Ex 6-30 Problem Solving (45 Minutes)
Module: Collaborative Problem-Solving: Tools for Civil Dialogue
I. Introduction to Civil Problem-Solving (5 Minutes)
[00:00 – 00:02] Welcome and Core Shift
“Welcome back, everyone. In our program so far, we have talked a lot about the attitude of civility—listening well, showing respect, and managing our emotions. Today, we are shifting into the mechanics of civility. We are going to talk about what happens when civility meets a concrete, messy, real-world problem. When we disagree deeply about a community issue, our natural survival instincts kick in. We treat the conversation like a courtroom or a battlefield. The goal becomes winning, proving we are right, or protecting our territory. But in a civil society, that approach leaves us fractured.
Today, our goal is to shift our objective entirely: We are moving from ‘winning the argument’ to ‘solving the shared problem.’
Civility isn’t about giving up your principles; it is a collaborative tool to find solutions that actually work for everyone involved.”
[00:02 – 00:05] The Five Pillars
“To do this, we are going to look at five behavioral pillars. You can see them on the slide behind me:
- Separating facts from opinions.
- Avoiding assumptions.
- Withholding judgment.
- Staying in dialogue.
- Considering diverse options.
These five pillars keep us grounded in reality and connected to each other, even when the topic is highly charged. Let’s break down how they work in practice.”
II. Grounding in Reality: Facts, Opinions, and Assumptions (15 Minutes)
[00:05 – 00:10] Separating Facts from Opinions
“Let’s start with the foundation of any problem: What is actually happening?
In a heated debate, facts and opinions get blended together into a dangerous cocktail. To solve problems civilly, we must separate them.
A fact is something verifiable and objective. It is independent of how you or I feel about it. If it rained an inch yesterday, that is a fact. We can measure it.
An opinion, on the other hand, is a belief, a value, or an emotional interpretation of those facts. Saying ‘The weather today is miserable’ is an opinion.
Where we get into trouble in community dialogues is when we treat our opinions as objective facts. For example, if someone says, ‘The downtown park is an absolute disaster and completely unsafe,’ they are speaking as if that is an undisputed fact. But if we dig deeper, the underlying facts might be: ‘Three streetlights are broken, and there was a noise complaint filed last Tuesday.’
When we argue at the level of opinion—’It’s a disaster!’ versus ‘No, it’s fine!’—we get stuck. When we pull back and look at the verifiable data—the broken streetlights—we find a concrete problem we can actually work together to fix.”
[00:10 – 00:15] The Trap of Assumptions
“But it’s not just opinions that trip us up. It’s also what our brains do with incomplete information. Humans are meaning-making machines. When we don’t have all the facts, our brains instantly fill in the blanks with assumptions.
There is a famous psychological model called the Ladder of Inference. Imagine a ladder. At the very bottom is raw reality—the actual data of what happened. But we don’t stay at the bottom. Instantly, our brains select a few pieces of that data, interpret what they mean, make an assumption, draw a conclusion, and adopt a belief. We climb from the bottom of the ladder to the very top in a fraction of a second.
Let’s look at an example. A city council member misses a public neighborhood meeting. That is the raw fact. If we climb the ladder of assumptions, we think: ‘They missed the meeting because they don’t care about our neighborhood. They are elite and out of touch.’ Suddenly, we are furious and ready to protest.
But what if the reality was that their child was rushed to the hospital? Or they were stuck at another city meeting that ran late? When we act on unverified assumptions, we destroy trust before the dialogue even begins.”
[00:15 – 00:20] How to Avoid Assumptions
“So, how do we stay at the bottom of the ladder? We must become investigators of our own thoughts. Before you react to someone, ask yourself: ‘What is the actual data I have, and what am I inventing?’
Then, use verification techniques. Ask clarifying, open-ended questions. Instead of accusing, try saying: ‘I noticed you weren’t at the meeting last night, and I want to make sure your perspective is included. Did something come up, or is there a better way for us to connect?’ This keeps the conversation grounded in truth rather than the stories we tell ourselves.”
III. Maintaining the Connection: Withholding Judgment and Staying in Dialogue (15 Minutes)
[00:20 – 00:27] Withholding Judgment
“Now, let’s talk about what happens internally when we listen to someone we disagree with. Our brains love efficiency. To save energy, our brains instantly categorize things: safe or unsafe, good or bad, right or wrong. When someone voices an opinion that challenges ours, our internal judge slams down the gavel. ‘That is wrong. That is selfish. That is foolish.’
The moment you judge someone, you stop listening to them. You start preparing your rebuttal. You see them as an adversary to defeat, not a neighbor to collaborate with.
Civil problem-solving requires us to withhold judgment. This does not mean you have to agree with them. It means you pause the judge. When you feel that surge of defensiveness or anger, take a strategic pause. Breathe. Notice the judgment and actively trade it for curiosity. Instead of thinking, ‘How can they think that?’ ask yourself, ‘What experiences, values, or fears led them to that conclusion?’ Curiosity opens doors; judgment slams them shut.”
[00:27 – 00:35] Staying in Dialogue
“When safety vanishes from a conversation, dialogue breaks down. Author and communication experts note that dialogue generally breaks down into two directions:
Silence or Violence.
Silence looks like withdrawing, masking your true thoughts, or completely avoiding the topic. It’s when someone shuts down because they feel it’s not safe to speak.
