Compassionate Resolution

Compassionate Resolution  – Helping People to Hear Each Other

– Laurie Riley

The world has never been a peaceful place. Ever. This may seem like an extreme statement, but no matter how far back we look in recorded human history or in evidence from archeological records, the human race in general doesn’t seem to be very interested in peace, even though we claim otherwise. If we were, we’d insist on it. We would not allow conflict, intrigue or upset to exist at all, no matter who’s in charge. We wouldn’t bother disagreeing with others, and therefore would not provide any “ammunition” with which to engage in arguments. We wouldn’t even be inclined to say, “But he started it,”  because we simply would not feel a need to  perceive as aggression anything in this world we’ve chosen to create. And as you know, when you refuse to play a game, the game stops.

But throughout our eons of existence, no matter what we personally want to believe, no matter how vigorously we say we want peace and that we care deeply about others, we don’t often act that way. Throughout human history, literally no progress has been made in the direction of lasting peace, and it’s not likely that our trajectory will change. We wish this weren’t so, but all you have to do is observe the evidence all around us.

But this article is about changing the trajectory. Impossible though it may seem, doing the right thing in life often involves tackling a task such as this, whether or not there is any hope for complete or lasting success, merely because the past and all the evidence it presents may not have to dictate the future. Or perhaps just to be an influence for good is an honorable way to behave in a negatively weighted world.

We have seen observing how comments on social media have become ever more vehemently hateful; how eager people are to argue, and how deep the underlying anger is that seethes just under the surface. On social media, many don’t even read a post before they strike back with vulgarity and anger. This has begun to leak into public interactions as well, with increased hate crimes, abusive speech, road rage, random and mass shootings, and so on. Although this article isn’t about the causes of these phenomena, I’ve mentioned them to point out that improving this environment is becoming a necessity we have no choice but to be willing to learn.

We seem to have developed a culture in which we all express our opinions as loudly as we can, and shout down everyone else. We hold the assumption that we’re right and they’re wrong, period. We seem to think that only one group should have a right to speak and that it should be whoever “we” are. “They” should not have the same rights, we say, because after all, they’re “wrong”. No one seems to see how ridiculous that is. Nor do many people seem to realize that confronting someone full on will lead to anything but push-back. The concept of civil discussion is being lost in the chaos.

In our current social climate, we’ve moved away from considering that perhaps our “adversaries” should have equal time in expressing themselves, or that we might do well to listen  –  not necessarily to allow ourselves to be tainted by their views, but to see why they have those views, how we might learn to communicate with them despite our disagreement, to see them as human, and to realize that people develop their views for reasons we may not have understood.

I read in my local newspaper a letter  from a tourist who had visited my town and had seen some demonstrators holding signs for abortion rights. His letter said he would never come back here. I thought his extreme reaction was absurd  –  and at the same time recognized, albeit grudgingly, that my assessment is not necessarily the absolute truth and my being adamantly “right” does not fix anything. As long as any other human being has a different opinion, there is no Absolute Truth. After all, what is truth but that which everyone agrees on? (We may argue that morality is absolute, but if that were so, there would not be so many versions and variations of morality that exist in different societies and individual minds. I personally have a view of morality, of right and wrong, but that view necessarily includes the fact that having an immovable point of view and a closed mind cannot fit into any definition of morality.)

I’m not saying we should give up and feel hopeless. If we consciously and proactively work to promote goodwill at all times and in every possible situation to maintain some semblance of civility, life on earth would change for the better. If we don’t put forth this effort, the balance will continue to tip in a very bad direction. We need individual and collective dedication and perseverance to uphold our parts in keeping society civil. No one will do it for us.

One of the ways we can counteract hatred and anger is to learn to responsibly and neutrally mediate, facilitate, moderate, or consult when the need arises, if we are asked to do so (we should never force it on anyone). When a problem comes up between two individuals or groups, especially if it appears to be unsolvable or can’t be easily understood, help from a neutral party can make a positive difference. You may find yourself in situations where you may be asked to do this informally as a friend, mentor, elder, confidante, or bystander; or you may wish to learn more formally how to become a consultant, mediator, moderator, or facilitator.

