When explaining becomes defending

Someone says, “I understand what you mean. I still see it differently.”

You explain again.

Perhaps the first explanation was unclear. Perhaps you left something out. But suppose the person can describe your position accurately, including the part you thought they had missed. What is the next explanation trying to accomplish?

There is a difference between wanting to be understood and needing agreement as evidence that you were understood. It can be difficult to notice that difference while speaking.

We may begin by explaining an idea and find ourselves defending our right to have it. The words grow more precise. The conversation becomes less open. The other person now has two things to respond to: what we are saying, and how much seems to depend on their accepting it.

This does not make explanation a mistake. Sometimes the other person has misunderstood. Sometimes they are unwilling to listen. The question is whether we can investigate what is happening before deciding that we already know.

One way to begin is to ask, “What do you hear me saying?” Then listen long enough to discover whether the problem is understanding or disagreement.

Another is to notice the question we have stopped asking. After three explanations, are we still curious about what the other person sees?

In a group, this can become something we examine together. A member can say, “I keep explaining, and I notice that I want you to agree.” Someone else can describe what it has been like to receive the explanations. There is something to work with that was unavailable while both people were arguing about the idea alone.

The next time you feel the need to make your point clearer, you might pause long enough to ask what you need the next sentence to do.