Sharoll Sinani Studio

Sharoll Fernandez Siñani: 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.

Sharoll Fernandez Siñani: 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.