Jesse Lyn Stoner on Resolving the Roots of Disagreement

"Most disagreements are due to differing interpretations of the facts. For example, John's glass vase was broken when Carlos dropped it. This is an objective fact - an event that occurred. John is angry because he believes Carlos did it on purpose. John's interpretation of the event (that Carlos did it on purpose) is what creates meaning and emotion. If Carlos says it was an accident and John believes him, then John's interpretation will change and so might his anger.

"However, if John believes Carlos dropped the glass vase on purpose, and Carlos says he never touched the vase, then it's not an issue of different interpretations - they are in disagreement on the facts themselves. And their conversation must focus first on agreeing on the facts.

"What happens if instead of clarifying the facts, John tells his friends that Carlos dropped the vase on purpose? If John's friends simply believe him without verifying the facts, they may have accepted false information as fact. At this point, things get very complicated and almost impossible to resolve."

In a recent commentary, Jesse Lyn Stoner, founder of Seapoint Center, reflected on some of the ways one may use critical thinking and draw his/her own conclusions based on facts he/she has verified.

To access Ms. Stoner's complete post, please visit: 

Seapoint Center: How to Resolve the Roots of Disagreement