can be an acronym forFirst Attempt in Learning and
when you approach it that way,it's just part of the learning
process.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
You and I are very aligned on that.
I just rephrase it a little bitdifferent in my coaching, where
I talk about how action equalssuccess and outcomes good or bad
, whether you failed or you weresuccessful they're all really
just learning.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
So today we're going to break down these three
approaches to disagreements tohelp us identify which style we
lean towards and learn how wemight adopt more effective
strategies when it comes todisagreements.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Let's start with the least helpful of these three
approaches arguments.
Arguments are often emotionaland they can quickly become
heated.
In an argument, each partytends to focus on proving that
they're right, sometimes at theexpense of truly listening to
the other side.
When we argue, we let ouremotions cloud our judgment,
(04:46):
which can lead to beingincredibly defensive, a feeling
of resentment or even full-onestrangement.
One way to understand argumentsis to view them as reactive
rather than proactive.
They usually involve a rapidexchange of opinions without
pausing to explore theunderlying problems or concerns.
(05:11):
Research has shown that whenemotions run high, our ability
to think clearly diminishes.
In fact, a study in the Journalof Interpersonal Communication
noted that emotional arousalduring conflicts often leads to
a diminished capacity forempathy and understanding.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
So, in other words, when we get really heated in an
argument, it becomes very hardfor us to see the other person
as the person that we care aboutand we just start to see them
as the problem, as the personthat we care about and we just
start to see them as the problem.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
We get into a box where we don't see them as a
person, like you said, wherethey just become an obstacle, an
obstacle in the way of us beingright.
Because really, when you getinto a full-on argument, the
goal isn't to figure it out orto seek the truth, you just want
to be right, you just want towin.
Now, it's hard to acknowledgethat when you're in that heated,
angry state, but generally, ifan argument is happening, there
(06:15):
are clearly two sides and bothsides are trying to win.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So to make sure I'm understanding arguments
correctly in an argument it'svery much my side versus your
side, me versus you, and youstart seeing the other person as
the thing that is in your wayfrom being able to be right.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And that's a best case scenario.
Often you just see the otherperson as your enemy.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Which is awful, because oftentimes we're getting
in these arguments with peoplewe love and care about and
respect.
So naturally, if both of us areseeing each other that way, you
start to feel the way thatthey're viewing you and it makes
you angry, and rightfully so,it makes you defensive, it makes
you shut down or start toescalate, and that only makes
(07:05):
matters worse.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And nobody wants to lose right.
Nobody wants to lose in anargument, especially when
emotions are that high and thefrustration is building and
building, and building until youstart to almost hate the other
person during it.
Now, not all arguments get tothat point.
You know some of this isextremes, but when we were
(07:27):
talking about this earlier, youbrought up that these sometimes
blow up into full-blown fights.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
This is where people get into losing control
emotionally and insulting theother person or just trying to
hurt them because you feel soattacked by the other person,
since they're viewing you as theopposition of them being right.
It gets to a place of being sohurt.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
And this is where people say very hurtful things
because they're feeling hurt.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And that's where somebody saying a terrible thing
just to hurt somebody canactually lead to things like
estrangement, like a totaldetachment from the relationship
, and not all arguments get tothat point.
I do want to be a little bitshades of gray here.
It's not that arguments areliterally never useful, are
(08:27):
literally never useful If youlook hard enough.
There is a situation where anargument can be helpful or is
inevitable, but generally youdon't want to be having it with
your loved ones, with closefriends.
You might get into an argumentto stand up for a completely
unjust act or something likethat, as opposed to getting into
(08:47):
a fistfight.
It could be an alternative inextreme situations.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
But even in those cases, it's important that you
maintain an awareness of youremotional state so that it
doesn't get too out of hand,where you start just saying
things that you can't take backor doing things that you can't
take back, because you have toremember hurt people, hurt
people.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Which is why, for the sake of this podcast, I don't
want to be 100% black and whitehere.
But if we're trying to bepragmatic here or practical but
if we're trying to be pragmatichere or practical you should
just avoid having arguments.
They're so generally unhelpfulas an approach to a disagreement
(09:37):
.
You're not really going tolearn from what the other person
is saying because you're toobusy trying not to lose and
trying to win, and so is theother person, so they're not
really hearing what you'resaying.
So you're better off justrounding up and saying no.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yep, if you feel yourself getting to a place
where a well-intended discussionor debate starts to turn into
an argument, having thatawareness of the shift is so
helpful to say you know what weneed to pause, we need to
separate a little bit, take somespace and come back to this so
that this can continue to be adisagreement framed in not
(10:16):
seeing the other person as anopponent or a problem or an
obstacle, and not trying toapproach the conversation with
the intent of being right orwinning.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I do want to say we're all human.
There are going to be timeswhere an argument happens.
So you can't hold yourself tosuch a standard that, if you
ever do it, you're now shamingyourself, beating yourself up
and saying that you're aterrible person.
That's equally unhelpful, ifnot significantly more.
(10:49):
It's going to happenoccasionally.
So try your best not to getinto an argument and use one of
these two other approaches.
But if you do get into anargument, first go and repair
the damage that you've done andsecond, have some
self-compassion Repair withyourself.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
All right.
So we've established, for themost part, arguments are not the
most helpful way to approachdisagreements.
So what is one of the otherways to approach disagreements
that's more helpful than anargument?
Speaker 1 (11:26):
The next way that we can approach disagreements is
through a debate.
Debates are a little confusingsometimes for people because
they can have two differentmeanings and two different goals
, and the reason that this getsconfused is because of things
like debate clubs or debateteams.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Or even how debates are approached on TV through
things like the presidentialdebate.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Which, frankly, most of the time, those end up being
like half arguments.
Yes, so let's be clear in whatwe mean when we're saying a
debate.
Debates, as we're defining them, are structured and
goal-oriented.
In a debate, the focus is oftenon trying to find the truth,
(12:18):
and the best way to do that isto make the case of whichever
side you are on in the debate aspersuasively as you can and by
presenting as many logicalarguments and actual pieces of
evidence as possible.
This approach values theexchange of ideas in a more
formalized way.
(12:39):
The most important part, though, is to keep it not
emotion-driven, and in anon-formal debate, you don't
have to stick to one side.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Both people can kind of flip-flop back and forth,
because the goal is really tohash out the truth, not
necessarily have only one sidethat you're representing.
So the differences between adebate and an argument are a
debate seeks to find the truthon a topic or on what you're
disagreeing about, whereas anargument seeks to win, to be
right, and a debate is notemotion-driven.
(13:21):
It's intended to be purelylogical, truly trying to flesh
out all of the pieces andevidence of a disagreement and
understand what really is thetruth here, without feelings
involved, whereas an argumentnaturally involves feelings
because you get defensive whenyou approach things from a point
(13:45):
of view of I'm trying to beright and therefore you need to
be wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yes, right, exactly.
And the problem is that thisgets muddled by things like
debate teams, where the goal ofthe activity is to teach people
to be good debaters.
So because it's a club, becausethere's two teams, there is a
(14:11):
winning and losing.
Now they're trying to getpeople to have good debates by
incentivizing them to win, andthe way that you win in a real
debate team or club is byactually making good arguments,
by being persuasive and havinglots of good evidence.
So it's not that it's totallydifferent, but people
(14:34):
misunderstand the goal of adebate as being to win, like it
would be in that very specificsetting.
But in real life, there aren'treally winners and losers.
The idea is to seek the truth.
When we do this through adebate, it can lead to
incredibly interestingconversations.
(14:54):
A well-done debate can be bothinvigorating and enlightening
when both parties are committedto fairness and mutual respect
and actually learning the truth.
