A real conversation always contains an invitation to reveal one’s self. –David Whyte
Consider that in any two person conversation there are at least four voices present. There are two verbal voices and there are two internal voices. Where there is alignment between the verbal and the internal voices then there is congruence.
There are times when each of us verbalizes only a part of what is voiced internally. Frequently, the listener picks up signals that the internal voice has not been verbalized; these signals are sent to the listener via non-verbal cues. Sometimes the listener will reflect these non-verbal cues back to the speaker and the speaker will either confirm or disconfirm what has been reflected back to him/her. My sense, however, is that most listeners do not reflect the non-verbal signals back to the speaker; the resulting incongruence is taken as ‘the norm’ for conversations.
In conversations that we call ‘conflictual conversations’ the two participants generally make a mistake by trying to get at irrelevant matters – e.g., ‘Who is right?’ or ‘Why are you doing this?’ Consider that the following might be more helpful: ‘Why do we see things differently?’ or ‘Why do we choose different responses?’ These tend to reframe the conversation from ‘blame’ toward ‘seeking to understand’ and from ‘winning’ to ‘discerning understanding and perhaps discerning common ground.’
Consider that two types of knowledge might also be helpful:
INTRAPERSONAL knowledge helps us consider why we think, feel and act as we do.
INTERPERSONAL knowledge helps us, via empathy and respect, to consider the other’s perspective, experience, and position.
‘Why do I see the world differently from how you see the world?’ Well, I have different information and/or a different interpretation of the same information that we both have. My interpretation is rooted in my life experiences, my outlook, my current disposition, my life-disposition, my deep assumptions, my core values [and how I interpret them], my guiding life-principles, my prejudices, my stereotypes, my biases, etc. I also think that for the most part my conclusions also reflect my ‘self-interest’ – i.e. I ‘lead’ with my-self as the focus, not the other as my focus.
When engaged in a searching conversation, I do better when I move from certainty to curiosity, from surety to doubt, from being rigid to being flexible and when I stop arguing about ‘who is right,’ and when I stop needing to assign ‘blame,’ and when I start to seek to understand and embrace ‘your story.’
To get real diversity of thought, you need to find the people who genuinely hold different views and invite them into a conversation. –Adam Grant
Searcher-Seeker 