You’ve reached the Sharoll Sinani Studio. I am Sharoll Fernandez Sinani. Keeper of the Heart Portal where poetry, pulses, ancestors, whisper and though dialogue alchemizes into luminous love. Take a breath step through. Let’s create.

We gather around tables in living rooms and cafeterias or on social media feeds, places meant for sharing for communion. Yet all too often these spaces become battlefields when our differences collide. Maybe you felt it at a family dinner, a throwaway comment turns into a heated exchange. Voices rising along with pulses and no one leaves the table happy.

Or perhaps at work you’ve witnessed disagreements that felt like landmines, one misstep, and you are in the middle of an explosive confrontation. But what if disagreements didn’t have to end in anger, shame, or silence? What if conflict itself could be door? To reach your dialogue, deeper connection, and a shared discovery of truth.

That’s the question we explore today. What is constructive disagreement and how can it transform our relationships? And communities. I’m Sharoll Sinani, poet educator, and your guide on this journey through memory, art, and the practice of holding tension without letting it tear us apart. In the next half hour or so, we’ll unpack the science behind why our disagreements soft often derail, and we learn a practical framework that can turn even the most uncomfortable conflicts into moments of growth.

Take a breath, and let’s begin. Let me first share a short reflection I wrote while pondering conflict in art On a canvas I splash red against blue. They clash two bold colors fighting for space. At first it’s chaotic, harsh on the eye, but then. With each brush stroke, I notice something. The red and blue don’t destroy each other.

They carve out an unexpected synergy forming a deeper, richer hue at the edges where they met. Tension becomes beauty if I let it. If I refuse to let one color dominate, if I find ways for both to exist in the painting story. Nuanced dancing. I think of that whenever I see people clashing, whether it’s over politics or family matters, we are afraid that disagreement means an end to harmony, but in nature and in art, forces often collide to create something new.

It’s the friction that sparks innovation.

In our first episode, we introduced the why behind this podcast, exploring memory, disagreement, and transformation, especially in the aftermath of painful events like Senkata. Last time we talked about the weight of stories and how acknowledging our histories can help us see each other’s humanity. Today we’re pulling closer to the heart of what can either unite us or break us apart.

The art of disagreement that excerpt from my journal is a reminder. Tension doesn’t always have to be distructive. In fact, it can be deeply creative if approached with care. Today we’re going to unpack the idea of constructive disagreement. What it means, why it matters, and how to practice it in everyday life.

The challenge of disagreement. Before we talk about how to disagree constructively, let’s face the reality of why we so often fail at it. At the broad societal level, polarization feels like it’s at an all time high. A recent peer research study found that over 70% of Republicans consider Democrats immoral, and about 63% of Democrats say the same about Republicans.

In other words, we are not just seeing each other as wrong or misguided. We are seeing each other as bad people. Once we start thinking in terms of good versus evil, dialogue becomes almost impossible. On a more personal level, consider how we react when our beliefs are challenged. I know I’ve felt my throat tightened, my face warm, and the immediate urge to defend myself or prove the other person wrong this reflects is

deeply human psychologists call it deffensiveness. And um, the relationship expert John Gottman labels defensiveness as one of the four horsemen that can predict the breakdown of marriages and friendships alike. When we feel attacked, we don’t see an opportunity to learn. We see a threat to our identity.

Here’s the tricky part. Once we feel threatened, our brain switches into fight or flight mode. We either ramp up the argument searching for that perfect comeback or that data point to shut the other person down, or we withdraw completely fine. Believe what you want, we say and storm out of the room or close the chat window.

In both cases, the conversation ends. Growth ends any chance of building, mutual understanding is lost. This isn’t just a matter of willpower or politeness. Research and motivated reasoning explains that our minds filter new information through the lens of what we already believe, especially on issues that tie deeply to our sense of identity.

So. If I believe wholeheartedly in a particular political stance and someone shows me data suggesting I’m misinformed, my brain might twist itself into not to dismiss or reinterpret that data so I can stay aligned with my original belief. Sometimes presenting contradictory facts even intensifies the other person’s stance.

A phenomenon called the backfire effect. In experiments where participants read news articles that corrected false claims like weapons of mass destructions were found in Iraq. Those who strongly believed the original claim often walked away more sure of it than before. Why? Because confronting them with an opposing fact felt threatening to their worldview.

And they defended themselves by doubling down. All these defensive reactions point to a missing element. Emotional safety. Emotional safety means trusting that the other person isn’t out to humiliate you or trample your dignity, even if they disagree with you. When we feel safe, we are more willing to explore new ideas or admit I might be wrong.

Or say, tell me more about how you see this. Without safety conversation devolves into survival mode In intimate relationships, research consistently shows that partners who create an atmosphere of safety, listening, first, acknowledging feelings, navigate disagreements more effectively. The same principle holds for communities, workplaces, and broader societal debates.

