"I'm right and you are wrong" is the common argument from the impoverished to the well-off, from the dumb to the well-educated, from the simple to the chaotic. We are polarized and egotistical. We stick to our convictions no matter evidence to the contrary. We ask why someone cannot see the solution that is as obvious as the nose on their face. The reason is because we see things from one perspective and they see it from another. Different perspectives change the solution set or possible answers that make it though our filters. Our schemas determine our filters, our filters determine what information gets through, and this information determines our solution set. We believe because this is our solution set that this is everyone's solution set. Because this is all we can see, we believe this is all that exists.
Is it possible for two people to be right about the same thing and yet say different things? The accepted answer is no, only one solution can exist to the problem. But is this true? John Nash, Nobel prize winner for his re-work on Game Theory purposed the Theory of Equilibrium. The Theory of Equilibrium states that the traditional winer-looser mentality is inefficient. He purposed that the best outcome in a game is for both to win. What does this have to do with two people being right about the same thing? Well winning for both would mean that they both must be correct.
Transactional Analysis by psychiatrist Eric Berne M.D. suggests that all life is a series of games, or transactions between people. All day, everyday, in every interaction there is a transaction of information taking place. These transactions follow a set pattern and are more or less programed in early childhood before language develops. These transactional patters are the same in all situations and will follow patterns of winner/looser unless the individual chooses to change their programing. How do you have a win-win?
The answer is to realize that you are both right. Each person has their own solution set to the problem at hand. Often they are right about the outcome from their perspective. But different solutions present different outcomes. Different perspectives creates different truths. Finding a solution means that each listens to what the other is saying and tries to understand things from the other's perspective. Walk a mile in the other's shoes is not just a cliche; it is necessary for finding a win-win solution. A win-win solution means the two collaborate on their information, looking at things from both perspectives, and coming to a common consensus about the appropriate course of action.
A story about finding the win-win.
Alison is 12 year old girl is developmentally delayed with violent behaviour issues. Her grandmother, Abigale, took over rearing Alison 6 years ago and has managed to help her control her self enough to stay in school; but all was not peachy in the home front. Frequent battles of wills ensued particularly as the girl's actions were often destructive. Abigale and her daughter lamented that Alison would never be able to live on her own. They had all kinds of labels to describe Alison's actions as destructive, unkind, uncooperative, and without purpose.
Alison had another aunt named Camron who viewed the girl in a different light. She saw glimmers of intelligence trying to bubble to the surface as Alison fought to carve out an identity for herself. She saw how Alison's attempts to find an identity were destructive, but she viewed them calls of pain and desperation. She knew the girl, if given the appropriate environment, would flourish and her hidden genius would come out. Camron wanted to pull the girl out of public school and home school her. She did not believe in Abigale's labels for the girl; she felt these labels caused the problem. She also believed that some day the girl would be able to not only live on her own but would function as a normal, productive adult, pursuing her dreams. Most of all this aunt believed the girl's identity needed encouragement and she needed to learn conflict resolution and critical thinking. She needed to stop reacting to and instead acting on a situation.
Camron listened to all of Abigale and her daughter's reasons for what they felt Alison needed. She tried to cater her arguments to them and sway them to her side with this information. Through many through such argument presentations about why Alison needed homeschooling, Camron finally convinced Abigale to allow the girl to home school. But this wasn't a victory because it was conditional. When the time came for signing the intent to home school the school district argued that the girl needed to have public education. The aunt did not agree and was quite perturbed. Most of all she felt her opportunity to help the girl was waning.
Camron had to step back and ask what was best for Alison. Camron was tired of all the conflict and, tired of trying to change the girl, and tired of arguing her case for why the girl should home school instead of attending public school. Camron realized that although she did not get what she thought was best for Alison, the girl was getting what was best. Abigale and her daughter listened to all Camron's reasons for not wanting the girl to go back to public school and they used this to firmly establish with the school district how the girl's education should proceed, the rules that needed to be enforced, and what they expected so the girl would not fall through the cracks. They all came together to create something that would be best for Alison and this allowed them see what the girl really needed and to become her advocate.
No comments:
Post a Comment