The Roots of Conflict

All conflicts are based on someone feeling that another person has wronged them in some way. If we ask two disagreeing parties where their disagreement began, each will point to the other. It’s an adult version of “he hit me first.” Some of us might realize that not all wrongs are consciously done, but there’s still a perceived offense of some kind. People usually don’t take offense unless they perceive that someone has committed a personal affront. Yet if you ask the supposed perpetrator, they’ll say they did it because they had been affronted first. Blame goes back and forth. When there actually is a major perpetrating event to which the argument can be attached, that event happened for some reason, which in turn happened for another reason, and so on; it goes back farther and farther into some dim recess of reality. Interestingly, if you diligently trace the disagreement back far enough, you will find that there is actually no originating offense. There’s plenty of offense, but no real origin.

Let’s look, for instance, at the tourist who was offended by the pro-choice demonstrators. Looking at it here in a very simplistic way for the purpose of seeing a process and a principle at play, let’s say that he feels they are wrong for parading their views in public, and they feel he is wrong for thinking they should not have the right to voice their opinions. If we look underneath these surfaces to a deeper layer, we find that the basic concern of both parties  –  which seems like a disagreement because it has not been fully thought out  –  is for the welfare of society as a whole; they just have different ideas of what would benefit society, and what kind of society is best. Both parties want the same thing  –  a just society  –  but think it’s gained by different means. There is no original offense; it’s actually a mutual concern. What needs to be addressed is not the “offense”, but instead to ask what would benefit society most effectively (and as you will see in a following section, this can be done even when there are disagreeing opinions). This particular example is simplistic, of course, but surely you get the idea.

Variations in Capability

When two individuals or groups have differing viewpoints due to political, religious, educational, personal, or other stances, there’s always a chance it can involve unequal involvement in or inadequate understanding of the issue by at least one of the parties. But they may have feelings or opinions anyway. They may not realize they are not adequately informed.

For example, someone with only a 6^th grade education is not likely to be able to easily communicate about astronomy with someone who has a doctorate in, say, astrophysics. But most differences are not nearly so broad; what presents as “fact” can come into question for subtle reasons, as evidenced by the unreliability of human memory, differences in mental capacity, and by the often purposeful spin of information from sources that are supposed to be reliable. A challenge to the status quo in any field is often a problem; people in general resist change.

Additionally, unless one is exceptionally creative, most humans cannot imagine what they do not already know something about. Someone with an IQ of, say, 90, cannot imagine a higher level of intellect; it simply does not exist in their reality. Therefore, almost everyone thinks they represent the pinnacle of intelligence. This poses a problem because those with less capacity cannot see the benefit of listening to those with more (they do not recognize the “more”) and those with more capacity refuse to see that those with less capacity still might have a good idea or two.

People literally cannot hear anything that challenges what they already believe

We humans judge the efficacy of anything and everything  –  any tenet or fact of any kind  –  by running our perception of it through our experience and comparing it to what we already know and value as true. That’s how the human brain works. We each have an individual paradigm; a strong belief in the reality and validity of the facts and truth we think we know. That is a trait with which we evolved in order to simply survive. But it causes an essential problem: a subconscious assumption that we know everything and therefore have the capacity to judge anything. This often precludes accepting anything new or challenging. This is a bit of a generalization, but it is why anything that challenges the status quo is so hard to bring to light.

If you’ve studied history you know that Galileo, who had the audacity to tell the world that the earth revolves around the sun, was brought before the Inquisition, which concluded that heliocentrism was “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical”. Galileo later defended his views in his writing Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which further angered the Church (at that time church and government were one and the same), which found him “vehemently suspect of heresy”, forced him to recant, and sentenced him to house arrest until his death.

People have since learned that Galileo was right, of course, but in general we have not become any smarter in our attitudes. Our reasons and excuses have changed and will continue to do so, but we still resist new information, no matter how much data backs it up. The wheels of attitudinal progress turn exceedingly slowly if at all.

What is the Difference Between “Hearing” and “Agreeing”?

“I hear you” and “I agree with you” can  – and should  –  have entirely different meanings. Hearing someone means you have paid attention to and understand what they are saying, whether or not you agree with them.  Agreeing means you are both of the same mind on an issue.

