Consider this scenario: You have a close relationship with a fairly rational person, and you have an important personal issue you need to resolve. How to proceed?
In such cases we’ve learned how different points of view branch from different assumptions (see “Put On Your Emotional Armor“). Therefore, before you even start to discuss the issue with the other party, a way to help improve the odds for agreement is to first review your own position. Dig down to the roots of your beliefs until you reach your baseline assumptions, and then boldly challenge them.
Susan: The issue: Sam never wants to go to the opera, but I always go with him to his ball games. This bugs me.
Susan: My baseline assumption: Fair is fair. If I do something for Sam then he should do something for me.
Challenge: Do you dislike going to the ball games?
Susan: Um, no, they’re kind of fun.
Challenge: Does he insist that you go?
Susan: Um, no.
Challenge: Do you know how much Sam dislikes the opera?
Susan: Um, no. We’ve never discussed it. He just never wants to go. I think he might like it if he went and tried it.
Challenge: Does he object if you go by yourself to the opera?
Susan: Um, no.
Challenge: Are there other activities that you both enjoy doing?
Susan: Yes. We both like hanging out at the beach, and motor biking.
Challenge: Your assumption for fairness seems to be that Sam should do something he doesn’t want to do for you, while you do things for him you like to do. Is your definition of “fair” really fair?
ET Observation: Humans spend a lot of time trying to control others, under the guise of “fairness” or “compromise.” Wouldn’t it be better to apply that energy to seeking activities that are mutually agreeable? After all, there is a whole universe of things to do out there, so why become obsessed about those few that one party doesn’t like?