Published on <a href="https://blog.prototypr.io/when-proving-someone-wrong-makes-you-wrong-e3d300c3011?source=rss----eb297ea1161a---4">| Prototyping: From UX to Front End &mdash; Medium</a> Lia Garvin <img alt="" src="https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1024/1*pyhd5lPUfscP1yIJau58lA.jpeg">
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the importance of balanced communication, and how to stay positive when I’m interacting with someone who I’m struggling to find a common ground with. As hard is it is to remember, even when you’re right, saying you’re right doesn’t make you more right.
You become “right” in a situation when you move the conversation from a disagreement to a shared understanding — and even then, it doesn’t mean the other person is wrong. You cannot overlook the fact that just as tightly as you are holding the conviction in what you think, know, or are an expert in, the other person in the conversation is likely holding their beliefs as true. And when you run up against the same issues repeatedly, it is time to change the approach.
I think to examples from movies or TV where the protagonist is right, the audience all knows they are right, but they get so consumed with proving that the other person is a fraud that they eventually alienate themselves from the people who once supported them. I’ve seen this plotline play out in dozens of shows or movies, and I’m struggling to come up with an example, so please share on in the comments if you can think of one. It is a common plot because it is a lesson that must be remembered, sometimes proving someone wrong makes you wrong.
So then how do you change your approach to move the conversation forward when nothing you are doing is working:
<ol>
<li>Start the conversation with something you can agree on. This is a core Dale Carnegie principle, and trust me it works. Starting the conversation with some kind of common ground, where the person you are talking to agrees with anything will set the trajectory of the conversation in the right direction. In most cases this means starting with the higher order goals or context, establishing “do we agree on X, are we both talking about Y.” If the answer is no, then there is more setup work needed to align on why you are even talking than coming to an agreement. That has to happen first.</li>
<li>Remove emotion and subjectivity from your communication — it is very hard to do this in the heat of the moment and when you are clouded by the context of the conversation, so I urge you to share your talking points with a trusted peer so that they can help give you honest feedback before you engage in a negotiation or difficult conversation.</li>
<li>Do not call out people by name — falling into this pattern makes it look like you are collecting people either to throw under the bus or build up as an alliance around you, both feel negative and battle-oriented. You will not get anywhere in a communication or negotiation if it is seen as a battle, the other person will naturally come to the defense. Have specific examples or quotes ready if needed, but I have yet to find a case when it is appropriate — it is often seen as “well this 3rd party said this…” and when you’re talking in abstractions, you are unlikely to come to an agreement. An exception to this is once you have come to an agreement. If explicit people need to be mentioned who you need support with getting them onboard to an approach, call it out in that context.</li>
<li>Do not engage in arguing. Arguing is not the same as debating. Arguing is personal. When debating becomes personal, it is arguing. Arguing alienates the people in the conversation, and it does not lead to agreement. When you find yourself getting agitated or engaged in an argument, ask to table the conversation and come back to it later. This goes back to the concept of not trying to prove someone wrong. People don’t usually give in because they have been proven wrong in a heated conversation.</li>
<li>Consider the areas where you are being inflexible. Yes, I am asking you to self-reflect. Sometimes when we know we are right, and are right, we forget to think about the other person’s experience and context, and that they have valid points. Is there anything you can bend on? Is everything you are saying objective and upholding the goals you agreed on?</li>
</ol>
None of this is to say you can’t be right, it is all about tact, and how you can open yourself up to come to an agreement. Being the bigger person isn’t about conceding or caving, and it is not about insisting “you are the bigger person.” With all communication, it is a balance, and with this approach, you will often find that difficult agreements and conversations are solved a lot more easily than you expected.
<img src="https://medium.com/_/stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSource=full_rss&amp;postId=e3d300c3011" width="1" height="1" alt="stat?event=post.clientViewed&amp;referrerSou">
<hr>
<a href="https://blog.prototypr.io/when-proving-someone-wrong-makes-you-wrong-e3d300c3011">When Proving Someone Wrong Makes You Wrong</a> was originally published in <a href="https://blog.prototypr.io">Prototypr</a> on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

When Proving Someone Wrong Makes You Wrong

Top Stories