Unlike in arguments, debatesrequire you to pause and think
through your thought processesbefore you're saying things, so
(15:15):
that you're actually producinglogical arguments.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
They may also require some time to be able to look up
and find resources and studiesand references, to think beyond
what you already know and findfacts and information to help
you flesh out the truth.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
A good debater tends to engage in this kind of mental
exercise, where they challengeassumptions while trying to
carefully articulate their ownviews and sometimes the views of
the opposing side.
Let's say you and I are goingto have a debate about something
, but we're both generally inagreement.
(15:54):
Then one of us has tooccasionally flick over to like
a devil's advocate.
Yes, because we have to belooking at things from the other
side, which is why debatesrequire you to see the issue
from multiple different angles.
It's a very shades of grayapproach.
You want to figure out thenuance.
You want to figure out thebalance, the truth of the matter
(16:16):
.
You can't just be one side onlyand not looking at the whole
picture.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We even did that for this topic.
We sat down and talked abouteverything that we thought about
it and did some research andthen I played devil's advocate
like but what about this, whatabout that?
To try to make sure that whatwe were presenting was clear and
accurate.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Right, we talked about this in our episode with
attorney John Sage.
Our father called Think Like aLawyer.
Lawyers have to do this all thetime.
They're essentially in one bigstructured debate.
They have to understand theother side just as well as their
own side if they're going tomake good, structured arguments.
(17:02):
Now I'm re-bringing up the wordarguments in this format to
reiterate that arguments has twodifferent meanings.
The first meaning is what wedefined.
Structuring an argument or apoint for what you're trying to
say is a totally differentmeaning, Right.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
There's a nuance, there is a totally different
meaning.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Right there's a nuance there.
When conducted in the spirit ofintellectual curiosity, which
requires intellectual humility,debates can be a brilliant way
to hone your critical thinkingskills.
One participant in a recentleadership workshop observed
that debate is not about winning, but about expanding our
(17:46):
understanding of the issue athand.
This perspective reminds usthat even if we don't end up
changing our minds, the processcan enrich our own thoughts and
reveal unexpected insights.
It is important to note,however, that debates can be a
slippery slope.
There are often two clear sides, and this means that it's easy
(18:08):
to get competitive, and if thegoal shifts from learning to
winning, that's a quick slide toan argument.
So the key to keeping it adebate is to remain open-minded,
to catch yourself if you feellike you're trying to win, and
always be ready to incorporatenew information from different
(18:30):
perspectives you and a coworker,or you and anybody, really
disagree on something thatdoesn't necessarily need to be
studied to determine the truth.
Should we put ketchup or mustardon this hot dog?
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Yeah, do we want tacos or hamburgers for dinner?
Speaker 1 (18:56):
You don't really need to find the truth, because
there isn't a the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Exactly, but you do need to come to a mutual
understanding.
So I would argue the mosthelpful way in those
circumstances is to have adiscussion.
What you're disagreeing on asmy side versus your side in a
(19:21):
discussion, you approach as us,the two people in the discussion
versus the problem that we'retrying to solve together.
In this way, especially when itcomes to disagreements in a
relationship that could becomehurtful and could turn into an
argument, when you intentionallyboth try to approach it from an
(19:43):
us versus the problem mindset,you remove the problem from the
other person and are better ableto see them from a
compassionate, empathetic lens.
You're able to see them as theperson you love and care about
and keep their needs and yourneeds.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Separate from the fact that you're disagreeing
right.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
And from the way that we're defining a discussion,
because there are lots ofdifferent types of discussions.
What we're really talking aboutis a discussion surrounding a
disagreement.
What we're really talking aboutis a discussion surrounding a
disagreement and I think, wherearguments are about winning and
debates are about the truth, Iwould say that a discussion is
really about understanding.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Right In an argument.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
You seek to win In a debate you seek the truth and in
a discussion you seek tounderstand and solve a problem
together or, alternatively,agree to disagree.
Not every disagreement isalways going to resolve in
agreement.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
True, but even within agree to disagree, you could
still gain a betterunderstanding of the other
person's point of view andthoughts and feelings on
something.
So, ultimately, you're stillseeking understanding.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Well, I think in the first place, you're looking to
see if you can both agree withthis us versus the problem
approach, true, and then you'rehashing out whether, after
understanding each other, you doagree or just naturally don't,
and, depending on the situation,that can be totally fine.
I would say it's probably themost constructive approach when
(21:26):
it comes to resolvingdifferences.
In a discussion, the emphasisis more on an open dialogue as
well as collaborative problemsolving, because we have that us
versus the problem approach.
There's a focus on activelistening, empathy and
especially, on mutual respect.
Unlike arguments and debates,discussions are less about who
(21:50):
is right and more aboutunderstanding and connection.
Discussions invite us to slowdown, pause and ask what can I
learn from the other person?
It's a very mindful perspectiveto take.
This mindset can betransformative.
When we engage in discussions,we create a space where
(22:11):
differences are seen asopportunities for growth, not as
threats.
So let's consider the followingwhen two people truly discuss a
challenging topic that they'redisagreeing on, they both leave
with a broader perspective.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Sometimes it's a broader perspective on the topic
, sometimes it's a broaderperspective on the other person,
or sometimes the other personleaves with a broader
understanding of you.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I like that this discussion approach is
especially valuable when itcomes to personal development,
where our relationships canserve as mirrors reflecting our
own areas for growth.
A discussion allows us toremain curious about our own
beliefs while gently challengingthose that may no longer serve
us.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But I'm sure you can imagine how important it is that
both parties in a discussionare on the same page about what
intentions are behind thatdiscussion.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Honestly, I think you could say that for all three of
these.
If one person believes thatthey're having a debate while
the other person believesthey're having a discussion,
it's going to be a weirdconversation that probably isn't
going to go the way that eitherperson is looking for.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Absolutely.
We've had that many timesbecause David is somebody who
really is passionate abouthaving debates.
He really enjoys seeking thetruth in different topics, and
while I sometimes can enjoythose kinds of conversations,
(23:47):
I'm not always as passionateabout the topic that he wants to
seek the truth on and I don'talways have the time and
capacity to be able to talkabout something and flesh it out
.
I'm just, you know, I don'tshare that same passion all the
time.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Sure, no and it makes sense.
Sure, no and it makes sense.
And I think through havingseveral discussions about
disagreements when it came todebates, we gained a lot of the
insights that we're talkingabout today about the
differences and the pointsbehind them and why they all
(24:17):
have different goals.
And while they're all aboutdisagreements, it's important to
do that check-in and make surethat both people are looking to
achieve the same goal.
If you can tell that somebodyis really not up for a debate
and you're trying to debate them, you're not going to have a
good time and you're much morelikely to have that just turn
(24:39):
into an argument time and you'remuch more likely to have that
just turn into an argument.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Same thing with discussions If you are
approaching something within usversus the problem mindset and
seeking to understand the otherperson, but the other person is
coming to try to be right orseeing you as the problem, it's
going to turn into an argument,no matter how well-intended one
party may be.
So before you have a discussion, I've found it very helpful to
(25:06):
reiterate the intentions.
First, to say listen, let'sapproach this as us versus the
problem.
Let's make sure that we staycalm.
And if we get to a place whereone of us starts to be
emotionally escalated or startsto be taking on a mindset of I'm
right, you're wrong, or evenI'm trying to figure out the
truth here and not truly justseeking to understand the other
(25:30):
person's perspective or point ofview, then we need to pause and
shift, or maybe even take spaceand come back to it at a
different time when we can bealigned on our intention.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
What I will say, though, is that it doesn't
always play out like that.
Sometimes we don't realize thatwe're disagreeing on something,
or have the awareness of ituntil we're in the thick of it.
We've already went back andforth on a couple different
points in the disagreement, soyou're not always going to have
the opportunity to have like aground setting ahead of time,
(26:07):
but you can always take thatpause and say, like hold on,
what are we trying to accomplishhere?
Right, because I can tell thatwe're disagreeing and I'm not
looking to get into an argument,and then you can kind of assess
are we really trying to figureout the truth about something,
like what time something startsat?