Violence doesn’t just mean physical harm. In communication, violence looks like controlling the conversation, labeling people (‘You’re just a radical’, ‘You’re just a NIMBY’), or verbally attacking.
As a problem-solver, you must monitor the room and yourself. The moment you see silence or violence, the problem-solving has stopped. You must work to restore safety.
How do we restore safety?
First, re-establish mutual respect. Let the other person know you value them as a neighbor or colleague, even if the topic is tough.
Second, identify a shared purpose. Remind everyone why you are there. Say something like: ‘Look, we clearly disagree on the budget numbers, but I know both of us want this community center to stay open for the kids. Let’s focus on that.’
If you can align on a shared goal, you can survive the tension of the disagreement.”
IV. Moving Forward: Considering Options (10 Minutes)
[00:35 – 00:42] Expanding the Frame
“Once we have separated the facts, checked our assumptions, paused our judgments, and established a safe dialogue, we are finally ready to do the actual work of problem-solving: considering options.
Most conflicts get stuck because we treat them as a binary choice. It’s either Option A or Option B. My way or your way. If I win, you lose. Civil problem-solving relies on expanding the frame to look for a third alternative. This requires a strict brainstorming protocol.
When you start looking for solutions, you must separate the generation of ideas from the evaluation of ideas. If someone throws out an idea, and you immediately say, ‘No, that won’t work because of the budget,’ you have just killed the creative process. You went straight back into judgment mode.
In a civil brainstorming session, all ideas go on the board first. No criticism allowed. You stack up as many creative, wild, or standard options as possible. Only after the options are fully laid out do you collectively bring back your objective criteria—your facts, your budget, your timeline—to evaluate them together.”
[00:42 – 00:45] Transition
“When we operate this way, we stop fighting across the table from one another. Instead, we sit on the same side of the table, looking at the problem together.
Slide 1: Title Slide
- Visual Anchor: Clean layout with a bold header.
- Header Text: Collaborative Problem-Solving
- Sub-header Text: Tools for Civil Dialogue
- Footer Text: Module Duration: 60 Minutes
Slide 2: The Core Shift
- Visual Anchor: Side-by-side or arrow graphic showing a shift in direction.
- Bullet Points:
- Old Goal: Win the argument, defeat the adversary, protect territory.
- New Goal: Solve the shared problem, collaborate with neighbors.
- Footer Quote: “Civility is a tool to find solutions that work for everyone.”
Slide 3: Five Pillars of Civil Dialogue
- Visual Anchor: A 5-column grid or numbered list format.
- Bullet Points:
- Separate facts from opinions.
- Avoid assumptions.
- Withhold judgment.
- Stay in dialogue.
- Consider options.
Slide 4: Grounding in Reality
- Visual Anchor: Two distinct columns comparing definitions.
- Column 1: Facts
- Verifiable and objective data points.
- Independent of personal feelings.
- Example: “Three streetlights are broken on Main St.”
- Column 2: Opinions
- Beliefs, values, and emotional interpretations.
- Subjective reactions.
- Example: “The downtown park is an absolute disaster.”
Slide 5: The Ladder of Inference
- Visual Anchor: A simple vertical ladder graphic moving from bottom to top.
- Ladder Rungs (Top to Bottom):
- Actions & Beliefs: Taking premature action based on assumptions.
- Conclusions: Drawing a definitive conclusion.
- Assumptions: Inventing a story to fill in missing information.
- Interpretations: Assigning personal meaning to what happened.
- Raw Data: The objective reality of what actually occurred.
Slide 6: Dismantling Assumptions
- Visual Anchor: Focus box or callout style for the core questions.
- Header Text: Become an Investigator of Your Own Thoughts
- Bullet Points:
- Internal Check: “What is the actual data I have, and what am I inventing?”
- Verification Rule: Ask clarifying, open-ended questions.
- Practice: Trade accusations for curiosity.
Slide 7: Pausing the Judge
- Visual Anchor: High-contrast text box.
- Header Text: Curiosity Over Condemnation
- Bullet Points:
- The Brain’s Habit: Instantly categorizing viewpoints as right or wrong.
- The Trap: When you judge, you stop listening and start planning a rebuttal.
- The Tool: Take a strategic pause to actively wonder: “What experiences led them to that conclusion?”
Slide 8: Recognizing Dialogue Breakdown
- Visual Anchor: Two distinct columns detailing communication risks.
- Column 1: Silence
- Withdrawing from the discussion.
- Masking true thoughts or feelings.
- Avoiding the topic entirely.
- Column 2: Violence
- Controlling the conversation.
- Labeling others (“radical”, “NIMBY”).
- Verbally attacking opposing views.
Slide 9: Restoring Safety
- Visual Anchor: Two clear steps with icons or bold bullet starts.
- Bullet Points:
- Re-establish Mutual Respect: Validate their right to hold a different perspective.
- Identify a Shared Purpose: Anchor the room back to a common, unifying goal.
- “We disagree on the budget, but we both want this community center open for the kids.”
Slide 10: Expanding the Frame
- Visual Anchor: A split screen showing process separation.
- Header Text: Moving Beyond Binary Choices (Option A vs. Option B)
- Step 1: Generate Ideas First
- Stack up creative alternatives without criticism.
- Keep evaluations completely out of the brainstorming phase.
- Step 2: Evaluate Ideas Second
- Use objective facts, budgets, and timelines to review the choices together.
[…] https://tomkapostasy.com/2026/11/14/ex-6-30-problem-solving/ […]