It’s unfortunate that many people will not even try to hear what someone else says if they think it does not correspond with their own opinion. They think no one has a right to feel or believe differently from themselves. We may assume that such an attitude is the domain of the uneducated, the arrogant and the bull-headed, but sometimes even compassion-minded people can be quite righteous and unmoving because they feel they have morality on their side. No one is immune from this kind of arrogance, and when someone decides in advance who is right because of their spiritual beliefs or moral stance, it is not helpful.

What is the Difference Between Discussion and Argument?

When I was a kid, Sunday dinners were often shared with invited friends. My father enjoyed having political discussions, and did so at any opportunity. His views were conservative, while many of our friends’ were not. The discussions could get lively.

My mother would usually say, “No arguing at the dinner table!” Whereupon my Dad would reply, “We’re not arguing. We’re discussing.” And she would look disgusted as the discussion continued. She didn’t know the difference between arguing and discussing, but my Dad and our friends did. And our friends kept coming back despite their differences of opinion, because they felt welcome and they felt heard.

These days, it seems many people are like my mother. Any difference of opinion must, to them, be an argument. Differences of opinion are even taken by some to be personal affronts. I have a dear friend who posted an unpopular opinion on Facebook, not realizing that any such post is an invitation to discussion. Because she is a gentle soul and therefore has friends of the same sort, what ensued were some of the most considerate and polite responses I’ve ever seen on Facebook. But her next post was an angry diatribe about having been insulted, called terrible names, a grievance list of wrongs done to her through those responses, and a demand for apology. I believe her friends were shocked, as was I. She didn’t understand the difference between discussion and assault.

We are living in volatile times. It was possible that her troubled feelings were not as much due to the Facebook discussion as to something else that must have been going on for her at the time, which can color perceptions. Recognizing the signs of a disturbance unrelated to the subject at hand, or to the person(s) with whom the disagreement is aimed, can be a helpful skill.

Much of the time, the problem is with what someone represents to the aggrieved person.  The person may remind them of someone else, or may have said something that reminded them of an upsetting but unrelated issue that was there before the discussion ever came up, and the aggrieved person is merely transferring their feelings onto the new dialogue. They are usually unaware of doing this.

Sometimes, a person may harbor a dislike for someone who did nothing at all to warrant it but who is perceived as a third party in an existing dispute with someone else, whether or not the dispute has ever risen to the surface. Although it could be anything, a possible example is when a wife sees a woman whose features are typical of someone her husband is drawn to, bringing up feelings of inadequacy, abandonment, and heartbreak that have nothing to do with the actual person in question. Subconsciously, the resulting painful feelings are then assigned to some imagined slight or action on the part of an innocent woman. Similar situations can happen in career status, perceived social status, and so on.

What is the Difference Between Disagreement and Disrespect?

When I was growing up, which admittedly was in a well educated household and community, discussions among people who did not agree with each other were commonplace and even expected. Voices may have risen from time to time, but not usually in the kind of deep anger we see these days. People who disagreed with each other were just as likely to remain friends as not; the quality of someone’s heart was more important than their politics or other opinions. I realize that this is a generalization, but I do believe there is a significant difference in how discussions were conducted half a century ago. We have not evolved well in that regard.

Having our own opinions is what makes us individuals. Our world does not need everyone to be in agreement; it needs everyone to realize that we are all entitled to our opinions (and if we did that, wars would not happen), and that creative cooperation is the best solution. Demanding that everyone see our own opinion as the right one is merely immature.

What’s more, disagreement provides variety and substance in any issue, and can ensure that the solution must be elegantly planned in order to work.  If there is a goal that all parties hope to reach, the variety of possible ideas is greater when there is disagreement. With discussion that gives equal weight to all opinions, an elegant win-win solution can often be achieved. 

Radical forgiveness

If we step into the shoes of another person no matter how mistaken or misguided we may think they are, we realize that they are almost always sincere in their feelings and opinions. In other words, they truly believe their way is the best for all concerned, or at least for themselves. Even when the stance seems immoral, there’s almost always a rationale. If they didn’t think they were right, they wouldn’t do whatever they’re doing. People don’t do things they think do not benefit them.

For example, when I was a child during the Cold War, I was taught to believe the Russians were mean-spirited people who loved to hate Americans and were intent on doing us harm just because they enjoyed being bad. In a revelatory moment at about age 7, I realized that if they were so upset with us, they must have a reason, even if it were a mistaken one; they must think we were the bad ones, and their intention was defense, not offense. I then realized that this is what is true for all conflicts, large and small. Why would anyone argue or go to war if they didn’t think they were morally right and the opposing party wrong?

