Positive Sum Conversation Mindset = 1. What did I learn? + 2. How does the other person feel?
/By Duncan Anderson and Lauren Fisher. To see all blogs click here.
Reading time: 7 mins
One Sentence Summary: With the right mindset I believe almost all conversations can be energising (vs draining). Key questions I ask myself at the end of a conversation are 1. “What did I learn?” and 2. “How does the other person feel?”
I find more than half the battle is the mindset each party of a conversation has.
If you both have a ‘positive sum conversation mindset’ then the likelihood of you both learning and both feeling positive about each other at the end is 10x higher.
Win vs Loss
Negative sum = Loss / Loss
Zero sum = Win / Loss
Positive sum = Win / Win
I think the world today is mostly positive sum, but that prior to the industrial revolution it was mostly zero sum.
The standard historical stories are ‘winner / loser’ aka zero sum. Eg if our tribe prevails then we get more of the food roaming around.
Most of primary and secondary education has a ‘zero sum’ bent. Eg 1 debating has a winner and a loser. Eg 2 there is a ranking of people from best to worst in maths class. Not students growing vs themselves.
We owe it to ourselves to have a ‘positive sum’ mindset.
The key elements of a positive sum conversation are how you approach the conversation (“What did I learn?”) and how you try to have someone feel after a conversation (“How does the other person feel?”).
Positive Sum Conversation Mindset = 1. What did I learn + 2. How does the other person feel at the end of the conversation
Negative Sum Conversation Mindset = 1. Did I win the argument + 2. Not concerned with how the other person felt
Goal = Communicate your current view (which is likely different in some way to the others) + Use messaging that helps the other learn something + Listen to the other person’s point of view + Learn something from the other and update your view + They like you more + You like them more.
++++++++++++
Details
1. “What did I learn?” - how you approach a conversation
“The good learn from everyone and everything, the average only from themselves, and the stupid already know everything.” Socrates
Negative sum: Focus on why I’m right and defend anything others say about me being wrong as being wrong is tantamount to being ‘stupid’.
Zero sum: Try to listen to the other party
Positive sum: What can I learn?
IMO not changing your mind when new information comes to light is being an idealogue.
“When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?” - Keynes
“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” - Keynes
“When I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?” - Keynes
Ideas vs Facts
Fact = there is a right and wrong. Eg today is Wednesday. Eg a coffee costs $4.
Ideas = there is no right and wrong, there is just your current best view on the idea (opinion) that can always be upgraded. Eg how to best spend your wednesday. Eg how to best make a coffee.
For more see: Agreeable Disagreement - A Key Life Skill
If you are discussing how to live a good life, what the common good is, what immigration policy should be, how to best improve education, how to help someone level up at people management, what price to charge for a product there likely isn’t a ‘right’ answer.
So what you want to do is hopefully have found new information and have updated your view at the end of the conversation through discussing with the other party.
And… you want to want to discuss with them again so you can further upgrade AND want them to discuss with you again.
Jingle: If your opinion cannot be ‘right’ (ie cannot ever be upgraded), then the only thing you can be right about is being... wrong. Ah haha!
2. “How does the other person feel?” - how you try to have someone feel after a conversation
“They won’t remember what you said, they won’t remember what you did, but they will remember how you made them feel.” Maya Angelou
Negative sum: They like you less. You said your view was ‘right’ and by inference that their view was ‘wrong’... or you just directly said they were wrong!
Zero sum: Neutral, don't like you more or less. You tried to have someone understand your view.
Positive sum: They like you more. You tried to understand their view, you tried to help someone understand your view. Tried to show what you learned and show how your view changed because of this. Tried to help the other change their own mind, eg with socratic questions.
Outcome = 1. Message * 2. Messaging
10 years ago I focused almost exclusively on ‘1. Message’. I was ‘unconscious’ about the importance of ‘2. Messaging’.
Now I try to have more than 50% of effort for a piede of comms (eg written, verbal) be on ‘2. Messaging’.
I’ve found you can mangle your ‘2. Messaging’ to the point where others won’t even listen to your ‘1. Message’.
Likability ≠ Value of input
Likability = Messaging
Agreeable disagreement.
IMO Messaging is more important than Message.
Value = Message.
I think likability can be almost uncorrelated to the value of message.
Jingle: Want someone to listen to your point of view, do it in a likable fashion. Want someone to respect you, update your view when new information presents itself in a reasonable fashion!
How these two key questions are connected
You don’t learn anything from people who agree with you. You don’t normally learn from people you dislike.
Often people want to speak to people who agree with them.
Have you changed your mind about something? Do you look back on your 20 year old self and think you might have had some strongly held views you don’t necessarily agree with today?
“I am not young enough to know everything.” - Oscar Wilde
A serious skill is to be able to have a different view to someone AND have them like you more after a conversation.
Don’t be a d!ck. Be someone who people respect (update your views appropriately) and look forward to speaking to (converse in a positive sum way).
Someone you like says something = Great idea
Someone you don’t like say the exact same thing = Horrible idea
Socratic Questioning helps with both key questions
Socratic Questioning = One strategy to help yourself change your mind
Socratic Questioning = One strategy to help others change their own mind
If you only take away one thing
By considering the two key questions “What did I learn?” and “How does the other person feel?”, you’ll be consciously trying to improve your messaging and message. IMO the fast majority of conversations should not be about trying to be right or wrong, but how you can learn, help the other party learn, and hopefully both want to have another conversation in the future.
10 years ago Duncan didn’t proactively try to think about ‘messaging’, almost all energy was on ‘message’ (eg acquire new information). Now for each piece of communication I try to have a significant component be on messaging. Eg rewriting this blog at least once before it goes out. Having a podcast where I speak and then listening to it specifically focussing just on my messaging.