Understanding Vs Agreement

What can be confusing is when people use understanding to force a deal. It seems that there is an argument, that there is something unresolved, that there is something that needs to be done when one person comes forward and repeatedly argues his point of view and asks if the other understands. I have been in these conversations, and I recognize them quickly, because I wonder, “I miss something?… Is there a fact that I have not ?…. I`m not used to saying I`m everything?…. Ah…. They do not question my ability to argue. They want me to accept.¬†As soon as I see that the agreement is what they are looking for, I can stop the conversation and continue. Some points in my life, I ended the conversation by saying that I understood, I just do not agree. And the two things are very different. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

Very little in the world is self-evident, and even if they could be, we will have to expose them anyway, hence the declaration of independence of the United States. Under U.S. law, an agreement is often the same as a Memorandum of Understanding. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to distinguish between a Memorandum of Understanding, a Memorandum of Understanding and a Declaration of Intent on the basis of American jurisprudence. All communicate an agreement on a mutually beneficial goal and the desire to see it until completion. I have tried to understand the impact of Western sanctions on the structure of global power. I understand that this could marginalize the United States. It could backfire on the United States. If so, sanctions will make Putin stronger and no less weak. The Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Understanding may set out rules for the operation of the business up to the date of the sale of the business. A filing date is an important clause; this is a time when the parties agree to end the negotiations if they have not reached an agreement.

So watch out for times when people are replacing the goal of understanding an agreement. In these cases, the people they are trying to “understand” may understand or not really understand the situation, but they more than likely understand the motivations of the talking person and find it at least annoying. Because someone who focuses on “understanding” someone can`t focus on anything else and therefore has no ability to accept, connect or respect others, and drive them away as quickly and as hard as they try to get them into their corner. And any victory thus won is fleeting because it is false. An agreement by coercion or apathy is not an agreement at all. I guess that is what happened to you. Sometimes I disagree with some people and, increasingly, with some readers of my blogs. People often wonder how the collaborative team is able to help outgoing couples work on their conflict. As a divorce coach working with trained collaborators and other professionals, I think one of the keys is to help people understand the power to understand (and often empathy) as an alternative to the power of coercion.