No matter how mistaken or misguided, everyone is doing the best they can with the tools they have. The “tools” may be information or may be mental capacity, and those may be adequate or not. But in essence, everyone is fairly innocent; we all truly believe in our positions.

With that in mind, it’s possible to have some compassion for both sides on any issue.  If we put aside our need for rightness, and consider that the other person is sincere (even if we think their opinion is flawed), then discourse becomes possible.

The Scale of Neural Wiring

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We’ve created a society that honors the servant but has forgotten the gift.”  –  Albert Einstein

Although there are many factors at play in our ability to communicate well with each other, one of the most important factors in communicative roadblocks is actually neurologically based and genetically originated.

About half of all people are reasonably good at abstraction, imagination, body language recognition, empathy, cooperation, and broad awareness (let’s call this the R-set). The other half is more adept at preciseness, focus, narrow detail, mathematics, data, mechanics, and explicit expression (let’s call this the L-set). Most of us have a combination of L and R traits, but tend more toward one set or the other. How much we tend toward one set determines our communication style. Those with traits from both sets are usually able to communicate fairly well with others who also have those traits, while those whose traits are more predominantly in one set have a harder time communicating with those predominantly in the other, and those exclusively in one set simply cannot communicate well with anybody who is not also exclusively in their same set.

Brain Function Type vs. “Personality Type”

Don’t confuse the above descriptions with the term “personality type”. What concerns us here is how communication skills are affected by inherited brain function.

Most personality tests, though they can be quite accurate (such as the Briggs-Myers and the Enneagram systems) for understanding personality types, look at traits and behaviors that result from “nurture” (life experiences and our responses to them) as well as those that result from “nature” (the neural wiring we were born with), to describe a whole picture that is quite complex. Such insight is important, of course, but for now let’s look just at the latter, because it gives us a simple way of understanding the most basic aspect of communication style due to the way our individual brains were formed, which despite subsequent learning and experiences, cannot be altered. Although the brain is capable of great change to its existing structures as we learn and grow, it cannot create entire new areas that did not originally exist.

Therefore, the simple system below deals with two very basic types of people, whose innate tendencies can be expressed as a scale with two equal sides:

Logic/Data                         Balance                     Feeling/Intuition     I__________________I__________________I

 

From right to left, here’s what the scale represents:

• At the extreme right end of the scale are the very rare individuals who literally cannot learn from data or absorb technical instruction. They express everything in terms of emotion and feelings, tend to be outgoing and empathic, but lack the ability to deal with practical matters of any kind; in short, they are severely handicapped. This rare condition is called Williams Syndrome. It is caused by the spontaneous deletion of 26-28 genes on chromosome #7. This condition affects 1 in 10,000 people worldwide.
• On the right but not the extreme end of the scale are those who are reasonably functional in the world but do not relate well to logic and data, are often said to be eccentric.
• The area just right of center represents those in a normal but right-side-oriented range who prefer to think intuitively, and can also relate to data and logic but consider them less important. They may consider intuition and heart-centeredness as the most valid way to view any issue.
• Those in the center (“Balance”) of the scale are very rare –  these are people with a perfectly equal affinity for both logic and intuition, who can equally integrate data and emotion, with no preference toward one side or the other. (Most people who believe they are in this completely balanced state, upon reflection, may find that they do have at least a slight preference for one side or the other.)
• Just left of center are those who are more comfortable with logic and data and are focused on preciseness, detail, and facts, considering those to be the most valid measure of any issue (and who can sometimes think of those who are not comfortable with logic and data as “not very smart”).
• In the middle of the left side are those who have some difficulty understanding intuition, body language, facial expression, or emotion, and who –  other than a propensity for what may be seen as rudeness  –   are otherwise socially capable.  These are people said to have Asperger’s Syndrome, a mild form of autism. Mild forms of Asperger’s are fairly common.
• The extreme left end of the scale represents those very rare individuals who literally have no intuitive skills, cannot read body language and facial expressions at all, do not relate to emotion, and cannot learn social skills. Their world is entirely data/logic driven to the degree that human interaction is meaningless to them, and they are, in fact, severely handicapped. Such people have been found to have a very small or no corpus callosum (the part of the brain that helps us balance the functions of the two sides). They are referred to as autistic.

