Deaf & dumb communication

Nawal has chosen to tell the story about her conversation with John. They have known each other since childhood. They enjoy having strong debate. They know which subjects are the best to start a conflicted situation and where is the point of no return. 

Obviously she cares a lot about their relationship. She confesses easily he is an intelligent and interesting person to talk to. Nevertheless she is aware of such type of conversation is not healthy at all. They know they will irritate each other quickly and the conversation will end suddenly. The worst thing maybe their deep point of view is almost similar. The point is they don’t listen to each other. Even if she knows him really well, she still has strong prejudice about him. She interprets his arguments by basing her judgment on the wrong image she has about him. Both are hiding they true personality. Both are not ready to listen to the other.

During the call, i continued the use the five keys (Listening, Mirroring, Summarizing, Questioning and Catalyzing). Because i had an external point of view, it was easy to show her the situation under another angle and to ask relevant questions. What i like with Nawal is, even if i ask her questions which could be annoying (the one you don't want to answer because you know it touch the right point), she always answers. She has the will to follow the coaching, and she seems honest in her answers. 

After applying the suspending judgment method, Nawal was amazed that “magic” could really work. I was right about one point: She decided to keep the secret goal of her interview for a while, to savor her victory of the debate. 

The most important for Nawal was to realize she could lead to a better debate if she would simply accept that a person could have a different vision than her. Accept yes, be naively influenced no.