Strategy 2: Agree Before Disagreeing

Hi everyone! I’m Carol Diane and THIS is Happiness Reclaimed. You were born for the pursuit of happiness which means rising toward your potential mentally, physically, and spiritually, living a life of love with deep meaning and purpose. We’re leaving behind the  emotional stress, bad health, and empty spirituality of today, to practice powerful life strategies in a mind-body-spirit approach to wellness. It’s time to reclaim your life. Let’s go.

Today we’re covering Powerful Life Strategy #2.   

As I said before, our first 3 strategies alone might be enough to revolutionize your life. If you actually do USE them I think it’s likely you’ll improve all your relationships and just overall create a much happier life.

That said, please remember that everything I say is for educational purposes only and at no time am I telling you what to do in a specific situation. So your participation in any way with the Happiness Reclaimed organization signifies your understanding of, and agreement with, these terms.

Now, if you haven’t listened to Strategy #1, I suggest you listen to that first and then come on back.  

Oh, and please like, share and subscribe so that you never have to miss an episode and you can help others as well by spreading the word.

So with all that out of the way, let’s talk about Strategy #2.

If more and more of us are using Strategy #1, then we’re replacing those absolute-sounding dictatorial overgeneralizing know-it-all or depressing statements with General I-Statements, so now Strategy #2 becomes a whole lot easier. 

And here it is: Agree Before Disagreeing. 

And you might think, “How can I do that? I don’t agree with this person.” 

Well, hold on a minute. Hang in through this broadcast and the broadcast on Strategy #3 and I think you’ll see all kinds of amazing possibilities that will dramatically change your life. And yes, I am talking instant change. Not 100% change but instant change.

And even if you can’t agree on ANYTHING, you can at least AFFIRM the person, and we’ll get to that near the end of this show.

So, let’s call this new kind of communication “Collaborative Dialogue” or “Additive Dialogue” or “Validation.” 

We’re COLLABORATING to build a common understanding, common ground. 

We’re trying to ADD TO the others’ comments rather than contradict them if possible. 

And we’re VALIDATING the views these people hold if possible. 

Here’s a sample conversation for you:  we’ll use the statement we ended with in the Strategy #1 broadcast.

So Suzy says: “I think, generally speaking, parents are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare.”

Notice we have a general I-statement: the “I think” makes it an I-statement and the phrase “generally speaking” makes it a GENERAL I-statement.

Now, if you have sat back and observed any kind of group discussion as I have for decades, whether it’s a bunch of friends talking, or a family gathering, or any kind of meeting, not ALL the time, but sometimes, have you noticed people responding essentially like this, not this specific topic, but this TYPE of response? 

“Nah, I think a lot of parents are consumed with their OWN problems and they can’t think about their kids at all.”

I’d call that response kind of gentle and easy going, but it WAS a statement of disagreement.

But sometimes if you’ve observed enough of these discussions, you’ll hear this —

 “That’s not true! I know a lot of parents who are so consumed with their own problems they’re not thinking about their kids at all!”   

I purposely acted that out with a bit of anger, because if you observe enough people you’ll start to see some who are hostile, like there’s some kind of battle to be won. 

Or in other cases, they’re not really hostile to the other person, but they’re carrying pain and anger from the past, and those feelings are noticeable as they talk.   

We also, by the way, know that strong feelings like that can influence how we interpret another person’s comments, possibly causing us to jump to conclusions and misinterpret the comment.

But with regard to this little conversation that I’ve acted out for you, here’s the question for today: Do they really disagree?

Or, is the second person’s interpretation and response CREATING a disagreement and creating an argument? 

I would suggest to you the second person is creating the disagreement and the argument. 

Think of it this way: Imagine a pie chart of all parents. Suzy’s phrase “generally speaking” suggests maybe a majority, or more, and we have to understand that Suzy’s point is not really about an exact percentage. It’s not that important to her whether it’s definitely more than 50%. Who but God would have that data (long a) about how each parent truly feels on the inside? 

So it doesn’t really matter what the exact percentage is. Suzy is just trying to say that she would optimistically tend to think that more often than not, parents do care about their children’s welfare, and we know that from her use of the phrase “generally speaking.”   

So just for the sake of analyzing this discussion, let’s say even 75% or ¾ of parents care just because 75% or ¾ of a circle pie chart is easy to draw and easy to picture in our minds.     

Now our second person thinks a lot of parents don’t care, and any percent that takes up the rest of the pie chart would certainly qualify as a lot of parents, right? 

