Having friends with whom one can discuss a wide range of topics like family, life, politics – is a blessing. One can learn, test ideas or just have fun recounting stories old and new – some awkward, some embarrassing or just funny. There are lighter topics; and some are heavier, for example caring for one’s elderly parents. A nearly unlimited field of course are topics of daily politics. The fact that the personal convictions in our group of friends point in all kinds of different directions creates ample opportunities for discussion or even arguments. In such conversations inadvertently one finds oneself attempting to convince the other participants of one’s own opinion. In a recent get-together we got into a heated discussion that ended not in a good spot – we finally paused, individually exasperated, exhausted and even somewhat angry. It felt like nobody wanted to arrive at such a point but over a long period of time also none of us was able to concede the argument in favor of the others opinion. For as long as we have known each other I am sure we will recover and have more conversations. Still, it got me thinking how as the host I could have perhaps moderated better or guided our conversation along a different path. What does trigger frustration or even anger at the end? We all read a lot and listen to news and other sources of information. In such discussion we present “our” fact along with or to corroborate our opinions. I found myself contesting some of the facts that our friends presented – but there is a delicate balance between questioning facts or more so assumptions and context around them vs. accusing the other side of presenting incorrect information. There is the infamous statement “don’t take it personal” – in hindsight though as I am going through my arguments I am wondering, did I ask my questions in a non-personal way not questioning my friends directly or indirectly, but rather exploring the very assumptions or context to the information and the opinions derived from that. Judging by some of the reactions my questions triggered I surely did not! It now angers me since I have found myself frequently questioning information from my own common sources when not properly informed by data presented alongside the information or opinions derived from it. In such cases I find myself going off to do additional research in 3rd party sources to better understand the situation. This should have likewise created an opening for me to entertain concerns the discussion partners raised in our conversation.
A second element is feelings. This could be worries about a trend or even a political decision as to how it may impact one’s life. When a participant in the discussion derives an opinion based on how they feel, there are no external sources for those feelings. One cannot argue with how a person feels – one can seek to understand the origin of feelings but attempting to convince a person to feel differently is really the wrong approach. One can perhaps illuminate the cause that triggered such feeling with additional information but the decision on how that translates into personal impressions remains with the beholder. I am no longer sure I made this distinction properly in our discussion and I properly respected the feelings expressed in all situations. Which leads me to an outcome that we sometimes (oftentimes?) forget: to agree to disagree. I surely failed to acknowledge that in our most recent discussion. Such outcome could lead to two pathways forward – first to simply live with that disagreement or second to go off and do more research on the points of contention to corroborate one or the other opinion or even to formulate a completely new one. In hindsight I can immediately think of other examples we talked about in the same group and where I ended up reading up on some trends and events thereafter that proved meaningful to augment the discussion. So, my resolution for the future – try to make an argument so, that it is not presented as personal and also not perceived as being personal.