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.

Picture this La Bolivia, November, 2019.

The air is thick with tear gas.

Two wooden coffins lie in the
middle of an empty street.

Dropped in the bright
indigenous flag the Wiphala.

An armored military vehicle idols nearby
while the smoke from granite swirls around

flower petals scatter on the asphalt.

In the chaos, a grandmother in a black
shwal cries out her hands trembling as

she clutches a photo of her dad's son.

The air is thin at 13,000 feet, but
the weight of anguish is heavier still.

This is what disagreement looked
like when it turned deadly.

This is where disagreement
turned ever growing.

Polarization leads.

Now fast forward to
the United States 2025.

A family gathers for dinner in a small
Midwestern home, a cousin's hands

slams the table rattling the plates.

Two voices clash.

One insists last year's
selection was riddled with fraud.

Another calls that a dangerous lie.

A child at the end of the table covers
his ears as the adults raise their voices

in that moment, the cozy kitchen might
as well be a battlefield of believes.

Here we are in 2025.

A world more connected,
yet more divided than ever.

I am Sharoll Fernandez Sinani and
tonight I wanna explore with you.

Why does this agreement matter?

Why should we care about how we disagree
in our families, our communities?

Our nations, sometimes facts alone
fail us and we need to hear the heart.

Let me share an excerpt from a poem
called To Senkata and to my Dead

After the massacre, it was Thursday, we
were at the march from El Alto to LA Paz.

Many, many, many India.

Indios five coffins.

I am not a masista nor a terrorist.

Five coffins, five dead.

wiphalas hordes of wiphalas.

They have repressed us.

All our memory, we have been repressed.

Even after death, they have repressed us.

That's my shame.

The shame that weighs on
my head from the past.

Isn't death the most sacred?

The limit where men stop and keep
silent, insurmountable domain of outrage,

shadow with no stain of blasphemy,
suspension, not this death, not our death.

Do you feel that the sting of dismissal,
the pain, the impotence, this is

the personal way of disagreement.

When who we are is up for
debate or denied, it is denied

to the most violent extreme.

Yes, disagreement can turn deadly.

And in 2019 in Bolivia, it did.

Disagreement matters because it
lives in our bodies and histories.

Let me tell you about Bolivia's
Black November of 2019.

President Evo Morales, Bolivia first
indigenous president had just been forced

to resign Amid contested election results.

His mostly indigenous supporters and
anyone who have identified with the

wiphala indigenous flag and anyone who
was against how things were turning in

the political context back then in Bolivia

took to the streets.

Claiming a coup, the new interim
government sought to restore order.

A fundamental political
disagreement became combustible.

On November 15th in the town of
Sacaba, a peaceful protest by coca

farmers turned into a blood path.

Marchers carrying indigenous
flags try to enter the city.

Security forces blocked them.

Then the gunfire began.

11 unarmed demonstrators
were killed around 1980.

Were wounded Survivors later
recounted how the air smelled of

gun power and fear for days later.

In Senkata, a district of El Atlo
protesters have blokaded a field plant.

The military launched an operation with
armored vehicles and leave ammunition.

No attempt to talk or negotiate.

They just moved on.

10 more people were shot
dead in the streets.

Video from that day shows a panic
crowd carrying a limp body dropped

in the multicolored with pile
of flag while a woman's voice

cries out, they are killing us.

At least 20 civilians died,
mostly indigenous Aymara and

Quechua people who had simply been
asserting their political voice.

The Inter-American Commissions
on human rights denounced

these events as massacres.

Why am I recounting this horror?

Because it illustrates why disagreement
matters when disagreement is silenced.

When one side decides the other's
voice doesn't count, the result

isn't peace, it's oppression.

Those coffins became symbols of
a society's failure to handle

conflict without violence.

And now we are in the midst of
America's cold civil divide.

You might think that was Bolivia
under extraordinary circumstances.

But look around.

Look at the United States in 2025.

We are not in a shooting
war with ourselves.

Thanks heavens, but we are in the
midst of a cold, civil divide.

The data is historic.

Americans today are deeply polarized.

According to recent surveys, the
share of Americans who identify

as politically moderate has
shrunk to just 34% a record low.

Our ideological middle ground
is evaporating more people than

ever see the other side, not
just as mistaken, but as enemies.

You feel these in daily life.

Maybe you've lost friends or avoid
relatives because of political fights.

You are not alone.

The US now ranks among the most
politically polarized countries globally.

Unity is fraying.

And when a society grows, this
polarized disagreement can turn

dangerous even without an official war.

We saw this on January 6th, 2021, when
disagreement over a presidential election

led to an unprecedented insurrection.

A mob stormed the capitol, convinced
they were saving the country.

Five people died that day.

And 140 police officers
were injured for hours.

The seat of American democracy filled
with tear gas and angry shouts.

Let's be clear.

Disagreement itself isn't the villain.

Differences in ideas and perspectives
are normal, even healthy in a democracy.

The ability to hold opposing
views, intention drives

innovation and social progress.

We need our debates of our
policy values, directions.

The problem is when disagreement
turns into dehumanization.

When we stop seeing the person behind
the opinion, the problem is when

maintaining our pride or winning becomes
more important than understanding.

Look again.

At our opening scenes in
Bolivia, the government wouldn't

even talk with protestors.

They labeled them.

Subversives and open fire.

In our family dinner scene, relatives
weren't debating policy details.

