Rarely in the course of human conflict is there only one side to the story. For that matter, there are rarely only two sides. Most often, there are several 'truths' in the conflict. The fact that many of them contradict one another doesn't make any of them untrue. A biographer, writing about the Wright brothers, believed that they solved the mystery of flight in just three years because they could argue about a theory of flight, then stop, switch positions, and argue with the same passion about the opposite point of view. Neither had to be the one who was right. What if we could have the same flexibility and adaptability when arguing with a loved one? What if we could stop, take their position, and argue it with equal passion?
I encourage people in conflict to name every truth that they can. It's even better if they can name some of the truths more favorable to the other person. This 'multiple truths' approach helps people avoid the awful 'did not, did too' circular arguments that go nowhere. It also respects the complexity of most human conflicts as well as the fact that both parties have some truth that deserves to be honored and respected.