Not everything always has toeven be one of these.
(26:28):
There are certain topics thatyou can just avoid altogether if
you know that it's only goingto become an argument, and there
are certain things that can besolved by Googling it without
having to have a whole debate or, you know, argument or full
discussion.
Sometimes the truth is findablelike that, you know, and you
(26:51):
can save a whole lot of time byaccomplishing the same thing.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Right.
Other times people are soemotionally invested in
something they disagree on thatit's just not possible to truly
have a debate or a discussion,and the only way that that's
going to turn into is anargument.
So the best thing you can do ifyou don't want to have that
argument is just to set aboundary of.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
This is a topic that we can't talk about together
boundary of this is a topic thatwe can't talk about together,
and there's a couple topics thatlend themselves to that very
heavily, which is why wegenerally don't cover them on
this podcast.
Politics, religion and, actually, more recently, nutrition have
all become such emotionallycharged and heated topics that
(27:42):
it's pretty rare that you'regoing to get somebody to change
their mind.
They're so entrenched in theirpoint of view, and I'm not
saying that there's anythingwrong with having a firm point
of view on any of these things.
I'm just saying, statisticallyspeaking, of view on any of
these things.
I'm just saying, statisticallyspeaking, your chances of quote
(28:04):
unquote changing someone's mindon any of those topics are very
low and the chances that you'regoing to slip into an argument
are very, very high.
Now there's a time and a placeto discuss or debate these
things, and if somebody isattacking you know one of your
points of view, I understandthat you might want to stand up
for it.
I'm not trying to tell no oneto ever have these conversations
(28:25):
, but I am saying be realisticabout your expectations
surrounding them and then makeyour decisions based on that.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So here's a very clear example, in case you're
feeling a little bit overwhelmedby the sheer amount of
information that comes with allthree forms of disagreements.
When was this?
A few months ago, a month ago.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
This was a little before Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
I want to say Okay, so a little before Thanksgiving,
david and I were at hisapartment, and Hannah Hannah was
there too.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Yeah, the three of us were discussing what we wanted
the next topics of the podcastto be about, and we each had
different thoughts andapproaches to what would be best
for the podcast.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Naturally there was some disagreement there and
David approached it from adebate trying to seek the truth
of what's the best approach forus to use moving forward for the
podcast, and in doing so, wastaking different points of view,
trying to play devil's advocate.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Even to my own points , like just to try and hash out
the best way forward in my eyes.
I was trying to get as manydifferent ways of looking at it
so that we could sort ofoptimize, which isn't always
necessary, but sometimes it canbe helpful to really get
something down to a T.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Now I hope Hannah doesn't mind me speaking for her
in this moment, and if she doesI'd be happy to repair that
with her but Hannah and I bothin that conversation started
getting a little bit emotionallyescalated because in our past
sometimes debates have turnedinto arguments and so sometimes
(30:16):
when someone starts having adebate, it's easy to start
getting emotionally escalatedand to start to feel defensive
and that started to turn into anargument and unfortunately we
didn't recognize right away theshift.
We didn't have that awarenessof.
Hey, this has now turned from adebate to an argument have that
(30:38):
awareness of.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Hey, this has now turned from a debate to an
argument.
Well, I will say this was alittle bit unique and is a
little different than what we'vebeen talking about, because
there were three parties.
Yes, I do think that you andHannah were more aligned on your
thought processes than me and Ido think it shifted a bit, but
I believe it became more of anargument between you and I than
(31:02):
her.
I think she more retreated fromit when it started becoming
like that and you and I, basedon having more of a past growing
up together, many little dumbfights when we were kids, having
a much longer history ofdisagreements and stuff like
that got more into thatentrenched pattern of falling
(31:27):
into an argument and I think itreally hit a point where you and
I got frustrated and she was alittle more of a bystander at
that point.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yeah, I agree.
I think I should reframe that alittle bit.
Hannah and I were more alignedin our thinking and therefore
David started feeling I mean, Idon't want to speak for you, but
you started feeling a littledefensive, and we started
getting defensive and thenHannah shut down and I got
activated, essentially, you knowlike fight or flight.
(31:56):
Hannah had flight, I had fight.
And then, because neither Davidor I recognized right away that
it had shifted to an argument,it started to be a little bit of
shouting and things like that,but luckily we did eventually
get to that awareness.
I said I need some space and Istepped away and I regulated
(32:17):
myself and I used my strategiesand then we all, after some
space and time, came back intothe room and we were able to
have a discussion that includedrepairing the hurt that was
caused, having some of thesehuge realizations of oh, we were
approaching this as a debateand an argument when really we
(32:41):
needed to be having a discussionand treating this as us versus
the problem.
And when we made that shift, wewere able to come up with the
best solution for how to moveforward.
For the podcast.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
And part of it was because we didn't do the
exercise that you were talkingabout, where we set the
intention ahead of time.
Right, I was looking at it froma debate, so then I was getting
frustrated when I was the onlyone going off of my own
viewpoint, bringing up counters,doing some devil's advocate to
myself.
It felt very unified, with thetwo of you being on the same
(33:15):
page and not really sayinganything otherwise.
I think that's where I startedto get frustrated, because, even
though I don't think that wasthe intention in my mind, the
story I was telling myself wasthat it felt dogmatic and then,
over time, as it became anargument, both of our nervous
systems get dysregulated andthen, as Tanez had said in a
(33:48):
previous episode, that thatmakes a huge.
It's very hard to show up.
Right us to even thinking aboutdoing this as a topic.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Yep.
No, it ended up in a verybeautiful discussion and in me
understanding you better andhopefully you understanding me
better, and setting some healthyboundaries for how we need to
move forward and making surethat we are on the same page,
because neither one of us enjoysgetting in arguments.
(34:16):
It feels awful.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yeah, I mean, nobody likes.
Well, I shouldn't say that.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Maybe there's that one guy that just.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
No, there are people that definitely like arguments,
but I don't enjoy arguments.
I can enjoy debates, but Idon't enjoy arguments, and I
think it's also.
I want to touch on one otherthing that came out of this.
Boundaries are also importantwhen it comes to disagreements.
Many people think of boundarieslike a fence that keeps others
(34:49):
out, and sometimes it functionsthat way, but boundaries are
really standards that you'resetting for yourself.
Now you may have specificboundaries surrounding other
people, but the intention behinda boundary is to hold standards
for yourself out ofself-respect.
The problem, when people viewboundaries as them being fully
(35:11):
about the other person and I'mnot necessarily saying that you
were doing this, I'm just sayingit can be a slippery slope If
used incorrectly.
People can weaponize boundaries, because the point of a
boundary isn't to chastise otherpeople.
You're not setting traps forthem.
They shouldn't feel likethey're walking across a
minefield or stepping oneggshells.
(35:33):
If you take that approach, theother person's just going to get
really frustrated.
The point of a boundary is notto set rules that you punish
people for crossing.
They're standards that you'resetting for yourself.
You're supposed to cut off aconversation if you have a
boundary around a certain topicor way of conversing as a
(35:56):
standard or way of respectingyourself.
It's not really about them, andI think that's what you did
when you took a step back andsaid I need space.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yes, and I think the first time I tried to set that
boundary with you, I wasn'tsuper clear in what the boundary
needed to be, and so therefore,we had to have a discussion to
figure out what the rightboundary was, because the
boundary I initially tried toset I remember you saying like
(36:27):
so then I just can't talk to youat all about any of that.
You know, like you, you werelike.
That breaks my heart.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
The problem was, I think it actually boiled down to
this the way that you set theboundary was on me, yes, and not
just that.
It was so in specific that itbasically was like I won't
tolerate being disagreed with.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Yeah, no, it definitely was important for us
to talk through and discuss theboundary itself, which I would
highly, highly recommend doingwith the people in your life.
Don't just set it in your ownmind In some circumstances,
Sometimes you have to.