Most people assume that everyone thinks and perceives as they do, or could if they wanted to. Unfortunately, this assumption leads to the right-siders feeling that the left-scalers are merely mean and uncaring, while the left-scalers think the right-scalers are lacking in mental ability. Neither attitude is correct. There are merely two kinds of equally valid intelligence: logical intelligence and emotional intelligence. Unfortunately, we live in a society where logical intelligence has been highly emphasized but emotional intelligence as a concept is still in its infancy.

It can be quite surprising how much difficulty people who tend toward one side of the scale have in communicating with people in the other side. I’ve so often experienced the inability of people to hear what I try to explain that it finally made me realize I should present my statements worded in a way that is based on which kind of person I’m speaking with. The realization came after some very disappointing communication failures, such as the time I was asked to be the keynote speaker at a conference for liturgical musicians. My talk was about therapeutic music and its effects on hospitalized patients. I had always assumed that the heart-centered aspects of therapeutic music were obvious, and therefore what would most interest people would be the scientific explanations of the effects of resonance on the human body and psyche. I was wrong in this case; the science-based talk met with a flat response. Much later I realized that this group of religiously-oriented musicians would have much preferred to hear heartwarming stories of my direct experiences with the patients themselves.

In such situations, I believe the scale above explains a great deal. If you look at almost any disconnect in communication, especially when someone is complaining that the other person is  either “unfeeling”, “ or its opposite “not grounded”, or when there is an argument and one person says the other “isn’t considering my feelings” or “is ignoring the data”, you may realize there is so obvious a difference in brain-wiring that it makes you wonder how you could have missed it. That essential difference makes it very difficult for the two parties to communicate. But it is possible that they can learn to respect each other if they understand the reason.

A typical example of a contentious conversation in which two parties happen to represent opposite sides of the neuro-scale might look like this: the offended party cannot clearly describe exactly what offended him or her, just that he feels offended and wants the other person to know that. The other person responds with data to back up his or her own stance, rather than addressing the first person’s emotional state. They simply cannot not talk to each other effectively, and each assumes the other is either obstinate or brainless, when in fact they simply have no common paradigm and no language that works for both of them.

Is the Old Concept of Right-Brain vs. Left Brain a Good Model?

Regarding the outdated question of whether our brains’ hemispheres are used independently, the answer is no; the two hemispheres have different focuses, but they depend on each other to keep us functional in the world. For the brain to work properly, each of its two hemispheres needs to constantly consult with the other for perspective. The two hemispheres are connected by the corpus callosum, the “bridge” structure between the two sides that allows logic and the emotion, data and intuition, calculation and empathy, to balance each other. Reasoning through logic is done in the bilateral ventromedial frontal cortex. The neocortex and thalamus are responsible for imagination and creativity, though not exclusively.

Interestingly, when the left side and the right of the brain do not connect physically, the side that predominates is the left. Those born without a corpus callosum are very rare and quite handicapped; they may be blind, deaf, or never learn to walk or talk, but some with a minimal corpus callosum can be high-functioning autistic, having a heightened ability for specific things pertaining to numbers, logic, and memorization, which is often called “savantism”. These are people on the extreme end of the left (logic/data) end of the scale. They may have trouble reading facial expressions or vocal inflection, may not understand slang, jokes, or sarcasm  –  they take everything literally. As stated above, they usually do not recognize or acknowledge emotions in others, have difficulty understanding social cues and others’ perspectives, and may lack self-awareness (and therefore may have antisocial habits).

Those who, for whatever reason, use primarily the right side of the brain  –  and therefore are more focused on emotion, creativity and intuition  –   are not doing this by choice, or even by nurture, but because that’s how their brains are “wired”. For them, decision-making isn’t a logical process, it’s an intuitive one.

The Arts of Mediating, Moderating, Facilitating and Consulting

The art of listening has largely been lost in our modern culture. Luckily, there are those who have taken on the roles of the listener through mediation, moderation, and facilitation. Those with expertise in these fields often work in formal sessions with clients (or they may volunteer to work with non-paying parties).

