Discovering what is Real
If answers to these basic questions doesn’t lead to shared viewpoints, then a straight-forward strategy might be engaged that helps to address the differences of view point. The first step is to ask a simple question: “what additional data do we need to gather that will resolve our differences. Unfortunately, unlike in many sports we have no “replay cameras” to record what is the “real” state of affairs. However, we do have the capacity to gather new information.
I would suggest that a triangulation strategy can be of great value here. This strategy involves the collection of information using three methods and three sources of information—in this way there will usually be concurrence in the information obtained using two of the methods and two of the sources. Even a method or source that serves as an “outlier” can be of value in seeking to understand and appreciative ways in which a specific event or object can be viewed in different ways.
For instance, two people might hold quite different views regarding the impact which a new housing policy has had on the price of homes in the community where they serve on the city council. Data can be collected from three sources: (1) a sampling of people in the community who have been looking to purchase a home (or have recently purchased a home), (2) a sampling of people in the community who are planning to sell their home (or have already sold it) and (3) a small group of real estate experts or community development consultants who are knowledgeable about the new policy and have diverse opinions about its impact.
Three of the methods that might be used in collecting this data include: (1) personal interviews, (2) group (focus-group) interviews, and (3) gathering of archival information from before and after policy went into effect (e.g. number of home sold, cost of homes sold, and any surveys available regarding seller and buyer satisfaction ratings). Other methods might be used to complete the triangulation—such as direct observation of citizens while they are trying to buy or sell a home, email/digital surveys of citizen attitudes about the new policy, or review of articles written about the new policy (local newspapers, social media postings, etc.).
A Third Perspective
While these multiple methods and multiple sources will tend to yield diverse information—perhaps making the struggle to find consensus that much more difficult—they will also tend to open up both parties to new perspectives on what is “true” and “accurate.” Often, a third perspective is produced which differs from both of the currently debated perspectives – and this perspective is like to be more nuanced and can serve as a valuable guide for refinement in the newly enacted policy.
Unfortunately, in our highly polarized society, this type of thoughtful analysis of differing views regarding information doesn’t always take place. This is a form of “slow thinking” that Daniel Kahneman (2011) would applaud. However, these differences of opinion are often invested with considerable emotion and Kahneman’s “fast thinking” is likely to prevail—with its reliance on outmoded heuristics and a heavy dose of bias, fear and suspicion of the other person’s “true” motives. This being the case, I would suggest that one of three strategies be engaged that all involve a reframing of the information gathering and analyzing process. In some cases, a third party (mediator/facilitator) assists in the engagement of this reframing process.
