How to Talk with Anyone about Anything, page 6
Assuring emotionally availability: Often, we are physically present but emotionally absent or mentally distracted. An appointment allows the listener to be fully available and present in the here and now without competing distractions.
When the appointment time is agreed upon, we encourage both the speaker and the listener to make eye contact and take three deep breaths in sync.
Eye contact contributes to the quality of the exchange of words. This is important because the brain interprets the size of others’ pupils. When the brain sees large pupils, it interprets the other as “open” and “safe” and relaxes its defenses. If their pupils are small, the brain interprets them as “closed” and “dangerous,” which activates their defenses.1
Open pupils facilitate sharing vulnerable feelings and thoughts; small pupils call for caution and monitored sharing. If both the speaker and the listener make eye contact and breathe in sync, their brains will be flooded with oxygen, which will enlarge their pupils and lower their blood pressure. Both people then begin to feel safer, and the words they exchange will contribute to connecting rather than polarizing.
Step One: Mirroring
Now that the setup is complete, you can proceed to the first step of SC Dialogue, which is mirroring—the act of accurately reflecting back the content, tone, and intensity of the speaker’s message with as much thoughtfulness and sensitivity as possible and without adding to or emphasizing anything. The listener can either use “word for word” or a paraphrase of what the speaker said. It’s the speaker’s choice. The listener should mirror in the way the speaker feels most heard.
Mirroring requires not only that the listener practice the skill of word-for-word reflection or paraphrasing, but also that both the speaker and the listener take on a special attitude, one characterized by intentionality and goodwill. This is harder than it sounds. It requires mirroring messages that might, to the listener, seem unimportant, illogical, or otherwise at odds with the listener’s perspective, triggering their objection to difference.
What many of us have never experienced, yet long for, is to see our own being reflected in the eyes of another. Hearing your own message mirrored back to you accurately and completely, with all its emotional overtones included, gives you the impression that the listener is really there and hearing what you’re saying.
By mirroring each other, the speaker receives the message that they are inherently worthy, valuable, and lovable. That’s what we all want: to be seen and heard and valued.
Mirroring is simple, but it’s not easy—especially when partners are discussing emotional topics. Let’s return to Joe and Charlie, who we started with at the beginning of this chapter.
Lifelong friends since grade school, Joe and Charlie found themselves on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Historically, this was never an issue in their friendship as they frequently took playful jabs at each other, such as “Commie liberal” and “racist white dude.” But those jokes began waning as the political differences became more pronounced and belligerent in the public arena. For a while, Joe and Charlie would just “not go there.” Until they did.
Joe: I think the candidate you’re backing is a moron who will destroy our country.
Charlie: Well, I think you’re a moron, and the candidate you’re backing isn’t fit to lead a one-man garbage crew.
Joe: You’re an idiot!
Charlie: And you’re really, really stupid!
At this point, the possibility of negative escalation leading to the end of a lifelong friendship was real. Both made the Space-Between a zone of negativity with personal attacks, something from which it is hard to recover. Now let’s demonstrate how a reactive monologue can get short-circuited by a single brilliantly timed instance of mirroring.
What if, instead of responding to Joe’s comment, Charlie mirrored him?
Joe: I think the candidate you’re backing is a moron who will destroy our country.
Charlie: If I heard you correctly, you think the candidate I’m backing is a moron who will destroy our country. Did I get that?
How do you think Joe would respond to Charlie’s mirroring? Most likely, after closing his mouth that was agape with shock, Joe would move into a less defensive response with something like this: “Yes, you got that! Sorry, that was a bit attacking. I know we have differing views on this. And I really do value your opinion. Are you available to discuss this further over coffee?”
Mirroring is the calming response that turns down the heat of anger.
FINE-TUNING THE MIRRORING
Along with repeating the cycle of sending, receiving, and mirroring, SC Dialogue includes more subtle substeps that help to enhance the impact of mirroring, which ultimately strengthens the dialogue. These include invitation statements made by the listener after mirroring, such as: Did I get it? and Did I hear you accurately?
This sentence stem is called an “accuracy check.” Since our brains so easily fall prey to our own inner chatter, this accuracy check increases our ability to focus on each other. For many people, when they start the SC Dialogue process, they discover that they are not very good listeners. The accuracy check ensures the message heard was indeed the message sent.
After the accuracy check, another powerful follow-up is to become curious, using the following sentence stem: Is there more about that?
This question conveys that the listener is not only listening but is also curious about what the other person is experiencing and wants to hear more. This curiosity also deepens the speaker’s sense of safety in the conversation. That sense of safety invites the speaker to express more and to go deeper. This is the golden mean of SC Dialogue. Simultaneously, the listener benefits from hearing more because they gain additional information to better understand the speaker’s viewpoint.