As mediators or facilitators, one of our aims is to remind the people we are assisting that listening is just as important as speaking  –  often more so. For that reason, during a session we have one person speak, then the other person reiterates what he or she heard them say. This has three effects: it makes the listening person actually process what is being said enough to be able to restate it, it makes the speaking party feel heard, and it provides an opportunity for correction if the listener did not understand it accurately. This can be the crux of the issue because trouble between disagreeing parties often stems from not feeling heard, not bothering to hear, and/or not understanding what the other person said. Using the process of having each party state back to the other what they heard them say can work wonders.

In a mediation or facilitation session, there is no benefit in explaining the concept of the scale of neural wiring to the parties involved. Even if it were acceptable to explain it, the challenge is that when you do, you will automatically explain it in the language that reflects your own side of the scale (logic side or intuitive side), making it hard to understand for anyone who tends toward the other side. For example, this article is written mostly from a logic-oriented point of view. It’s highly unlikely that those wired the other way will relate to my way of explaining things. (Even  my use of the word “wired” is a case in point; those on the feeling side of the scale would probably prefer a softer-sounding term that I have not thought of.)

When clarification is being made because someone misunderstood, the speaker may point out something like, “What I meant to say was…” while the listener responds with “But you said…”, meaning the words as stated conveyed a different meaning from what the speaker meant to say. Sometimes this can evolve into the idea that the speaker actually meant what the listener thought the words implied. Such an impasse may be common between someone who insists that words or certain combinations of words can have only one meaning, while the other person uses words as an impressionistic art. Mediators and Facilitators must be aware of this possible dynamic.

In addition to the above factors, any person’s behavior and paradigm are usually based on self-interest, even if they are not aware of it. What they perceive as best for themselves, their friends, family and/or community is primary to them. That’s natural human behavior.

But is it necessary for anyone to “win” in a disagreement? Winning can come at a cost: the loss of opportunity to gain new insights, friendships and allies. Sometimes just being given the opportunity to state one’s opinion is sufficiently satisfying, and hearing the other’s opinion is enlightening. As mediators or facilitators, it’s our job to be nonjudgmental if we are to help participants come to a win-win conclusion or plan that pleases both equally without having to agree with each other. We cannot say that either logic or emotion should win; a path forward must be found mutually.

People just want to feel better

Another factor in challenging situations is that so many people are desperate to feel better. No one likes to be uncomfortable. Both data-oriented and feeling-oriented people are averse to emotional discomfort. In fact, feeling-oriented people may be more interested in feeling better than in actual resolution, and if they know they have been heard and accepted, that may be the only resolution they seek.

Our job as mediators and facilitators is to find a way to help people interpret each others’ words respectfully, ask the right questions, and find a way forward.

We are Not Instructors

Mediators, facilitators and moderators are not instructors. An instructor is someone who teaches a specific subject in a formal environment. Although the instructor’s main job is to disseminate information, it helps to be a good mediator or facilitator as well. But the reverse does not apply. We are completely neutral and the focus of every session is on the people whose issue is being addressed.

What is a Facilitator, specifically?

The word facilitate literally means “to make easy”. Facilitation is assisting groups or individuals to reach a stated goal. Facilitating is not necessarily handling a disagreement. More specifically, when there is a disagreement, a facilitator becomes a mediator.

What is a Mediator, Specifically?

The word mediate literally means “to go between”. In other words, to be someone whom two or more parties trust to aide in communication. A mediator helps opposing people or parties in achieving reconciliation, settlement, or compromise. There is no other goal implied. A mediator maintains neutrality in assisting opposing individuals or parties to reach, if not full agreement, at least an agreement to disagree peacefully, and possibly a plan to move forward. Without strict neutrality the mediator becomes one of the parties involved in the conflict.  The idea is never to decide who is right and who is wrong. Mediation is a seeking to bring about peaceful coexistence regardless of differing opinions.

It’s the mediator’s responsibility to allow all parties to express themselves in a safe environment, without judgment, to have each party hear the other, and then to cooperatively create an understanding by which everyone can live even if they don’t agree with each other.

What are the challenges we face in this process?