Where it's not.
It doesn't have to be a wallwhere it can be a little bit
(37:08):
more flexible at least, and youcan have a conversation with
somebody.
You know that they're going toapproach it from a healthy, open
point of view, like David would.
It's okay to be able to talkthrough.
Hey, I feel like I need to seta boundary here, but what should
that look like?
What's fair?
And that's kind of what we did,because my first attempt was a
fail.
(37:28):
It was, you know, I tried tosay you can't do this when it
was like, nah, really it needsto be.
I need to protect myself inthis way, Like I need to say you
can't do this, when it was like, no, really it needs to be.
I need to protect myself inthis way, Like I need to be able
to take space and step away ifit's getting to this place.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
To be clear, though, I don't think your intention was
that.
No not at all you were tryingto protect yourself.
Yeah, you just didn't thinkthrough all of the different
ways that that could play out.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Right, and when you shared what the impact of my
words were when I tried to setthat boundary, then we were able
to realize oh, that's not whatI intended and we figured out a
more reasonable boundary.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
Right, because the point of boundaries isn't to
make people walk on eggshellsaround you.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Not at all.
No, it's supposed to be toprotect your well-being.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Now we've went off on a bit of a tangent here, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Let's get back to it.
So, if we were to summarize thebig, key details, key takeaways
for you to take away from thisepisode, it's that there are
three different forms ofconversation that you can have
when having a disagreement Anargument, a debate and a
(38:41):
discussion.
The arguments are, of the three, the least helpful in being
able to come to a mutualunderstanding.
In a disagreement, argumentsare heated and angry.
They have two opposing sidesand they approach with the goal
of trying to win or be right,with the other person becoming
(39:02):
the obstacle to that goal.
Arguments are the ones that canturn into fights and to
estrangement and just not goodstuff.
Debates, in the form that we'redefining them, can have one or
more sides.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Because both people should be trying to view it from
as many different perspectives.
So you might actually have morethan two sides, you might have
seven.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
They are not emotion-driven when done right,
yes and they seek the truth.
The goal is to find the truthon the disagreement, not to be
right or wrong or win or lose.
And finally, a discussionshould be calm.
It shouldn't be about takingsides or pinning yourself
(39:48):
against the other person.
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Or I guess you could say there's one side.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Right, there's one side and it's us versus the
problem should be the intent orthe goal, and you should be
seeking to understand both tounderstand the disagreement,
that topic that you'redisagreeing about, better, and
also to understand the otherperson better, their thoughts,
their point of view, what theycare about, what intention they
(40:16):
bring, how they feel, because itshould be based in connection.
You have discussions withpeople that you care about, that
you have a relationship with,whether that's a personal or
working relationship.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Now that we've outlined the three different
approaches to a disagreement,let's explore some actionable
strategies that we can use formoving through and choosing
which one suits the rightscenario.
First, cultivate self-awareness.
Begin by recognizing yournatural tendencies in a conflict
(40:49):
.
Do you find yourself escalatinginto an argument regularly or
preparing for a debate, or doyou tend to lean more towards a
discussion?
Journaling or even recordingyour thoughts after a
disagreement can providevaluable insights into your
individual patterns.
Next, practice active listening.
(41:10):
Take the mindful approach, asLaura Sage says curiosity and
non-judgment.
In any disagreement, especiallyin a discussion, active
listening is paramount.
This means truly hearing theother person's point of view
without immediately formulatingyour counter-argument.
(41:32):
Try summarizing what they'vesaid before responding.
This is what we calledreflective listening.
You might say, if I understandyou correctly, you feel that and
then restate what they said.
This simple act can transformyour conversations.
Third, manage your emotions.
(41:55):
Arguments often flare whenemotions run unchecked.
Techniques such as deepbreathing, pausing before you
speak or even taking a shortbreak, like Anna said, can help
you manage emotional intensity.
Remember, the goal is not tosuppress your feelings, but to
(42:21):
respond with clarity andintention.
Another strategy would beasking open-ended questions,
whether you're in a debate or adiscussion.
Open-ended questions inviteexploration rather than
confrontation.
Instead of asking why are youwrong, consider asking what
(42:44):
experiences led to thisperspective.
This subtle shift in languagecan lead to a much richer and
more empathetic conversation and, last, focus on our shared
values.
In disagreements, it's easy toget lost in the details.
Taking a step back to identifyshared values or common goals
(43:04):
can realign the conversation,keeping it as a discussion.
Ask yourself what do we bothcare about here?
Focusing on your common groundcan ease the tension and open
the door for this collaborativeproblem-solving that comes from
a us-versus-the-problemdiscussion.
Disagreements, whilechallenging, are also powerful
(43:28):
opportunities for growth andlearning by understanding the
differences between arguments,debates and discussions.
By understanding thedifferences between arguments,
debates and discussions, we canchoose more consciously how we
engage with others, and bysetting the tone and making sure
that you're aligned in yourexpectations with the person
that you're disagreeing with,this helps keep you on track for
(43:52):
the intended type ofdisagreement.
Whether you find yourselfcaught in a heated argument or
you're ready to dive into athoughtful discussion, each
encounter is a chance to learn,to empathize and to evolve.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
We hope that, as you move forward and inevitably have
disagreements, you choose tohave discussions or debates,
depending on what goal you'retrying to accomplish.
And therefore improve yourrelationships, both personal and
professional.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
As well as your understanding of many different
topics or situations or people.
Remember the goal isn't to avoiddisagreements entirely, but to
transform how we experience them.
By leaning into empathy, activelistening and curiosity, you
create a space where even thetoughest conversations can lead
(44:48):
to profound personal development.
I invite you to try thestrategies that we talked about
during this episode the nexttime that you find yourself in a
disagreement and remember youare enough and you deserve to
fill up your inner cup withhappiness, confidence and
(45:09):
self-compassion.
Thank you for listening to theSage Solutions Podcast.
You for listening to the SageSolutions Podcast.
Your time is valuable and I'mso glad you choose to learn and
grow here with me.
If you haven't already, don'tforget to subscribe so you don't
miss out on more Sage advice.
One last thing the legallanguage.
(45:35):
This podcast is for educationaland informational purposes only
.
No coaching client relationshipis formed.
It is not intended as asubstitute for the personalized
advice of a physician,professional coach,
psychotherapist or otherqualified professional.
Welcome to the Sage Solutions Podcast, where we talk
about all things personalgrowth, personal development and
becoming your best self.
My name is David Sage and I ama self-worth and confidence
coach with Sage CoachingSolutions.
Coach with Sage CoachingSolutions.
(00:29):
Today's episode is all abouthow we handle disagreements with
others, an essential skill inboth our personal and
professional lives.
We'll explore three distinctapproaches arguments, debates
and discussions and learn howeach of these methods affect our
relationships and our innerdevelopment.
Today, I'm also joined by oneof our two reoccurring co-hosts,
(00:51):
my sister Anna Sage.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Hey, I'm glad to be back.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Before we get into it .
Our goal with this podcast isto share free, helpful tools
with you and anyone you know whois looking to improve their
life.
So take action, subscribe andshare this podcast with them.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
So, naturally, being your younger sister, we've had
many years of experience withdisagreements over the course of
my lifetime and even a couplesurrounding the podcast over the
course of my lifetime, and evena couple surrounding the
podcast.
I mean yes, but luckily, aswe've gotten older we've gained
more skills to be able to havethose disagreements in healthier
ways.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Well and these are generally pretty rare or just us
hashing out what the best wayto go about it is.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
No, I totally agree.
I think even throughout ourchildhood we were really close.
We never were like one of thosesiblings that were constantly
at each other.
I mean, unless I'm looking backon it from Rose Colored.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
No, we fought a decent amount of time.
Would we have like a?
Speaker 2 (02:06):
big disagreement that would turn into like an
argument or fight.