If people feel heard and respected, tension can become a constructive force. But how do we create that sense of safety? Let’s explore one approach from Harvard researcher. Julia Minson,

Julia Minson studies the psychology of disagreement and conversational receptiveness. She asked a vital question, does disagreement have to be divisive? Through extensive research, she found that how we speak to each other during a disagreement can significantly shift the outcome. From an acronimous standoff to a respectful exploration, she and her team developed a tool called hear, HEAR framework.

Hedge your claims, emphasize agreement, acknowledge the other perspective, reframe the positive. Let’s unpack each piece more deeply. H Hedge your claim. When we speak in absolutes, you always do this. That’s completely wrong. This is the only correct view. We essentially slammed the door on dialogue. Absolute language concerns the other person, they either have to agree or fight back.

Instead, Minson recommends hedging using a language that holds a space for new ones. Examples of hedging. I wonder if there’s another angle here. It seems like most of the time, but maybe not always, could it be that the goal isn’t to water down your stance, you can still have a strong opinion. Just deliver it with words that show you are open to complexity.

Think of it like painting with suffer brush strokes, allowing your subtil variations of color rather than painting in stark black and white. Research shows that when people hear hedged language, they are less likely to feel attacked and more willing to engage. E emphasize agreement.

This agreement tends to magnify the ways we defer. We forget that we might still share important values or goals. Emphasizing agreement doesn’t mean pretending to agree on the main point. If you’re truly don’t, it means acknowledging any common ground you can find. Perhaps you both care about safety or fairness, or the wellbeing of your community.

As an example, I agree with you that finding a solution quickly is important, or we both really want our children to feel secure and loved. When you highlight these shared values, you gently remind both parties, Hey, we’re not total adversaries. We have some things in common. Psychologically, this helps lower the defenses and opens a path.

To construct a conversation, a acknowledge the other perspective, active listening 1 0 1. You show someone, you hear them by restating their perspective fairly and accurately, but we often skip or rush this step. We are so busy formulating our next point that we hardly pause to confirm we understand them.

Yet As Minson’s work and many negotiation experts emphasize if someone doesn’t feel heard, they typically won’t listen to us in return. So tips for true acknowledgement, summarize their main point. In plain language, you are saying you feel X because Y happened. Or ask clarifying questions. Did I capture what you meant?

Or sincerely reflect any emotion they may be expressing. You’ll be amazed how quickly tension can subside when people hear you say, so, if I understand correctly, you believe X because Y, and it matters to you because Z, they often respond with relief. Yes, that’s exactly it. Or they might tweak your summary, but either way they see you are trying.

This step is like offering a handshake in a heated room. It’s a gesture of respect. R reframe to the positive finally Minson and recommends shifting from negative or blocking language. No, never. You can’t. That’s impossible to constructive. Forward looking statements, think of it as turning. We shouldn’t do that into, I’d like to find a solution that accomplishes both of our goals.

The difference may seem small, but words are powerful. Negative statements ring as final and closed. Positive reframes. Invite exploration examples. Um, instead of, you are wrong. We can’t spend money on that. Say, I’m worried about our limited budget. Can we find an option that delivers real benefit within our price range?

Or instead of, this is a dead end, say we might need to rethink our approach. Let’s see what alternatives are out there. Reframing doesn’t mean avoiding tough truths or real concerns. It means presenting them in a spirit of possibility rather than doom. Mm. Now does it really work? So that’s HEAR hear. But do this shifts in language?

Genuinely change outcomes Minson’s research suggests yes. In controlled experiments, even brief trainings on these techniques let participants to rate their discussion partners as more trustworthy and intelligent, even if they still disagreed on the topic. Moreover, using the hear framework can become contagious.

When one speaker employs calm, open, and positive language, the other often responds in kind. Think of it like introducing a gentle melody in a duet. It’s harder for your duet partner to keep playing a jarring clash in tune when your melody is genuinely inviting them to harmonize. Of course, there is no guarantee.

Some people simply don’t want dialogue. They want to argue, but using hear, HEAR ensures you don’t add unnecessary fuel to the fire. You maintain your own integrity and kindness, and often you plant a seed that might grow later. Over time, more of us practicing constructive disagreement can shift broader cultural norms.

We begin modeling that conflict doesn’t have to be a war.

Let me illustrate with a recent experience. A year ago, I sat at my own big wooden table for a family dinner. That was supposed to be a joyful reunion, but a casual remark about social issues spiraled into tense standoff between my cousin and me. We love each other dearly. But we occupy different political spectrums, and I felt like we were speaking different languages.

My cousin slammed his hand on the table. That’s ridiculous. People should just follow the rules. They shouldn’t get a free pass. I felt my chest tighten thinking he’s so insensitive. My instinct was to snap back. You have no idea what you’re talking about. The entire table braised for an explosion.

Normally, that’s what would have happened, but I remember something I read about the. HEAR hear framework. So I paused, literally took a breath and tried to hedge instead of, you’re a hundred percent wrong. I said, I wonder if there’s a way to see this from another angle. Like not everyone has the same starting point.

