How to deal with having different values

The 2020 US election results are a sobering reminder: We share this country, our community, and sometimes our family, with others who simply do not share our values. 

Given that values are often deeply engrained in emotions, expecting others to change is a waste of time. "They" are just as likely to give up on their convictions as "we" are. 

The easiest thing, then, is to write the relationship off and move on, right?

This might be a valid strategy for acquaintances, colleagues, or remote family members we don't see very often. For friendships, partners, and close family, it's much more difficult. If we're very lucky, we can get to a point where we agree to disagree, while maintaining the relationship (mostly) intact. 

From my own Catalyst (ENFJ) perspective, here are some thoughts on bridging our value-divide. 

A few years ago, I met a guy at a bar. He was a Christian from India. I forget what he did for a living, but he came from money. He quoted stories from the Bible and talked about how they influenced his life. He also told me how when his father got sick, he procured a liver for him on the black market. He didn’t know where it came from, or how it got there, he just paid the $60,000 (I think) to save his father’s life, because that’s what good sons do. 

When I told him I was agnostic, he said: “oh, I don’t trust agnostics. They have no reason to be good, because they don’t believe in heaven and hell,” or words to that effect. 

“You’re right,” I replied. “I don’t need a reason to be good, I just try to do what’s right for its own sake.” 

One quick conversation, and we both had judgments about the person in front of us. One label, and we made up a whole story about their character. But were we right? 

Taking a breath to consider the context, when jumping to conclusions is so much easier

I grew up working class Lutheran Protestant (you may know Martin Luther from his 95 theses), so my understanding of Christianity does not include buying your way into a better life. On the contrary. 

Based on his background, his definition of agnostic was probably something like 'hedonism' at best, or 'dangerously lawless' at worst. 

Considering even this minimal background, might explain why we made those judgments: they’re rooted in the way we were raised. I can see how he got to his position, and I don't blame him: it's what he learned. 

Because we were strangers, there was no reason or motivation to get to the bottom of who would benefit more from broadening their horizons. We parted amicably and he said he’d pray for me, which I appreciated. These were the Obama years, and our opposing views hadn’t yet become synonymous with complete and utter contempt for anyone outside our own bubbles. 

But you and I are talking about your close relationships now. The divides are wider, the positions hardened, so let’s look at a couple of strategies. 

Type patterns have values that help meet their inherent needs

Catalyst Types (xNFx) value ethics, morality, authenticity, unity. They generally view the world as the starting point for an ideal that can be realized through personal growth and development. 
Theorist Types (xNTx) value concepts, ideas, progress, logical consistency. They generally view the world as a system that can be understood, and look for universal truths to create useful frameworks. 
Stabilizer Types (xSxJ) value roles, rules, continuity, usefulness. They generally view the world as a place to preserve, where they gladly serve to maintain institutions and establish predictable standards. 
Improviser Types (xSxP) value excitement, stimulation, aesthetics, variety. They generally view the world as a place to experience and explore, where they adapt to whatever happens and make an impact. 

Not sure what your Pattern is?

Take Our Quiz

Knowing that these patterns are represented in voters of both parties, we have to be even more curious about how we define and express those values. There's the matter of how we were raised (e.g. our parents' cultural background), the social group we interact with most often (e.g. our peers), and the current information we consume to form our opinions (e.g. our news sources). 

• If your partner/family member has a different pattern than you, do the Type insights help you understand their position?

• You don’t have to agree with them, but looking into their past and current context, can you begin to see the context of how they arrived at their position?

• If your partner/family member has a different pattern than you, how can you use Type insights and contextual information to convey your values using non-judgmental language?

Bridges are built one brick at a time, and it may take a while until you have something solid. Sometimes, the willingness to listen is the only thing you can offer, and that's ok. You get to set your own boundaries. 

Dealing with value differences

1. Ignore 

When they bring up policies you disagree with, you politely and firmly say something along the lines of, “you know we disagree on these points, so I’d rather not discuss them” and move on to a common topic. 

Works best when: they are second- or third-tier friends/acquaintances, i.e. you’re not very close, or family members you don’t see very often. 

Advantages: if you’re conflict-avoidant, you may be able to maintain the relationship under these conditions until circumstances change. 

Limitations: two partners having a fundamentally different world view is difficult to ignore in close relationships.

2. Discuss 
Using non-violent communication techniques, listen, state neutral observations, describe feelings using I-statements, verbalize needs, and brainstorm solutions. Talk about your Type patterns, as well as the contextual backgrounds mentioned above. 
Works best when: both parties are open, willing, and invested in a mutually acceptable outcome.
Advantages: good way towards finding common ground, and laying foundation for a collaborative future. 
Limitations: when convictions/values run deep, they’re impossible to ignore. Disagreeing on one seemingly fundamental issue easily results in judging and questioning the whole character/whole person. 

What if talking about your values isn't enough?

If you can't get on the same page by talking alone, you might benefit from a neutral party who can help facilitate the discussion. This wouldn't be therapy or coaching, but mediation. It’s a successful method to reduce conflicts in the workplace, and to avoid taking legal disputes like divorce to court. 

The process of mediation usually goes through a number of phases:
1. Explanation of process and agreement of goals
The neutral party (mediator) explains the mediation process, and takes note of both parties’ goals. 
2. Situational Analysis
Both parties lay out their observations. 
3. Subjective Explanation
Both parties lay out their feelings, needs, and requests.
4. Brainstorming & Negotiation
Considering all previous analyses and explanations, both parties brainstorm ideas for potential solutions. The mediator helps to compare and contrast the alternatives, but does not weigh in or evaluate any position. 
5. Agreement
Both parties agree to a course of action. The mediator takes note and sends a final document. 

Since mediation requires a time and monetary investment, it makes most sense for those relationships that are important for you to continue. In most cases, you will walk out with an action plan and an agreement for future behavior to help you reach your relationship goals. 

Let me know how you're handling values differences in your relationship? If you'd like to better understand your and your partner's Type patterns, consider getting Your Love Profiles for side-by-side insights.