But maybe first we should startwith what is the difference
between a discussion, a debateand an argument when it comes to
having a disagreement aboutsomething.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So let's be clear Disagreements are inevitable.
So let's be clear Disagreementsare inevitable.
We're all human.
We're not going to constantlyagree with everyone else all of
the time.
It would be a very boring andweird society if that's how it
worked.
We'd all be robots.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Nor should we.
It's more interesting to havedifferent points of view.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Exactly Whether we're discussing ideas with our
friends or colleagues, or evenour loved ones.
The way that we approach thosedifferences can either build
bridges or burn them down.
I've come to recognize thatthere are three common,
different approaches that peopletend to use when facing
(03:01):
disagreements.
As we mentioned before, they'rearguments, debates and
discussions.
I'd like to share a thoughtfrom the renowned thinker Nelson
Mandela the greatest glory inliving lies not in never falling
, but in rising every time we dofall.
This quote reminds us thatdisagreements and conflicts are
(03:24):
opportunities, not failures.
Opportunities for growth, andwe've talked about that a bunch
on this podcast.
That being wrong means youlearned something.
That failing means you learnedsomething.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
I don't remember who first told me this, but it's
always stuck with me that failcan be an acronym for first
attempt in learning and when youapproach it that way, it's just
part with me.
That FAIL can be an acronym forFirst Attempt in Learning and
when you approach it that way,it's just part of the learning
process.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
You and I are very aligned on that.
I just rephrase it a little bitdifferent in my coaching, where
I talk about how action equalssuccess and outcomes good or bad
, whether you failed or you weresuccessful they're all really
just learning.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
So today we're going to break down these three
approaches to disagreements tohelp us identify which style we
lean towards and learn how wemight adopt more effective
strategies when it comes todisagreements.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Let's start with the least helpful of these three
approaches arguments.
Arguments are often emotionaland they can quickly become
heated.
In an argument, each partytends to focus on proving that
they're right, sometimes at theexpense of truly listening to
the other side.
When we argue, we let ouremotions cloud our judgment,
(04:46):
which can lead to beingincredibly defensive, a feeling
of resentment or even full-onestrangement.
One way to understand argumentsis to view them as reactive
rather than proactive.
They usually involve a rapidexchange of opinions without
pausing to explore theunderlying problems or concerns.
(05:11):
Research has shown that whenemotions run high, our ability
to think clearly diminishes.
In fact, a study in the Journalof Interpersonal Communication
noted that emotional arousalduring conflicts often leads to
a diminished capacity forempathy and understanding.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
So, in other words, when we get really heated in an
argument, it becomes very hardfor us to see the other person
as the person that we care aboutand we just start to see them
as the problem, as the personthat we care about and we just
start to see them as the problem.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
We get into a box where we don't see them as a
person, like you said, wherethey just become an obstacle, an
obstacle in the way of us beingright.
Because really, when you getinto a full-on argument, the
goal isn't to figure it out orto seek the truth, you just want
to be right, you just want towin.
Now, it's hard to acknowledgethat when you're in that heated,
angry state, but generally, ifan argument is happening, there
(06:15):
are clearly two sides and bothsides are trying to win.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So to make sure I'm understanding arguments
correctly in an argument it'svery much my side versus your
side, me versus you, and youstart seeing the other person as
the thing that is in your wayfrom being able to be right.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
And that's a best case scenario.
Often you just see the otherperson as your enemy.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Which is awful, because oftentimes we're getting
in these arguments with peoplewe love and care about and
respect.
So naturally, if both of us areseeing each other that way, you
start to feel the way thatthey're viewing you and it makes
you angry, and rightfully so,it makes you defensive, it makes
you shut down or start toescalate, and that only makes
(07:05):
matters worse.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And nobody wants to lose right.
Nobody wants to lose in anargument, especially when
emotions are that high and thefrustration is building and
building, and building until youstart to almost hate the other
person during it.
Now, not all arguments get tothat point.
You know some of this isextremes, but when we were
(07:27):
talking about this earlier, youbrought up that these sometimes
blow up into full-blown fights.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
This is where people get into losing control
emotionally and insulting theother person or just trying to
hurt them because you feel soattacked by the other person,
since they're viewing you as theopposition of them being right.
It gets to a place of being sohurt.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
And this is where people say very hurtful things
because they're feeling hurt.
Speaker 2 (07:59):
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And that's where somebody saying a terrible thing
just to hurt somebody canactually lead to things like
estrangement, like a totaldetachment from the relationship
, and not all arguments get tothat point.
I do want to be a little bitshades of gray here.
It's not that arguments areliterally never useful, are
(08:27):
literally never useful If youlook hard enough.
There is a situation where anargument can be helpful or is
inevitable, but generally youdon't want to be having it with
your loved ones, with closefriends.
You might get into an argumentto stand up for a completely
unjust act or something likethat, as opposed to getting into
(08:47):
a fistfight.
It could be an alternative inextreme situations.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
But even in those cases, it's important that you
maintain an awareness of youremotional state so that it
doesn't get too out of hand,where you start just saying
things that you can't take backor doing things that you can't
take back, because you have toremember hurt people, hurt
people.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Which is why, for the sake of this podcast, I don't
want to be 100% black and whitehere.
But if we're trying to bepragmatic here or practical but
if we're trying to be pragmatichere or practical you should
just avoid having arguments.
They're so generally unhelpfulas an approach to a disagreement
(09:37):
.
You're not really going tolearn from what the other person
is saying because you're toobusy trying not to lose and
trying to win, and so is theother person, so they're not
really hearing what you'resaying.
So you're better off justrounding up and saying no.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yep, if you feel yourself getting to a place
where a well-intended discussionor debate starts to turn into
an argument, having thatawareness of the shift is so
helpful to say you know what weneed to pause, we need to
separate a little bit, take somespace and come back to this so
that this can continue to be adisagreement framed in not
(10:16):
seeing the other person as anopponent or a problem or an
obstacle, and not trying toapproach the conversation with
the intent of being right orwinning.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
I do want to say we're all human.
There are going to be timeswhere an argument happens.
So you can't hold yourself tosuch a standard that, if you
ever do it, you're now shamingyourself, beating yourself up
and saying that you're aterrible person.
That's equally unhelpful, ifnot significantly more.
(10:49):
It's going to happenoccasionally.
So try your best not to getinto an argument and use one of
these two other approaches.
But if you do get into anargument, first go and repair
the damage that you've done andsecond, have some
self-compassion Repair withyourself.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
All right.
So we've established, for themost part, arguments are not the
most helpful way to approachdisagreements.
So what is one of the otherways to approach disagreements
that's more helpful than anargument?
Speaker 1 (11:26):
The next way that we can approach disagreements is
through a debate.
Debates are a little confusingsometimes for people because
they can have two differentmeanings and two different goals
, and the reason that this getsconfused is because of things
like debate clubs or debateteams.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Or even how debates are approached on TV through
things like the presidentialdebate.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
Which, frankly, most of the time, those end up being
like half arguments.
Yes, so let's be clear in whatwe mean when we're saying a
debate.
Debates, as we're defining them, are structured and
goal-oriented.
In a debate, the focus is oftenon trying to find the truth,
(12:18):
and the best way to do that isto make the case of whichever
side you are on in the debate aspersuasively as you can and by
presenting as many logicalarguments and actual pieces of
evidence as possible.
This approach values theexchange of ideas in a more
formalized way.
(12:39):
The most important part, though, is to keep it not
emotion-driven, and in anon-formal debate, you don't
have to stick to one side.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Both people can kind of flip-flop back and forth,
because the goal is really tohash out the truth, not
necessarily have only one sidethat you're representing.
So the differences between adebate and an argument are a
debate seeks to find the truthon a topic or on what you're
disagreeing about, whereas anargument seeks to win, to be
right, and a debate is notemotion-driven.