So the two ideas are completely compatible with each other especially because the percentages aren’t the issue 

But when Person #2 responds in a disagreeing way, how do you think Suzy feels on the inside? 

“Ugh. I say something that’s most likely true and she just has to argue with me. She does that a lot. I’m getting to the point where I don’t even want to be around her.”  

That’s how Suzy can start to feel especially when this kind of disagreement or arguing behavior occurs repeatedly or when emotions run high.  

And trust me, I’ve sat back and observed group discussions for decades and many people are habitually talking like this to one another and I’m guessing they don’t even realize how they sound.

And what happens when you have a recurring or repeating pattern? especially where people are being told they’re wrong?  People get more and more irritated, right?

So instead, what if person #2 says this?

“Yes, I agree that many parents ARE concerned about their children’s needs.”

There’s the agreement or common ground or validation or whatever you want to call it, because after all isn’t it likely true that there are a lot of caring parents out there?  

But after the agreement and the building of common ground, person #2 is then free to stand up for his or her own deeply felt perception of life, and add to the reality the two of them are constructing in their dialogue. 

That’s why I call it additive or collaborative dialogue. 

So Person #2 can add the next sentence, “I also think it’s the case that other parents are struggling so much their minds are elsewhere.” 

There’s the additive comment. So put the two parts together and we have: 

“Yes, I agree that many parents ARE concerned about their children’s needs. I also think it’s the case that other parents are struggling so much their minds are elsewhere.”

Suzy then says: “Yes, I’m sure that’s true too,” which is more common ground, more validation. 

And Suzy should have no problem agreeing with Person #2, because that’s the other logical possibility, and there is definitely room left in our pie chart, right?  

And then the two of them can take that discussion in any direction they want after that, or move to a different topic.

So what I’m trying to show you is how much discord and friction people in this society are creating, simply because of the way they are interpreting the other person and then phrasing their response.  

And the OTHER POINT is: How do people feel when they’re continually told they’re wrong, when they’re NOT wrong?  

I think we all know the answer.

They hold a piece of the overall truth, and the other person is focusing on a different piece of the overall truth, a different part of the pie chart if you will.   

So we have a cultural pattern where people might not even realize what they’re doing, but they’re creating a lot of negative feelings and resentment when there was absolutely no rational reason for it. 

We can see this happening in personal conversations and also in the public arena. On TV news shows, for example.

If people find it irritating to be told they’re wrong even when they’re right, is it any wonder that more and more people are looking for people who will just agree with them and just say “Yep, you’re right”?    

So here we have another side of the argument that I did NOT bother to cover in my book, Happiness Reclaimed:

Maybe some of us who have finally been pushed to wanting to just be around people who agree with us, maybe we’re not all a bunch of narcissists who have to have complete and absolute agreement to feel good about ourselves. 

Maybe more and more of us are just sick and tired of this senseless way of arguing that doesn’t even make logical sense. 

But maybe some of us haven’t even figured out WHY we feel so annoyed during some of these conversations. 

But what I’m showing you is how easy it is to fix this. We find a way to agree before disagreeing.

From what I’ve seen, this senseless arguing does seem to be a bit of an epidemic these days  Or the other frequent problem is that people don’t verbally disagree out loud with the first person, they’ll just totally ignore the first person’s comment and then state THEIR COMPETING IDEA, as though that first comment was never even made. That, in my view, is also bad communication, lacking in social graces, lacking in generosity, lacking in collaboration and respect for others, and perhaps showing a self-focused approach in life. Generally speaking, we should not be ignoring what someone else just said. It’s not quite as much a direct assault on the first person’s comment, but it is still a form of disrespect and yes, I’d even say rudeness.

So with Strategy #2, I’m stepping forward to say, “Hey everyone, here’s something that’s easy to fix and will save us all a whole lot of misery. And if we just give more thought to how we’re expressing ourselves, we can eliminate a lot of senseless arguing and start building more common ground, because in many cases the common ground is already there! It’s our communication style that’s doing  the damage!”

And you know, this is something that even a grade schooler can learn, so how about if we start teaching American school kids how to communicate?    

I’ve been thinking more generally about the damage that’s being done in our culture, and all the animosity that’s being created out there. I’m guessing you’ve noticed it.  Of course there are multiple causes for cultural problems. I’m not saying this is the only problem.  

But what I AM saying is “Let’s go for the low hanging fruit, and let’s start solving some easy problems first, and start using our heads, and then we can turn to the more challenging problems that still remain.”

And changing our communication style will help us solve those bigger problems too.

Just imagine how we could change our lives if we just start following Strategy #2 – agree before disagreeing when possible.

