Some 20-25 years ago as a teenager in School, a teacher once told me and the rest of the class the following metaphor.

Two persons look at a roof top and distinguish a bird sitting at top of the roof. The distance is far so it is difficult to see the details, but one of the persons suddenly says: "what a beautiful peacock!" The other one looks at him bemused and says "that's not a peacock. It's a rooster!"  Then the two persons burst into an argument on this matter which lasts for quite some time.  

What my teacher then told us is something important I think: Sometimes the truth is different for different people, but each version is still a truth. It is important to remember, and respect, that there may be different versions of the truth which are correct in their own way.

I have come to reflect upon the essence of this very often over the years and I feel I would like to write some fine grained aspects of it:

The truth is context dependent and it is not always absolute.

Both persons actually believe themself to be right, and in a fundamental way, they are therefore both correct. In order to understand this perspective it is vital to consider the context. The context in this example is quite complex since you must take into account things like eye sight capability and what the actual conception of what a rooster and a peacock are. Nevertheless, the person with poorer eye sight or perhaps lesser bird knowledge, still perceive his belief according to his own context. That makes it a truth. Valid in a specific context.

Most likely, you are thinking the same thing as I have been thinking for so many years: There is always an actual correct truth to be found. Take mathematics which should be as a good example. There is always a correct answer to a calculation, right? I mean, 1+1 will always be equal 2, don't you think? However: If the context is Boolean logical mathematics, 1+1 is actually equal to … 1. So whatever truth you think you have, someone may pull a rabbit from a habit bringing a completely different context into the picture which will make your established truth completely wrong.

If the two persons go closer to the building they probably will discover that another truth exists. This is actually where the story continues:

The two men found they could not reach an agreement so they decided to walk closer to get a better look. Soon they realized that it was not actually a real bird, but a statue of a bird. More than that, once they got to see the details neither of them could really tell what kind of bird it was the artist had meant to depict. 

Ah! Now we are getting closer to reality I think. Certainly there are better truths that can be found when digging deeper. But very often we find ourselves in a situation where we have to accept a good enough truth. A truth that works for the applicable context. This is a practical truth.

Let us turn our attention in another direction for a while.

Always choose the most important topic in a discussion.

Have you ever found yourself having several discussions going at the same time with someone? Well, unfortunately it occasionally happens to me. Before having reached a consensus from an initial disagreement of opinions, the next disagreement comes up. To make things even worse, the knot to untie the first disagreement depends upon the second disagreement to be settled first. This can continue in an evil spiral of disagreements until you find yourself arguing over 5-6 very different things at the same time. I always hate when I find myself in these discussions since there are too many variables to categorise and sort out. I beilieve that this is one of the obstacles that make discussions such a difficult art. When this happens, there is ususally a call for a time-out in the discussion I think.

But let us turn our focus back to the two persons again. The first person said that it was a beautiful peacock. A bit speculative perhaps, but his main point was probably that it was beautiful, not necessarily that it was a peacock. This would be the main sensation he had and most likely the feeling he wanted to communicate. But by doing so he found himself ending up in a discussion that probably had nothing to do with his original sensation. If the two persons enjoyed the bird discussion and considered it as meaningful, perhaps it was a fruiteful one. However, I think they hit a a side-track and discussed a less prioritised issue. If this is so I think both persons could have given in earlier by saying something like “oh, perhaps you are right”. Then they could have focused on the original and probably more important message: beautiful or not…

Although the story is a vague example on this, I think we often do tend to discuss less meaningful things just because of curiousity or a sheer willingness to be right. Instead, we should focus on the stuff that matters within the important context!

I’ve met some people who loves throwing arguments in a heated discussion and who might even provoke a person in order to get it. I’ve also come across some people who have even lied about their true opinions in a discussion since they wanted to test the opponents’ arguments. This discussion tactic may be a dangerous road to walk. In the end the person often end up confessing that he had not really been arguing with his true mind. If these types of discussions keep reoccuring with the same person, unfortunately my trust fades away. Do you want to spend your time discussing something with someone in whom you have no trust?

So let us get back to a final aspect of truths in a discussion.

Considering someone elses truth is about showing respect and having patience.

With this aspect in mind it becomes a whole lot easier to actually listen to people in a discussion/argument. Quite clearly, the more confident of an opinion we become, the more difficult it is to be open and appreciate different ways or slightly different truths.

I think that listening and appreciating other peoples truths is the most important ingredient in a discussion. You will never truly "win" a discussion if you don't pay the other person respect by giving him proper feedback showing him that you are actually listening and understanding his truth. And by saying paying respect, I dont mean shoveling a line like "yes, perhaps you are right, but..." and then quickly head on to your main point. That's nothing!

I would dare to say that showing that you listen to someone is a very physical thing. People who are good at this highlight this attention using their whole body. We normal mortals mostly have to stick to the use of our eyes. Your interest and intention should very clearly be shown when you meet the other persons eyes. A bit of a magic trick to that wordless communication phenomena, but eye contact communication does actually work in this sense. That is how you are showing your interest in his version of his truth. Not by opening your mouth quickly and say something stupid like "yes, but"...

I also think it is best if this effort is sincere and not just a plan to get your own point across. Be open to that you both have a version of the truth (or even that you can be wrong) and you will both probably gain a better understanding of a deeper truth in the end.

I firmly believe this is the key to successful communication and I am constantly trying to become better at it myself. It is not easy in the heat of the moment in a discussion. And I must admit I sometimes fail due to lack of patience... But, hey, the road to perfection is a long and fun one to walk!