If I were to disagree with an opinion of yours that you feel very strongly about, how would you react?
Would you feel defensive and try to explain why your view is actually correct?
Would you feel angry and try to explain why my view was wrong?
Would you feel no way at all?
Would you feel curious about my disagreement and ask me why I feel that way?
Would you think I was a jerk and probably avoid me in the future?
Frankly, I've always been a person with a LOT of ideas and opinions... When I was younger, I wouldn't voice them because I was afraid of conflict and thought disagreeing with someone was "bad" or "rude". However, over the last few years, I've leaned into my enjoyment of debate and learned to embrace (and enjoy) healthy conflict.
With that said, just because I like a good debate, that doesn't mean I don't get seriously triggered and incredibly frustrated when I'm communicating with someone who is so deeply rooted in their opinions that I feel as though I may as well be talking to an actual tree... (could I probably choose my battles and NOT have these conversations with those people? Sure, but that's a topic for another day).
One of my favourite books I read last year is Think Again by Adam Grant. In this book Grant outlines four main ways ("modes") we respond when presented with a conflict:
Preacher: When we're in preacher mode, we're convinced we're right. This is the style you use when you're trying to persuade others TO your way of thinking.
Prosecutor: When we're in prosecutor mode, we're trying to prove someone else wrong. It's not that our view is the right way, but we certainly view the other perspective as WRONG.
Politician: When we're in politician mode, we're trying to win the approval of our audience. We're seeking validation for our viewpoint.
Scientist: When we're in scientist mode we prioritize humility and curiosity over pride and conviction. You're looking for reasons why you might be wrong, not just reasons why you must be right.
These four modes pop up in varying amounts, and you may act more like one in one scenario, but another somewhere else. Here's an example of how these might play out...
Let's say your partner loads the dishwasher (in your opinion) completely and utterly wrong.
The bowls are put in bottom down, the glasses are in right side up, the cutlery is just thrown in willy-nilly like a yard sale. There's food all over the plates and nothing has been rinsed off. Do you:
Preach: Explain how they could load the dishwasher better and show them the "right way" things should be put in place?
Prosecute: Tell them how their way of loading the dishwasher is totally wrong and explain how nothing will get cleaned properly this way?
Poll for validation: Call up your friend who shares your dishwasher-loading philosophy to vent?
Get curious: Ask your partner why they load the dishwasher that way to understand their perspective better?
Reading through these, you might think, "Ugh, I feel called out- I guess you're writing this to tell us we should act more like scientists" or even "But HOW do I get curious when the other person is frustrating the crap out of me?"
These are both totally valid thoughts to have, and I want to be clear that I am not writing this to tell you that you "should" be doing ANYTHING differently.
The point of this blog is this:
When are times where you may benefit from thinking/responding like EACH of the above modes? When is being a preacher helpful for you? A prosecutor? A politician? A scientist? My intention here is simply to invite you to think of your reactions with a bit more awareness.
Can you notice thoughts, opinions, or behaviours you have that are so habitual you don't typically question them, and ask yourself if you can think of them differently? I.e., if you have a firm dishwasher-loading opinion, can you rethink this opinion OR open yourself up to hearing your partner's stance?