After there is “no more,” and after the accuracy check, the listener can offer a paraphrased summary of everything they heard. The sentence stem goes like this: Let me see if I got everything you said. If I did, you said ___________________. Did I get it all?
SC Dialogue Step 1: Mirroring
After the speaker speaks, the listener:
Mirrors: “If I got that, you are saying . . .” or “You are saying that . . .”
Checks on the accuracy of the mirroring: “Did I get it?”
Expresses curiosity by asking: “Is there more about that?”
Summarizes the speaker’s entire message: “If I got all of that, you said . . .”
Checks for accuracy again: “Did I get it all?”
THE CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF MIRRORING
In some dialogues, the listener may have difficulty understanding the speaker’s message. There are at least a couple of reasons why this might happen:
The listener has not received enough information to understand the speaker’s perspective, and they cannot mirror what they do not yet understand.
The listener is having difficulty putting aside their own thoughts and feelings enough to make a clear space to understand the speaker’s message.
In either case, the solution is the same: the speaker needs to say more, with the listener continuing to mirror, until the speaker’s message is clear to the listener—enough so that they can accurately mirror the speaker’s words.
Although it may seem simple, hearing and repeating back accurately—without distortion or additions—can be very challenging for partners. It’s a muscle that is weak for most of us and can be a mentally and emotionally demanding task. Mirroring is training for quieting the inner mind (that is, reactivity) and hearing the pure voice of another. Mirroring requires a lot from the listener, including:
focused attention and concentration,
emotional availability and attunement,
suspending criticism and judgment while engaging their curiosity,
the willingness to temporarily suspend their own perspective to fully consider the viewpoint of their partner,
accepting the fact that their partner experiences some things differently than them, and
the ability to regulate their own emotional reactions and responses, both verbal and nonverbal, until it’s their turn to speak.
Mirroring is also difficult because it is extremely hard—if not impossible—to give to another what we rarely receive. But we can learn how to. We have witnessed the profound effect of the simple act of mirroring on both the speaker and the listener. We have seen people who have never experienced what it feels like to be listened to so deeply break down in tears because they felt so profoundly moved by the experience. A phrase we often say is, “Without an echo, the voice dies.”
Mirroring satisfies part of the human longing to experience being seen, heard, and valued, and connecting with others. At any age, when one person mirrors another, it communicates, “You matter. I care enough to listen to you, to really get you.” It also sends a message: “I am no longer the sole person in the universe. I am acknowledging your separate existence. Your thoughts are important to me.”
Step Two: Validation
Validation is the second step of an SC Dialogue. Validation is when we make somebody feel valued as a person or acknowledge that their ideas or opinions are worthwhile. Very simply, it sends a message from the listener to the speaker: “You make sense.”
Validation requires listeners to suspend their personal truths for a moment and to see the speaker’s version of the truth. This does not mean you have to agree or surrender your own viewpoint. It simply means that two versions of truth can occupy the same space.
In our experience, validation seems to be the most demanding step of our SC Dialogue process for many people. Yet it may be the most important step of all, and here’s why: being validated—receiving the explicit message that what we are experiencing makes sense to another—is precisely the opposite of what many of us experience much of the time.
Too many of us, especially when it comes to hot-topic issues, are afraid that if we see the sense in another’s experience, it means we are giving up our own opinion. How often have you heard one person say to another, “You’re crazy!” or “You shouldn’t feel that way,” or “That makes no sense”?
If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of an invalidating statement, how did it make you feel? Did it encourage you to share more of your thoughts and feelings and continue engaging in conversations? Or did it cause you to withdraw, retreat, and shut down?
We all have unique perceptions of what is true. Pure agreement isn’t possible given that we are all different and unique in so many ways. Validation prepares us to see others’ perceptions as equal to our own.
With validation, we enter our dialogue partner’s mental sanctum to see what lies within and to articulate to the other person two things: 1) that their experience makes sense to us (“What you’re saying makes sense”), and 2) why it makes sense to us (“What makes sense about it is ________”).
Let’s revisit Joe and Charlie’s conversation about why they support their candidates. Charlie and Joe meet over coffee. After the setup process (asking for an appointment, making eye contact, and taking three deep breaths in sync), and before starting the topic at hand, the speaker sends an appreciation to the listener, which primes the Space-Between with safety.
Charlie: I really value our friendship. We’ve been through a lot together and I consider you my best friend.
Now the listener simply mirrors, checks for accuracy, and shows gratitude for the appreciation.
Joe: If I hear you correctly, you really appreciate our friendship. We’ve been through a lot together, and you consider me your best friend. Did I get that?
Charlie: Yes, you got that.
Joe: Thank you for sharing that appreciation with me.
Charlie then begins to share why he supports a particular candidate using “I” statements, devoid of any shame, blame, or criticism. After sharing his appreciation, Joe invites Charlie to share why he supports a particular candidate using “I” messages, devoid of any shame, blame, or criticism.