(13:21):
It's intended to be purelylogical, truly trying to flesh
out all of the pieces andevidence of a disagreement and
understand what really is thetruth here, without feelings
involved, whereas an argumentnaturally involves feelings
because you get defensive whenyou approach things from a point
(13:45):
of view of I'm trying to beright and therefore you need to
be wrong.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Yes, right, exactly.
And the problem is that thisgets muddled by things like
debate teams, where the goal ofthe activity is to teach people
to be good debaters.
So because it's a club, becausethere's two teams, there is a
(14:11):
winning and losing.
Now they're trying to getpeople to have good debates by
incentivizing them to win, andthe way that you win in a real
debate team or club is byactually making good arguments,
by being persuasive and havinglots of good evidence.
So it's not that it's totallydifferent, but people
(14:34):
misunderstand the goal of adebate as being to win, like it
would be in that very specificsetting.
But in real life, there aren'treally winners and losers.
The idea is to seek the truth.
When we do this through adebate, it can lead to
incredibly interestingconversations.
(14:54):
A well-done debate can be bothinvigorating and enlightening
when both parties are committedto fairness and mutual respect
and actually learning the truth.
Unlike in arguments, debatesrequire you to pause and think
through your thought processesbefore you're saying things, so
(15:15):
that you're actually producinglogical arguments.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
They may also require some time to be able to look up
and find resources and studiesand references, to think beyond
what you already know and findfacts and information to help
you flesh out the truth.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
A good debater tends to engage in this kind of mental
exercise, where they challengeassumptions while trying to
carefully articulate their ownviews and sometimes the views of
the opposing side.
Let's say you and I are goingto have a debate about something
, but we're both generally inagreement.
(15:54):
Then one of us has tooccasionally flick over to like
a devil's advocate.
Yes, because we have to belooking at things from the other
side, which is why debatesrequire you to see the issue
from multiple different angles.
It's a very shades of grayapproach.
You want to figure out thenuance.
You want to figure out thebalance, the truth of the matter
(16:16):
.
You can't just be one side onlyand not looking at the whole
picture.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We even did that for this topic.
We sat down and talked abouteverything that we thought about
it and did some research andthen I played devil's advocate
like but what about this, whatabout that?
To try to make sure that whatwe were presenting was clear and
accurate.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Right, we talked about this in our episode with
attorney John Sage.
Our father called Think Like aLawyer.
Lawyers have to do this all thetime.
They're essentially in one bigstructured debate.
They have to understand theother side just as well as their
own side if they're going tomake good, structured arguments.
(17:02):
Now I'm re-bringing up the wordarguments in this format to
reiterate that arguments has twodifferent meanings.
The first meaning is what wedefined.
Structuring an argument or apoint for what you're trying to
say is a totally differentmeaning, Right.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
There's a nuance, there is a totally different
meaning.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
Right there's a nuance there.
When conducted in the spirit ofintellectual curiosity, which
requires intellectual humility,debates can be a brilliant way
to hone your critical thinkingskills.
One participant in a recentleadership workshop observed
that debate is not about winning, but about expanding our
(17:46):
understanding of the issue athand.
This perspective reminds usthat even if we don't end up
changing our minds, the processcan enrich our own thoughts and
reveal unexpected insights.
It is important to note,however, that debates can be a
slippery slope.
There are often two clear sides, and this means that it's easy
(18:08):
to get competitive, and if thegoal shifts from learning to
winning, that's a quick slide toan argument.
So the key to keeping it adebate is to remain open-minded,
to catch yourself if you feellike you're trying to win, and
always be ready to incorporatenew information from different
(18:30):
perspectives you and a coworker,or you and anybody, really
disagree on something thatdoesn't necessarily need to be
studied to determine the truth.
Should we put ketchup or mustardon this hot dog?
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Yeah, do we want tacos or hamburgers for dinner?
Speaker 1 (18:56):
You don't really need to find the truth, because
there isn't a the truth.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Exactly, but you do need to come to a mutual
understanding.
So I would argue the mosthelpful way in those
circumstances is to have adiscussion.
What you're disagreeing on asmy side versus your side in a
(19:21):
discussion, you approach as us,the two people in the discussion
versus the problem that we'retrying to solve together.
In this way, especially when itcomes to disagreements in a
relationship that could becomehurtful and could turn into an
argument, when you intentionallyboth try to approach it from an
(19:43):
us versus the problem mindset,you remove the problem from the
other person and are better ableto see them from a
compassionate, empathetic lens.
You're able to see them as theperson you love and care about
and keep their needs and yourneeds.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Separate from the fact that you're disagreeing
right.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
And from the way that we're defining a discussion,
because there are lots ofdifferent types of discussions.
What we're really talking aboutis a discussion surrounding a
disagreement.
What we're really talking aboutis a discussion surrounding a
disagreement and I think, wherearguments are about winning and
debates are about the truth, Iwould say that a discussion is
really about understanding.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
Right In an argument.
Speaker 1 (20:41):
You seek to win In a debate you seek the truth and in
a discussion you seek tounderstand and solve a problem
together or, alternatively,agree to disagree.
Not every disagreement isalways going to resolve in
agreement.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
True, but even within agree to disagree, you could
still gain a betterunderstanding of the other
person's point of view andthoughts and feelings on
something.
So, ultimately, you're stillseeking understanding.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
Well, I think in the first place, you're looking to
see if you can both agree withthis us versus the problem
approach, true, and then you'rehashing out whether, after
understanding each other, you doagree or just naturally don't,
and, depending on the situation,that can be totally fine.
I would say it's probably themost constructive approach when
(21:26):
it comes to resolvingdifferences.
In a discussion, the emphasisis more on an open dialogue as
well as collaborative problemsolving, because we have that us
versus the problem approach.
There's a focus on activelistening, empathy and
especially, on mutual respect.
Unlike arguments and debates,discussions are less about who
(21:50):
is right and more aboutunderstanding and connection.
Discussions invite us to slowdown, pause and ask what can I
learn from the other person?
It's a very mindful perspectiveto take.
This mindset can betransformative.
When we engage in discussions,we create a space where
(22:11):
differences are seen asopportunities for growth, not as
threats.
So let's consider the followingwhen two people truly discuss a
challenging topic that they'redisagreeing on, they both leave
with a broader perspective.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Sometimes it's a broader perspective on the topic
, sometimes it's a broaderperspective on the other person,
or sometimes the other personleaves with a broader
understanding of you.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
I like that this discussion approach is
especially valuable when itcomes to personal development,
where our relationships canserve as mirrors reflecting our
own areas for growth.
A discussion allows us toremain curious about our own
beliefs while gently challengingthose that may no longer serve
us.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But I'm sure you can imagine how important it is that
both parties in a discussionare on the same page about what
intentions are behind thatdiscussion.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Honestly, I think you could say that for all three of
these.
If one person believes thatthey're having a debate while
the other person believesthey're having a discussion,
it's going to be a weirdconversation that probably isn't
going to go the way that eitherperson is looking for.
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Absolutely.
We've had that many timesbecause David is somebody who
really is passionate abouthaving debates.
He really enjoys seeking thetruth in different topics, and
while I sometimes can enjoythose kinds of conversations,
(23:47):
I'm not always as passionateabout the topic that he wants to
seek the truth on and I don'talways have the time and
capacity to be able to talkabout something and flesh it out
.
I'm just, you know, I don'tshare that same passion all the
time.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Sure, no and it makes sense.
Sure, no and it makes sense.
And I think through havingseveral discussions about
disagreements when it came todebates, we gained a lot of the
insights that we're talkingabout today about the
differences and the pointsbehind them and why they all
(24:17):
have different goals.
And while they're all aboutdisagreements, it's important to
do that check-in and make surethat both people are looking to
achieve the same goal.