1. Anger, which clouds judgment
2. The idea that others must agree with whoever is “right”
3. The idea by each party that they are the only one who is right
4. The idea that there is an inherent right and an inherent wrong
5. The idea that the other party ought to be admonished for their wrong thinking
6. The idea that it is possible to convert the other party, and that doing so will create peace
7. The idea that the other party “started it” or was the aggressor
8. The idea that therefore someone is a victim

If indeed there is a true victim, mediation is not what is needed, but a court of law. Most disagreements do not get that far, however.

Considering all of the above factors, how can a mediator effectively oversee a discussion between opposing individuals or groups? Here are some guidelines:

1. Before the two parties get together for the discussion, ask them to write down their answers to these questions:

• “What is your grievance?”
• “Are you willing to hear what the other person has to say?”

2. When the two parties come together, the mediator then begins the session by stating the requests and outcomes favored by each party, and ask if these are accurately stated.
3. Then state guidelines you have set for the session, such as:

• You will take turns speaking.
• You will have as many turns as needed for each person to express themselves clearly.
• You will respect instructions from the mediator that may be given during the discussion.
• Each person has a specific amount of time to speak in each turn. We will use a timer. When it rings, finish your sentence and stop.
• The speaker holds a “talking totem” (any item you as mediator choose to use); as long as someone is holding it, others must refrain from speaking.
• If you have something that must be said in response while someone else is speaking, write it down and bring it up when it is your turn.
• When someone responds to a specific statement or question by the other person, he or she must first repeat the statement or question thusly: “I heard you say… (repeat statement)” and then “Did I hear you correctly?” If the answer is yes, then a response may be given. If the answer is no, the statement in question should be clarified.

4. Facilitate with questions, not statements, whenever possible.
5. Facilitation of a disagreement requires a great deal of tact and grace, a lot of tongue-biting, and an ability to keep a neutral expression on one’s face and in one’s voice, no matter how you may personally agree or disagree with one or both parties.
6. The aim is not necessarily for anyone to be converted to another’s way of seeing things; it is instead to come to an agreement of how to coexist despite their individual views. When that agreement has been reached, the session is over.
7. If desired, a de-brief session may be done, either with all parties present or with each party separately meeting with the facilitator. If there is still a problem, another session should be recommended, unless it is so serious that legal intervention or referral to a psychologist is necessary.

Concepts and policies to adhere to:

• Never ask anyone why they disagree
• Avoid lingo –  it’s either patronizing or exclusionary.
• No blame, ever, on anyone
• Diversity of opinion, belief, race, etc. is an asset, not a problem.
• Remember that words are a small fraction of what someone is thinking or feeling Therefore, try to ascertain more than just what people say, but what is underneath their words – the feelings, the history, the hope.

What is a Moderator?

A moderator is someone who maintains order in a group event such as a panel discussion. This term is often used synonymously with “mediator” but they are not the same. A moderator often asks pointed questions to guide a discussion (a mediator never does this), to move the conversation along, elicit interesting responses, keep order, and keep track of time.

A moderated discussion might not have a conclusion. It ends when the time is up, and may leave people hanging. That is its nature  – to be merely a presentation of ideas and opinions. Its purpose is primarily to elicit thought in the minds of observers, rather than progress in the minds of the participants.

Challenges in moderating can be:

1. The necessity of time constraints; allowing each party a specified length of time to speak so that all can have equal time
2. Identifying the difference in each group’s goals, not those of the individuals in the groups.
3. Avoiding deterioration into a free-for-all; maintaining your authority to moderate

Salient Points (Take-aways from the ideas in this article)

1. Mediators, facilitators and moderators must remain neutral and must be sure the parties with whom they are working are aware of that principle.
2. There are two kinds of equally valid intelligence: logical intelligence and emotional intelligence. People who tend toward one side of the scale often have a hard time understanding people on the other side of the scale.
3. What we perceive as an offensive act is either a veiled cry for love and recognition, a fear-based lashing out, or a perceived affront due to a lack of understanding of a statement or action or of a neuro-type.
4. It’s okay to agree to disagree and find a common way to move forward.
5. When it seems that someone has a grievance that is significantly out of proportion with the actual issue at hand, fear is almost always an underlying factor, and it may not be related at all to the actual issue being discussed.
6. A discussion does not have to be an argument.
7. The idea that someone can be made to think or behave differently through logic or re-training is not a valid goal.