About dialogue, part 2

With continued thanks to the International Association for Public Participation, whose excellent material I'm sharing and expounding on.

In dialogue, we seek to find common ground, not to 'win.'. The problem about winning is that it means someone else has lost. In common ground, we share. And from that common ground we can build greater understanding and find yet more common ground.

In dialogue, we listen to understand, not to find flaws. When someone is understood, they are more open and willing to work with you. When you find flaws, the other often closes, becomes defensive, and cannot be open to you or your ideas.

I deeply wish American political parties would seek common ground and to listen to understand.

Peace, y'all


Molly

Dialog vs debate

Here's an excerpt from some excellent training I just attended

Dialogue: a technique based on the art of thinking together--listening and thinking beyond one's position. The primary purpose is to reveal meaning and create an opportunity for learning, shared meaning, and aligned actions.

This resonates with me so much my head hums. I realize this technique can be applied to other challenges than peacemaking-even to antithetical purposes. Yet these techniques call to me.
1. Assume others have pieces of the answer.

Duh! The notion that there's one right answer is scary-wrong. It nay work for debate, and for other situations with winners and losers. But not for the path to a better tomorrow, in which there are just winners.

More to follow.

Peace, y'all

Molly