Sometimes the rules themselves might be unevenly enforced. I heard him exhale. He didn’t look as combative. Then I emphasized agreement. I can tell we both care about fairness. We just have different ideas of how to get there. He softened a bit Nodding. Yeah. Fairness is key, but you can just let people break rules.

Next, I acknowledged I hear that you are worried about people exploiting the system and you want to protect everyone who follows the rules. Is that right? He said Exactly. I don’t want to see cheaters rewarded. Finally, I try to reframe how about we think of solutions that keep a sense of fairness, but also consider when some groups face extra barriers.

Maybe there’s a middle ground that respects rules and makes them more equitable. Mind you, we didn’t solve the entire world’s problems at that table, but guess what? The conversation didn’t explode. I stayed respectful. Other family members chimmed in with their re. With their perspectives instead of picking sides, and by the end of it, we were passing dessert around rather than pointedly ignoring each other.

My cousin even said, I appreciate you hearing me out, which was not something I expected that felt like a small but real victory it proved that we could talk about difficult issues without fracturing our bond. Now we are going to try to put together research and humanity constructive disagreement as these stories and studies show is about staying engaged and empathetic, even when the topic is tough, it’s about believing that tension doesn’t have to push us apart.

It can actually sharpen our perspectives and deepen our respect for each other. This is what some conflict resolution experts call conflict literacy. Just like learning to read words, we can learn to read the signals in an argument, the emotional cues, the triggers, the shared values beneath the differences, and respond wisely rather than react impulsively.

There is a strong parallel here to how we engaged with art. Think of an abstract painting that challenges your sense of balance or comfort. At first glance, you might reject it, but if you lean in and explore it, noticing the shapes, the hidden layers, you might come away seeing something you hadn’t noticed before.

Constructive disagreement is that leaning in, being curious, looking for nuance. And not rushing to label the piece wrong or ugly. We give ourselves a space to be transformed by the encounter. So how do we practice HEAR hear in real life conflicts? Let’s break it down into actionable steps. Before speaking, ground yourself.

Take a breath. Check in with your body. Notice if your heart is racing or if your fists are clenched. A moment of self-awareness can prevent a knee jerk reaction. H hedge. Try small linguistic cues like, I might be missing something, but, or in my experience, or, it appears that this signals you’re open to hearing a different perspective.

Then e emphasize agreement, actively look for shared values, even if it’s just we both care about justice or we both want to help the community thrive. State it plainly. I love that we both want the best for our neighborhood a acknowledge their perspective. Summarize or rephrase You feel X because of y. Check your accuracy.

Is that right? A moment of true acknowledgement can diffuse hostility and then r reframe to the positive. Turn a no statement into a how my we statement. If you must highlight a concern, do it in a way that invitees problem solving, I’m worried about X. Any ideas how we can address that without losing y?

And keep your tone calm and genuine hear. HEAR only works if it’s not used as a manipulative tactic, but as a sincere effort to connect people. Sense authenticity This week, try a small experiment. Pick a low stakes disagreement, maybe about which restaurant to choose, or which TV show to watch unconsciously apply hear, HEAR.

Notice how the conversation changes. Then if you’re feeling brave, try it in a more charged setting. But remember to keep your language kind. Unmeasured, let’s gather the threats we’ve created today. One disagreement is natural. In fact, it can be a catalyst for learning and collaboration when we respect each other’s humanity.

Two, polarization and defensiveness often block us from real dialogue. Our brains want to protect us, but that same instinct can shut down. Curiosity. Three. Emotional safety is the soil in which constructive conversations grow. Without it, we are essentially yelling into a void. Four HEAR hear is a powerful tool to nurture, that safety, hedge emphasize agreement, acknowledge the other perspective, and reframe to the positive.

At its core, constructive disagreement is a practice in empathy, humility, and courage. The poet in me sees it as a dance of voices, a willingness to step in sync, even if for a moment with someone whose rhythm feels foreign. The educator in me sees it as a skill set that we can learn and improve at any age, and the human in me believes it’s essential if we want to heal divides, whether they are personal wounds or communal rifts caused by violence and injustice.

Next episode, we’ll move deeper into how art and ritual can help us process shared trauma. Looking specifically at how we honor painful stories like Senkata without letting them reap us apart, we’ll speak about memorials, poems, and the role of communal storytelling in bridging heartbreak and forging a path forward.

If you ever wonder how creativity might be a tool for justice and reconciliation, I invite you to stay tuned

until then reflect on a recent disagreement in your life. How might it have played out differently if you had used hear? Could you revisit that conversation with fresh eyes or maybe prepare differently for the next time it arises?

I am Sharoll Sinani thanking you for listening with an open heart. Maybe we all learn to talk with each other rather than at each other and discover that disagreement approached gently. Can be a spark for genuine connection.

Thank you for journeying Inside the Heart Portal. If these converging voices steered you, follow, review and pass the echo on. Until next time, keep shaping memory into fearless presence and communal art.