Charlie: One reason why I support this particular candidate is because I feel he will address the illegal immigration problem in this country.
Note: Charlie uses “I” messages and expresses his opinion without knocking down Joe or the political opponent. He also picks only one topic—illegal immigration.
Joe: Let me see if I got that. You support this candidate because you are concerned about illegal immigration and feel that your candidate will address this concern. Did I get that?
Charlie: Yes, you got that.
Joe: Is there more about that?
Charlie: Yes, there’s more. My candidate has been really vocal about the issue and, if elected, would make it his priority in his first hundred days in office. And I’m concerned about illegal immigration. It’s not that I don’t sympathize with people looking for a better life. But I fear an economic drain on our country. I mean, we can’t even take care of our own citizens.
Joe would continue mirroring, checking for accuracy, and asking for more. Often, another sentence stem that helps move speakers during the mirroring phase is, “That feeling of ________ reminds me of ________.”
When emotions are intense and repetitive, there is often an underlying memory connected to the experience. Bringing up a memory may not be appropriate for certain situations, such as in a meeting among board members. But with friends or partners, it fast-tracks understanding the sense and emotions underneath the experience.
Charlie: This fear of an economic drain in our country reminds me of growing up with financial insecurity, never knowing if we were going to be forced to move again or if the electricity was going to be turned off.
The mirroring, accuracy check, and asking for more continues until there is “no more” about this topic. Next, Joe summarizes Charlie’s message before moving into the validation step.
Joe: Let me see if I got everything you’re saying. One reason you support your candidate is because you feel he has a strong stance on illegal immigration. And one reason you’re really concerned about immigration is because you feel it drains our country’s economic resources. It’s not that you’re unsympathetic about the plight of others who are less fortunate. But you feel that our country can’t even take care of its own citizens. And that fear of being an economic drain on our country reminds you of growing up with financial insecurity and never knowing if your family was going to have to move again or if the electricity was going to be turned off. Did I get that? Is that a good summary?
Charlie: Yeah, that’s it. You got it.
Now Joe makes a validation statement.
Joe: Well, that makes a lot of sense, Charlie. It makes sense that you worry about illegal immigration being a strain on our economy—especially when you see that our country can’t even support its own citizens properly. And it would make sense that the fear around finances would remind you of growing up with financial insecurity. And it makes sense that you would see your candidate as strong to work with Congress to address this crisis given his vocal views on the subject. Did I get that right?
Charlie: Yeah, that really hits the bullseye! And I never connected that fear of financial insecurity with my past.
Validation truly is a gift from the listener to the speaker. The experience of validation begins the process of reversing the messages we received throughout our lifetime (from parents, teachers, employers, friends, strangers) that culminated in the impression that we were wrong to feel what we felt or to want what we wanted. But validation is just as much a gift for the one giving it as it is for the listener.
SC Dialogue Step 2: Validation
After the speaker confirms the accuracy of the listener’s summary, the listener makes a validation statement:
“What you’re saying makes sense to me, and what makes sense about it is . . .”
“You make sense. I can see that you think _____________ because ______________.”
THE CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF VALIDATION
Validating the other person in a conversation can be the most demanding step of SC Dialogue. Most of us are so ingrained in the belief that “the world is the way I see it!” that we cannot imagine, much less accept, that another point of view is as valid as our own. It is connected to our fear of the loss of self—If I agree with you and it stands against my truth, then perhaps I don’t exist or I am not valid.
But again, validation is not agreement. The goal is to help you and the other person discover what distinguishes you from each other and to accept difference without judgment, since difference is reality. The goal is to see another person as they are, not as you wish them to be.
If a listener is unable to see the sense of the speaker’s perspective, we encourage them to stay in the process and continue asking for more information. It is also why we encourage people to start with simple, noncontentious topics to practice so that the listening and containment muscles grow stronger.
The feeling of validation reverses the negative messages we tell ourselves based on past experiences that left us with the impression that we were wrong to feel what we felt, wrong to want what we wanted, or wrong to think what we thought.
On the other hand, validation is also a gift for the one providing it. The validator is freed to express curiosity about a world they may have never known and is invited to relinquish the belief that there is only one right way to see things. Validation also sets the stage for the last step of an SC Dialogue: empathy.
Step Three: Empathy
Mirroring aims to accurately reflect the content of the speaker’s message. Validating is about seeing and understanding the “truth” of the speaker’s experience. The third step of the SC Dialogue, empathy, is an exercise in experiencing how others feel, walking a mile in their moccasins, imagining what their world feels like in their experience. Empathy is being attuned to the emotions the other person is experiencing or, if the emotions are not overt, listening for feelings guiding their words.
Typically, empathy comes immediately after validation. To illustrate, let us briefly return once again to friends Joe and Charlie.