If you can tell that somebodyis really not up for a debate
and you're trying to debate them, you're not going to have a
good time and you're much morelikely to have that just turn
(24:39):
into an argument time and you'remuch more likely to have that
just turn into an argument.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Same thing with discussions If you are
approaching something within usversus the problem mindset and
seeking to understand the otherperson, but the other person is
coming to try to be right orseeing you as the problem, it's
going to turn into an argument,no matter how well-intended one
party may be.
So before you have a discussion, I've found it very helpful to
(25:06):
reiterate the intentions.
First, to say listen, let'sapproach this as us versus the
problem.
Let's make sure that we staycalm.
And if we get to a place whereone of us starts to be
emotionally escalated or startsto be taking on a mindset of I'm
right, you're wrong, or evenI'm trying to figure out the
truth here and not truly justseeking to understand the other
(25:30):
person's perspective or point ofview, then we need to pause and
shift, or maybe even take spaceand come back to it at a
different time when we can bealigned on our intention.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
What I will say, though, is that it doesn't
always play out like that.
Sometimes we don't realize thatwe're disagreeing on something,
or have the awareness of ituntil we're in the thick of it.
We've already went back andforth on a couple different
points in the disagreement, soyou're not always going to have
the opportunity to have like aground setting ahead of time,
(26:07):
but you can always take thatpause and say, like hold on,
what are we trying to accomplishhere?
Right, because I can tell thatwe're disagreeing and I'm not
looking to get into an argument,and then you can kind of assess
are we really trying to figureout the truth about something,
like what time something startsat?
Not everything always has toeven be one of these.
(26:28):
There are certain topics thatyou can just avoid altogether if
you know that it's only goingto become an argument, and there
are certain things that can besolved by Googling it without
having to have a whole debate or, you know, argument or full
discussion.
Sometimes the truth is findablelike that, you know, and you
(26:51):
can save a whole lot of time byaccomplishing the same thing.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Right.
Other times people are soemotionally invested in
something they disagree on thatit's just not possible to truly
have a debate or a discussion,and the only way that that's
going to turn into is anargument.
So the best thing you can do ifyou don't want to have that
argument is just to set aboundary of.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
This is a topic that we can't talk about together
boundary of this is a topic thatwe can't talk about together,
and there's a couple topics thatlend themselves to that very
heavily, which is why wegenerally don't cover them on
this podcast.
Politics, religion and, actually, more recently, nutrition have
all become such emotionallycharged and heated topics that
(27:42):
it's pretty rare that you'regoing to get somebody to change
their mind.
They're so entrenched in theirpoint of view, and I'm not
saying that there's anythingwrong with having a firm point
of view on any of these things.
I'm just saying, statisticallyspeaking, of view on any of
these things.
I'm just saying, statisticallyspeaking, your chances of quote
(28:04):
unquote changing someone's mindon any of those topics are very
low and the chances that you'regoing to slip into an argument
are very, very high.
Now there's a time and a placeto discuss or debate these
things, and if somebody isattacking you know one of your
points of view, I understandthat you might want to stand up
for it.
I'm not trying to tell no oneto ever have these conversations
(28:25):
, but I am saying be realisticabout your expectations
surrounding them and then makeyour decisions based on that.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
So here's a very clear example, in case you're
feeling a little bit overwhelmedby the sheer amount of
information that comes with allthree forms of disagreements.
When was this?
A few months ago, a month ago.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
This was a little before Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
I want to say Okay, so a little before Thanksgiving,
david and I were at hisapartment, and Hannah Hannah was
there too.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
Yeah, the three of us were discussing what we wanted
the next topics of the podcastto be about, and we each had
different thoughts andapproaches to what would be best
for the podcast.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Naturally there was some disagreement there and
David approached it from adebate trying to seek the truth
of what's the best approach forus to use moving forward for the
podcast, and in doing so, wastaking different points of view,
trying to play devil's advocate.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
Even to my own points , like just to try and hash out
the best way forward in my eyes.
I was trying to get as manydifferent ways of looking at it
so that we could sort ofoptimize, which isn't always
necessary, but sometimes it canbe helpful to really get
something down to a T.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Now I hope Hannah doesn't mind me speaking for her
in this moment, and if she doesI'd be happy to repair that
with her but Hannah and I bothin that conversation started
getting a little bit emotionallyescalated because in our past
sometimes debates have turnedinto arguments and so sometimes
(30:16):
when someone starts having adebate, it's easy to start
getting emotionally escalatedand to start to feel defensive
and that started to turn into anargument and unfortunately we
didn't recognize right away theshift.
We didn't have that awarenessof.
Hey, this has now turned from adebate to an argument have that
(30:38):
awareness of.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Hey, this has now turned from a debate to an
argument.
Well, I will say this was alittle bit unique and is a
little different than what we'vebeen talking about, because
there were three parties.
Yes, I do think that you andHannah were more aligned on your
thought processes than me and Ido think it shifted a bit, but
I believe it became more of anargument between you and I than
(31:02):
her.
I think she more retreated fromit when it started becoming
like that and you and I, basedon having more of a past growing
up together, many little dumbfights when we were kids, having
a much longer history ofdisagreements and stuff like
that got more into thatentrenched pattern of falling
(31:27):
into an argument and I think itreally hit a point where you and
I got frustrated and she was alittle more of a bystander at
that point.
Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yeah, I agree.
I think I should reframe that alittle bit.
Hannah and I were more alignedin our thinking and therefore
David started feeling I mean, Idon't want to speak for you, but
you started feeling a littledefensive, and we started
getting defensive and thenHannah shut down and I got
activated, essentially, you knowlike fight or flight.
(31:56):
Hannah had flight, I had fight.
And then, because neither Davidor I recognized right away that
it had shifted to an argument,it started to be a little bit of
shouting and things like that,but luckily we did eventually
get to that awareness.
I said I need some space and Istepped away and I regulated
(32:17):
myself and I used my strategiesand then we all, after some
space and time, came back intothe room and we were able to
have a discussion that includedrepairing the hurt that was
caused, having some of thesehuge realizations of oh, we were
approaching this as a debateand an argument when really we
(32:41):
needed to be having a discussionand treating this as us versus
the problem.
And when we made that shift, wewere able to come up with the
best solution for how to moveforward.
For the podcast.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
And part of it was because we didn't do the
exercise that you were talkingabout, where we set the
intention ahead of time.
Right, I was looking at it froma debate, so then I was getting
frustrated when I was the onlyone going off of my own
viewpoint, bringing up counters,doing some devil's advocate to
myself.
It felt very unified, with thetwo of you being on the same
(33:15):
page and not really sayinganything otherwise.
I think that's where I startedto get frustrated, because, even
though I don't think that wasthe intention in my mind, the
story I was telling myself wasthat it felt dogmatic and then,
over time, as it became anargument, both of our nervous
systems get dysregulated andthen, as Tanez had said in a
(33:48):
previous episode, that thatmakes a huge.
It's very hard to show up.
Right us to even thinking aboutdoing this as a topic.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
Yep.
No, it ended up in a verybeautiful discussion and in me
understanding you better andhopefully you understanding me
better, and setting some healthyboundaries for how we need to
move forward and making surethat we are on the same page,
because neither one of us enjoysgetting in arguments.
(34:16):
It feels awful.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
Yeah, I mean, nobody likes.
Well, I shouldn't say that.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Maybe there's that one guy that just.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
No, there are people that definitely like arguments,
but I don't enjoy arguments.
I can enjoy debates, but Idon't enjoy arguments, and I
think it's also.
I want to touch on one otherthing that came out of this.
Boundaries are also importantwhen it comes to disagreements.
Many people think of boundarieslike a fence that keeps others
(34:49):
out, and sometimes it functionsthat way, but boundaries are
really standards that you'resetting for yourself.
Now you may have specificboundaries surrounding other
people, but the intention behinda boundary is to hold standards
for yourself out ofself-respect.
