What are we actually discussing? – Spectrum of sciences

We need to be able to discuss things with each other and come to common sense solutions. One way to achieve this and resolve conflict is negotiation. We always negotiate when two people have different opinions and want to reach an agreement – from negotiating fees to planning vacations. The result can be your own point of view, but also the other person’s point of view, or a completely different solution that takes all desires into account. The more convincingly you assert yourself, the closer the outcome will be to your point of view. Therefore, for conflicts, we need negotiation and persuasion skills. The goal is not to back down or make false concessions, but rather to find the best solution by presenting your point of view convincingly.

But sometimes an agreement is not necessary. This is the case if both options are correct and possible. Some celebrate on February 28, others on March 1. Two different approaches can coexist. This is “reasonable pluralism,” according to the American philosopher John Rawls. It assumes that people – even when thinking carefully and logically – can reach different conclusions and that it is possible to coexist when a common solution is not necessary. It is okay for different religions, different relationships, family concepts and worldviews to coexist as long as they do not interfere with each other and do not harm anyone. Keeping this in mind protects us from wild accusations when someone disagrees.

The simplest solution is to withdraw from the issue with the position that we do not have to agree, thus avoiding any debate. After all, arguments are tiring, and it would be better for our peace of mind to stay away from the more stubborn people. Many people who want to give you advice follow this line: “Separate yourself from difficult people”, “Say goodbye to energy suckers”, “Surround yourself with like-minded people!”, “This way you will not care at all” the opinions of others. Do the best you can!” This advice is effective as long as it is not misunderstood as a demarcation of everything that does not agree with our opinion. What happens when we prematurely distance ourselves from people who think differently than we do? What if we only talked to people who communicate with high sensitivity and represent The same values ​​we stand for? We lose the ability to take criticism and conversation skills, we don’t notice when we are going in the wrong direction, we lose relationships and: the opportunity to convince people after all.

Anyone who does not have conversational skills and interrupts important negotiations, for example out of spite (“Not like that!”), loses the opportunity to establish profitable business relationships. Anyone who annoys his colleagues: “They don’t understand how great my ideas are!” will not develop assertiveness. I am a rhetoric and negotiation coach. This is exactly about moving others and not giving up immediately if someone doesn’t radiate positive energy or says no. “No” is just the beginning of the discussion. The question then is: How can we move someone to a different point of view while still getting the other person interested in our point of view? This works by packaging the content in a way that achieves the best possible impact.