Another way of saying this is: Let’s start thinking more about how each of us feels as we walk out of the room.   

Do we all feel understood and validated and united with others as we face this tough thing called life?   

Or do we feel put down and told we’re wrong about everything? 

Did that discussion feel like an ego battle rather than an uplifting  collaboration?

Which seems like the better idea to you?

And can you imagine the difference on a broader scale?  

A calmer, more civil society in which we collaborate to solve problems and respect one another

It’s not a utopian dream. It’s achievable. And that’s part of the vision, here at Happiness Reclaimed. 

We’ll reject these patterns even when we see them on news programs. And we’ll work to create a new and better way of relating to one another. What a great way for us to lower our stress hormones!

We can feel heard, understood, respected and validated for the piece of the truth that we hold. And we’re more likely to feel better about the other person. No one feels attacked or demeaned for being wrong. And no one feels rudely ignored.  

So at this point you might be wondering, What if they truly are making a statement that is undeniably false?  

Well, be careful there. 

Have you lived long enough to experience being absolutely sure about something and then realizing later you were wrong and that you were given false information?   

 A little caution and a little humility can really help us.

There are also situations in which the first person’s statement, which at first sounds totally wrong, could be taken to be true when we realize they are defining terms differently.  

But let’s say that what they said really is false. Okay, if you’ve got the statistics or evidence to prove it, and you’re sure the statistics weren’t twisted due to bias, and the researchers weren’t fashioning their results to please the people who paid for the study, and the researchers have no profit motive coming from the results and no political agenda, and the news media wrote about all of this accurately and fairly, and didn’t over-simplify the issue, and the truth’s not being censored, and there aren’t other good quality studies that contradict this one, and you’d be willing to put your reputation on the line, then you just have to do 2 things. Let’s use an example. 

Let’s say Person #1 says:  Heart disease only kills people over the age of 70.

And we’re very confident this is false.

So here is your two-step response:

Step 1, check your understanding because you might be hearing wrong:

“So are you saying you think it only kills people over the age of 70 and people younger than 70 never die from it?” 

They might surprise you and say, “Well, come to think of it, there have been younger people who died too.” And your disagreement just vanished. 

But if they say, “Yep that’s what I said.” Then your next step is go right back to your I-statement which is Strategy #1.

“Huh. I have read it has been fatal for people younger than that.”

You stand your ground based on what you know. You give them something to think about. You plant a seed. And you move on emotionally and spiritually. 

I don’t mean you leave the relationship or leave their physical presence. 

I mean you maintain your sense of inner peace. 

You move on in the sense that you walk past that power struggle lying there in the dirt. 

Just walk on by it. There’s no need to pick up that power struggle. You’re free from that compulsion now. 

We might call this healthy detachment.

“Huh. I have read it has been fatal for people younger than that.” 

Just let it go. Breathe. You get to relax. It’s not your problem. No need to control. Take a good deep breath of freedom.  

If this is an issue where you truly need to change that person’s mind, the less you push the more likely you are to create change anyway. Just plant a seed at first. How you approach a topic really matters. Patience and timing matter. 

Now remember even this broadcast is a general I-statement, so we’re not talking about those exceptions where what I’m describing might NOT make sense, such as for example when we’re dealing with a life-or-death decision and we have to come to agreement instantly. As always you’ll need to use your own good judgment when to apply these ideas and when to use a different approach. 

And finally, here are a couple more techniques:

If you truly can’t agree about a solution to a problem, you can at least say, “I agree that this is a serious problem. I want us to find the best solution possible.”

Try not to use the word “but”  as in “but I don’t think your solution will work” because the word “but” kind of throws out your first sentence to some degree. Use “and” if you feel the need for a conjunction. “I agree that this is a serious problem. And I want us to find the best solution possible.” You don’t need to so bluntly attack their idea as no good.

And one last tip, which I mentioned at the beginning–you can at the very least use the AFFIRM strategy  

“I appreciate that you’re so concerned about this problem. Thank you so much for your commitment. I do agree that we need to think what action, if any, to take right now.”

When you express appreciation to them you are affirming them.

So the bottom line for us in this series is that, if you do start using these Powerful Strategies,  I think you’ll be amazed at how all your relationships improve and your overall life experience improves as well.

Please like, share and subscribe so that you don’t miss a single episode, and so that others you know can hear this as well. 

If you have any questions at all, please contact me at HappinessReclaimed.com.   I’ll try to answer those questions in a future broadcast. 

So that’s it for today.  Love ya guys!