The problem, when people viewboundaries as them being fully
(35:11):
about the other person and I'mnot necessarily saying that you
were doing this, I'm just sayingit can be a slippery slope If
used incorrectly.
People can weaponize boundaries, because the point of a
boundary isn't to chastise otherpeople.
You're not setting traps forthem.
They shouldn't feel likethey're walking across a
minefield or stepping oneggshells.
(35:33):
If you take that approach, theother person's just going to get
really frustrated.
The point of a boundary is notto set rules that you punish
people for crossing.
They're standards that you'resetting for yourself.
You're supposed to cut off aconversation if you have a
boundary around a certain topicor way of conversing as a
(35:56):
standard or way of respectingyourself.
It's not really about them, andI think that's what you did
when you took a step back andsaid I need space.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yes, and I think the first time I tried to set that
boundary with you, I wasn'tsuper clear in what the boundary
needed to be, and so therefore,we had to have a discussion to
figure out what the rightboundary was, because the
boundary I initially tried toset I remember you saying like
(36:27):
so then I just can't talk to youat all about any of that.
You know, like you, you werelike.
That breaks my heart.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
The problem was, I think it actually boiled down to
this the way that you set theboundary was on me, yes, and not
just that.
It was so in specific that itbasically was like I won't
tolerate being disagreed with.
Speaker 2 (36:48):
Yeah, no, it definitely was important for us
to talk through and discuss theboundary itself, which I would
highly, highly recommend doingwith the people in your life.
Don't just set it in your ownmind In some circumstances,
Sometimes you have to.
Where it's not.
It doesn't have to be a wallwhere it can be a little bit
(37:08):
more flexible at least, and youcan have a conversation with
somebody.
You know that they're going toapproach it from a healthy, open
point of view, like David would.
It's okay to be able to talkthrough.
Hey, I feel like I need to seta boundary here, but what should
that look like?
What's fair?
And that's kind of what we did,because my first attempt was a
fail.
(37:28):
It was, you know, I tried tosay you can't do this when it
was like, nah, really it needsto be.
I need to protect myself inthis way, Like I need to say you
can't do this, when it was like, no, really it needs to be.
I need to protect myself inthis way, Like I need to be able
to take space and step away ifit's getting to this place.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
To be clear, though, I don't think your intention was
that.
No not at all you were tryingto protect yourself.
Yeah, you just didn't thinkthrough all of the different
ways that that could play out.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Right, and when you shared what the impact of my
words were when I tried to setthat boundary, then we were able
to realize oh, that's not whatI intended and we figured out a
more reasonable boundary.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
Right, because the point of boundaries isn't to
make people walk on eggshellsaround you.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Not at all.
No, it's supposed to be toprotect your well-being.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Now we've went off on a bit of a tangent here, yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Let's get back to it.
So, if we were to summarize thebig, key details, key takeaways
for you to take away from thisepisode, it's that there are
three different forms ofconversation that you can have
when having a disagreement Anargument, a debate and a
(38:41):
discussion.
The arguments are, of the three, the least helpful in being
able to come to a mutualunderstanding.
In a disagreement, argumentsare heated and angry.
They have two opposing sidesand they approach with the goal
of trying to win or be right,with the other person becoming
(39:02):
the obstacle to that goal.
Arguments are the ones that canturn into fights and to
estrangement and just not goodstuff.
Debates, in the form that we'redefining them, can have one or
more sides.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
Because both people should be trying to view it from
as many different perspectives.
So you might actually have morethan two sides, you might have
seven.
Speaker 2 (39:26):
They are not emotion-driven when done right,
yes and they seek the truth.
The goal is to find the truthon the disagreement, not to be
right or wrong or win or lose.
And finally, a discussionshould be calm.
It shouldn't be about takingsides or pinning yourself
(39:48):
against the other person.
Speaker 1 (39:50):
Or I guess you could say there's one side.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
Right, there's one side and it's us versus the
problem should be the intent orthe goal, and you should be
seeking to understand both tounderstand the disagreement,
that topic that you'redisagreeing about, better, and
also to understand the otherperson better, their thoughts,
their point of view, what theycare about, what intention they
(40:16):
bring, how they feel, because itshould be based in connection.
You have discussions withpeople that you care about, that
you have a relationship with,whether that's a personal or
working relationship.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
Now that we've outlined the three different
approaches to a disagreement,let's explore some actionable
strategies that we can use formoving through and choosing
which one suits the rightscenario.
First, cultivate self-awareness.
Begin by recognizing yournatural tendencies in a conflict
(40:49):
.
Do you find yourself escalatinginto an argument regularly or
preparing for a debate, or doyou tend to lean more towards a
discussion?
Journaling or even recordingyour thoughts after a
disagreement can providevaluable insights into your
individual patterns.
Next, practice active listening.
(41:10):
Take the mindful approach, asLaura Sage says curiosity and
non-judgment.
In any disagreement, especiallyin a discussion, active
listening is paramount.
This means truly hearing theother person's point of view
without immediately formulatingyour counter-argument.
(41:32):
Try summarizing what they'vesaid before responding.
This is what we calledreflective listening.
You might say, if I understandyou correctly, you feel that and
then restate what they said.
This simple act can transformyour conversations.
Third, manage your emotions.
(41:55):
Arguments often flare whenemotions run unchecked.
Techniques such as deepbreathing, pausing before you
speak or even taking a shortbreak, like Anna said, can help
you manage emotional intensity.
Remember, the goal is not tosuppress your feelings, but to
(42:21):
respond with clarity andintention.
Another strategy would beasking open-ended questions,
whether you're in a debate or adiscussion.
Open-ended questions inviteexploration rather than
confrontation.
Instead of asking why are youwrong, consider asking what
(42:44):
experiences led to thisperspective.
This subtle shift in languagecan lead to a much richer and
more empathetic conversation and, last, focus on our shared
values.
In disagreements, it's easy toget lost in the details.
Taking a step back to identifyshared values or common goals
(43:04):
can realign the conversation,keeping it as a discussion.
Ask yourself what do we bothcare about here?
Focusing on your common groundcan ease the tension and open
the door for this collaborativeproblem-solving that comes from
a us-versus-the-problemdiscussion.
Disagreements, whilechallenging, are also powerful
(43:28):
opportunities for growth andlearning by understanding the
differences between arguments,debates and discussions.
By understanding thedifferences between arguments,
debates and discussions, we canchoose more consciously how we
engage with others, and bysetting the tone and making sure
that you're aligned in yourexpectations with the person
that you're disagreeing with,this helps keep you on track for
(43:52):
the intended type ofdisagreement.
Whether you find yourselfcaught in a heated argument or
you're ready to dive into athoughtful discussion, each
encounter is a chance to learn,to empathize and to evolve.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
We hope that, as you move forward and inevitably have
disagreements, you choose tohave discussions or debates,
depending on what goal you'retrying to accomplish.
And therefore improve yourrelationships, both personal and
professional.
Speaker 1 (44:26):
As well as your understanding of many different
topics or situations or people.
Remember the goal isn't to avoiddisagreements entirely, but to
transform how we experience them.
By leaning into empathy, activelistening and curiosity, you
create a space where even thetoughest conversations can lead
(44:48):
to profound personal development.
I invite you to try thestrategies that we talked about
during this episode the nexttime that you find yourself in a
disagreement and remember youare enough and you deserve to
fill up your inner cup withhappiness, confidence and
(45:09):
self-compassion.
Thank you for listening to theSage Solutions Podcast.
You for listening to the SageSolutions Podcast.
Your time is valuable and I'mso glad you choose to learn and
grow here with me.
If you haven't already, don'tforget to subscribe so you don't
miss out on more Sage advice.
One last thing the legallanguage.
(45:35):
This podcast is for educationaland informational purposes only
.
No coaching client relationshipis formed.
It is not intended as asubstitute for the personalized
advice of a physician,professional coach,
psychotherapist or otherqualified professional.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com