Convergent Realities

These days, I'm looking a lot into the idea of constructivism. In this post, I am going to explain why it's valuable reasoning about this, especially when it comes to understanding and resolving conflicts.

In a nutshell, the idea is the following: There is no one, objective reality. Reality is what we construct around us, on any given day, in any given instant. The answer to the eternal question that everyone starts wondering about at some point, "is your yellow the same as my yellow?" is therefore a clear "No".

That's opposed to the usual mode of thinking of many, who assume that there actually is only one, true reality, and if people disagree, then it's because either them or me have information that others don't have. As we will see later, this view is compatible with constructivism to a certain degree. But let's first poke a couple of holes in it.

Mechanics of Reality Construction

People who succumb to the Confirmation Bias tend to over-value information that fits their expectations, and tend to under-value information that opposes it. In terms of constructivism, Confirmation Bias is a mechanism that supports our ongoing construction of reality. This widely-known bias shows us one mechanism of how we build and sustain our own individual realities - or, if we're aware of this bias, how we're able to change reality.

Reality Construction is very visible in people whose basic needs^[1] are unmet . Everyone who ever was hangry, or dealt with a hangry person before, can probably understand how reality fundamentally changes when you're hungry! The crucial point here is that reality changes for the hungry person. They perceive things differently. Sure, they can, and often do, alter their reality and views again after they have eaten, but what I want to stress here is that if core needs are unmet, a person reconstructs their reality in a negative way. According to a study,^[2] hungry judges are less forgiving than non-hungry judges, which would be a direct outcome of their respective constructed reality.

Patterns of Reality Construction

With that under our belts, it's easier to understand certain behaviour in people. For example, Conspiracy folks construct their reality in a very specific way, and they protect their realities by other patterns of reality construction, for example "Disagreement implies Ignorance".

From the perspective of Reality Construction, things exist only as a construct that we make up, often together as a group, as people, as a society. Here's an example on how boundaries are constructed: When you meet the new partner of your best friend for the first time, is it appropriate to hug them, to high-five them, to shake hands? This boundary between the two of you is something you negotiate on the spot, willingly or not, and then you have constructed that reality. What is important here is: it's perfectly possible to construct the boundary in a way that works for only one of you. For example, you hug the other person, but that person feels it was inappropriate. In that case, you have created the boundaries differently in your respective realities!^[3]

Applying Constructivism to Conflict Resolution

This brings us closer to the question of how to apply this in the context of conflicts. More often than not, advice around resolving conflicts is based on the idea of one "correct" reality, and therefore, the conflict can best be resolved if the person who is "wrong" sees the light, and the best way to make them see is to explain it to them. Often this does not lead to the desired results, because this approach does not acknowledge, or work with, the different realities at play.

The fact that everyone constructs their own reality does not imply that all these realities have to be fundamentally different, and the first step in conflict resolution is that we have to start making our realities converge. No degree of rational explanation will move someone else's reality by one iota if they don't want to - anyone who ever participated in a typical Facebook discussion has experienced this.

Both sides need to open themselves and start with curiosity and compassion, driven by the desire to understand the other person. This openness implies to be careful with judgement and labelling. "You tried to blackmail me!" is a description of the reality we've constructed based on the data we've seen, but in a normal working environment, no one wakes up in the morning deciding "Hey, today I'm gonna emotionally blackmail someone!" A common approach is to structure feedback around the situation in which something occurred, the behaviour you observed and the impact it had: SBI.

This opens dialogue, and with dialogue, our respective realities can converge. And only once our realities are sufficiently similar, conflict resolution can begin.

The Constructivism lens is very helpful in understanding "where the other person is coming from". It also shows why simply "explaining until the other person understands" is often insufficient.

One Reality, Multiple Realities

Let's close one final loop: How is Constructivism now compatible with the idea of the assumption that there is only one reality?

Let me try to illustrate this with an example.
Where I am coming from, the preferred way of greeting someone is a nod. No hug, no handshake, and the generally accepted way of greeting someone you haven't seen in months is a curt nod.

This is wide-spread enough that you might as well call it "one reality". Anyone who moves into this environment will unconsciously learn this, and anyone who moves out has to live with the fact that elsewhere, things are different.
Now let's assume someone moves into that environment who is accustomed to a greeting which involves hugging and kisses on the cheeks? Well, friction, to say the least.

Even though no objective reality exists (there is no universal rule that says nodding is right,^[4] hugging and kisses on the cheek are wrong), for all intents and purposes it does exist in that environment, and that objective reality is: Nodding, not hugging, definitely no kisses.

Conclusion

Understanding where the other person is coming from is a key part in resolving this tension, and this is what this post is all about.

Understanding someone's reality does not mean that we're agreeing with it, or even accept it. In fact, the idea that "Understanding implies Agreement" is another Reality Construction pattern! For example, I can fully understand the reality men are in when they kiss women on the mouth as a way of celebration, but that doesn't make their actions right, or acceptable.

Right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable are, after all, constructs themselves, made up by society and constantly re-negotiated and re-built.

philippflenker.com was last updated .

👾