The first casualty

It's said that "The first casualty when war comes is truth" - meaning that when a war breaks out between two parties, it is no longer to be taken for granted that the truth about the war and the things happening in its wake is reported objectively. Unfortunately, this is quite predictable when you consider what war is all about - it is hard to justify that the flower of the nation's youth is about to depart in order to kill the same part of the population of another country, if it is accompanied by elaborate stories underlining that on some points, the opponent is not entirely wrong.
This is bad enough. But what's even worse is how the same tendency can be tracked all the way down to very small situations close to us, far away from the borderless consequences of global politics.
Think it over: how many times haven't you experienced two parties, both of which you value highly, who have come on bad terms with each other? Two parties, who - if you get either of them alone face-to-face - are able to relate such different stories about what has happened and the motives of the parties that you cannot help but think: is it really the same basic train of events that is the basis of both of these stories?
And here, it is quite okay to be puzzled. We might not be able to make a difference when nations fall out and beat the drums of war - but on a personal level, where "only" personal interests are basically at stake - shouldn't we become a bit better to use nuances in our expressions? to see the world from the opponent's point of view? To walk a mile in the other party's shoes, so to speak (without falling prey to Jack Handey's ironic statement)?
Of course there are people who have gone so far without thinking like this, that they end up in a situation from which it is difficult to return. But most of us would do ourselves - and other people - a favour, if we were able to accept that the world is not solely black and white. If we became better at understanding matters seen from the side, from which we do not normally see them. And if we were able to have a rational conversation about our differences, with respect for the opponent's reality.
As I read it the other day: "Sometimes, the best we can do is to admit that our opponent has a point."
(Translated from Det første offer, originally published January 21, 2018)

When that man's son becomes dominating

There is a saying that goes something like: to understand one's opponents one must walk a mile in their shoes. Often put a little sarcastically in Jack Handey's words:

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes.

There is actually more truth in Handey's words than you think. It could be so good if you were able to put yourself in your opponent's place, but often, you get no result because you are not able to do it sensibly.
In theory, anyone is able to convince themselves that it is not at all that difficult - but when trying, they will often end up standing firm on their own beliefs, when on the other hand the other party was simply so steep and so insidiously beyond reach that it unfortunately was not possible to reach an understanding.
And anyone is able to make a simple exercise to prove the point. Give a group of people a simple riddle - when I experienced it, the riddle was:

A man stands with a photo in his hand. Another man asks: "Who's the man in the picture?" And the answer goes: "I have neither brothers nor sisters, but that man's father is my father's son." Who's in the picture?

- but there are other riddles that could just as well be used.
Among the people who answer the riddle, you choose one who has answered correctly and one who has given a wrong answer or no answer at all - and then you let the one, who was correct, tell the other what the answer is - until he or she is convinced that it is true.
Soon the one who explains will start using tools from his or her own world of concepts: the mathematician sets up equations, the actor begins to play plays - but only very few will start out from the world of concepts familiar to the one to be convinced. It will become even more interesting if you make two people convince a third - although it may require someone who can part the two "convincers" if they get into a fight, despite the fact that they fully agree - they just start competing to bring their own explanation forward because they think it's the most understandable.
I guess that no-one has said better than the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard in "The point of view for my work as an author" - and that's why the quote will be used and abused wherever people work with coaching:

If one is truly to succeed in leading a person to a specific place, one must first and foremost take care to find him where he is and begin there.
This is the secret in the entire art of helping.
Anyone who cannot do this is himself under a delusion if he thinks he is able to help someone else. In order truly to help someone else, I must understand more than he–but certainly first and foremost understand what he understands.
If I do not do that, then my greater understanding does not help him at all. If I nevertheless want to assert my greater understanding, then it is because I am vain or proud, then basically instead of benefiting him I really want to be admired by him.
But all true helping begins with a humbling.
The helper must first humble himself under the person he wants to help and thereby understand that to help is not to dominate but to serve, that to help is a not to be the most dominating but the most patient, that to help is a willingness for the time being to put up with being in the wrong and not understanding what the other understands.

But oh, how hard it is to show patience in these situations ... And if "that man's father" can be controversial - what will happen then, when the topic is something that really ignites you?
(Translated from Når den mands søn bliver herskesyg, originally published November 21st, 2007)