No further explanation

“What you said hurt me deeply.”
This needs no further explanation.

And yet, in an argument, how often do you bet on ever more explanations?

You disagree with your colleagues from the executive team.
Mails are gearing up.
Arguments build up.
Everyone feels deeply misunderstood.

More explanations follow.
Still no agreement in sight …

The explanations become longer …

More potential for misunderstandings …

When there’s actually not much to explain in the first place: What your colleague said during the partner meeting hurt you deeply.
That’s it.
This needs no explanation.

Actually, long explanations will likely make it worse.

So, instead of widening your argument why not focus it?
Go to a place where you can calm down, collect your thoughts, and focus.
Could be outside, could be in a quiet corner, could be at a café.

When you’re there, figure out:
So, what is it that I actually want to say? What is my point here?

That’s never 30 reasons. It’s often rather one, maybe two. Often even just a feeling.

And then, in your next reply, just make that point.
Say it as simply as possible.
And leave it at that.

Both, my clients and myself have often been amazed by the difference that makes.

What’s your experience?
Have you ever been frustrated with arguments where no one could find agreement, and everyone just kept overexplaining?

The not-so-rational argument

Fact: The glass is half full.
Which is the same as half empty.

The more relevant question is what conclusions do we draw from the fact?

These can be rather different depending on your take regarding half empty or half full, e.g. because they imply a different sense of urgency.

The thing is that arguing rationally based on facts can be just as frustrating as arguing emotionally when we don’t agree on the meaning of the facts. Even more so … because everyone is so deeply convinced that their take is right. After all, the facts prove them right. It really is a factual argument: “But the glass is half empty! You can’t deny that!”

Why then does the other party, based on the facts, arrive at a different conclusion? And how come they are just as convinced of their conclusion?

The problem is that facts are just facts and the argument is not about the facts. It’s about what the facts mean. It’s informed by our experiences and expectations. It’s influenced by our values and principles.

And this means, that it only masks as a rational discussion unless we agree on these things. It’s a rational discussion relative to our values and principles. Only when we agree about these will a rational argument lead to the same conclusion for all participants.

Are you clear about the values that influence the meaning of a fact to you?

Spread the Word

Picture of Dr. Michael Gerharz

Dr. Michael Gerharz