They were questioning each
other's integrity and reality.

In both cases, the true enemy
wasn't the people on the other side.

It was the breakdown of dialogue,
the collapse of empathy.

This matters, especially in 2025
because we are facing challenges

that can't be solved unless we
work together across differences.

Whether it's public health,
climate change, racial justice, or

making a household function, our
problems don't check whether you

are red or blue if we can't find
ways to disagree constructively.

These problems fester or explode every
time we shy away from a hard conversation

or slam it shut with rage, we are
leaving potential solutions on the table.

Disagreement is the friction
that can either burn everything

down or polish us to shine.

The choice is ours,

so how do we respond constructively.

Let me share a powerful
toolkit developed by Dr.

Julia Minson, a Harvard researcher who
studies the psychology of disagreement.

It's called the HEAR here framework.

H Hedge your Claims.

Even if you feel sure you are right.

Acknowledge you might
not have all the answers.

Use phrases like it seems to
me or from my perspective.

Or I could be wrong, but this shows
humility and invites dialogue rather

than a shutdown them e emphasize
agreement, find common ground.

No matter how small point
out share values or goals.

We both want our community
to be safe or I agree.

The budget needs balancing.

You are not.

Conceding your core point.

You are showing you recognize valid
concerns in your counterpart, a

acknowledge the other's perspective
before you launch into rebuttal.

Summarize their position.

So you're saying you're worried
about X and see, Y as the

main issue, is that right?

This demonstrates respect and
understanding when people feel heard.

Their defensive walls come down
are reframe to the positive, avoid

negative, or triggering words
instead of, no, you are wrong.

Try.

I see it differently instead
of your plan won't work.

Try.

I think there might be another
approach, use, and instead of, but.

It keeps conversations collaborative
rather than adversarial.

Let me show you how this works.

Picture two coworkers, Anna
and Brian clashing over a

project approach Anna starts.

Brian, I might be wrong, but I think
your timeline could cause issues.

We both want this project to
succeed, and I understand you

have experience in this area.

Maybe we can find a solution that
ensures quality and meets the deadline.

What if we add another team member?

Brian responds.

You're right.

We share the same goal.

I hear that you worry
about quality control.

You want confidence in the result.

I believe my timeline can work because
I've done it before, but maybe I

haven't considered all the risks.

How about we do the test run?

That might address our concern
and keep us on schedule.

See the difference instead of you are
wrong and right, they're making space.

The disagreement becomes a
puzzle to solve together rather

than a, than a battle of egos.

This approach aligns with deep
wisdom from different cultures.

In Jewish tradition
centuries of rabbinic debate.

Thought that true, respectful
argument truth is refined and

relationships need not break.

The Talmud recounts how one school
always stated their opponent's

arguments before their own.

And that openness is why truth prevailed
in Aymara communities from the Andes.

Despite differences, everyone is
reminded of their share identity.

Before deliberations.

Decisions are ideally by consensus,
meaning people talk and listen

until enough mutual understanding
exists to move forward.

It's a very communal type of living.

Now, here is, um, personal story
from my consulting work that

shows how this gets complicated.

I am working with this
CEO, let's call him Marco.

His companies is struggling and
he wants to fire two, be peace.

He's labeled under performers.

I am sitting in his corner office
smelling his untouched coffee,

watching him clench his jaw.

I know firing these people
will destroy morale, but he

sees it as decisive leadership.

I tried.

The here, HEAR framework.

Marco, I might be wrong, but what if
the performance issues are about unclear

expectations rather than incompetence?

I emphasized our shared goal.

We both want a culture that gets resolved.

I acknowledge his pressure.

I get why quick actions feel urgent
with investors Breathing down

your neck, and I reframed, what if
we try a six day clarity sprint?

Mm, a 60 day clarity sprint with
these VPs Before making any final

decisions, Marco leaned back, was
quiet for a long moment, then said.

If we do it your way,
how do I not look weak?

We worked out a plan.

Two months later, both VPs
hit most of their new goals.

The company culture actually improved.

Marco even emailed me later.

Your way worked.

But here is what I didn't
tell you initially.

It almost fell apart in week three.

One of the VPs pushed back hard
accused Marco of micromanaging

and threatened to quit.

Anyway, I had to do to do that much
control mediate between them, and

honestly, I wasn't sure it would work.

The point is, the framework
here, HEAR isn't a magic wand.

It's more like learning to surf.

You're going to wipe out.

Sometimes the wave doesn't always
cooperate, but you keep practicing because

occasionally you catch one perfectly
and remember, that is why it's worth it.

Here is what I've learned from trying
this approach over and over here.

HEAR isn't about winning or
even about changing minds.

It's about staying human
in the middle of conflict.

It's about modeling something different.

Think of this agreement like fire.

You can throw gasoline on it.

That's the ego and anger route
and watch everything burned down.

Or you can try to contain it, feed it
carefully, and see if it can actually

warm something or light the way forward.

I am not always good at this.

Last week, I totally lost it in
a disagreement with a colleague

about project deadlines.

I went straight to defensive
mode, didn't hedge anything.

Definitely didn't acknowledge
their perspective.

We both ended up frustrated and
the problem didn't get solved.

But you know what?

I went back the next day and tried again.

Hey, I think I handled.

That badly yesterday.

Can we restart?

And we did.

That's the thing about this
work, it's constant practice,

constant becoming, as you put it,
you're not trying to be perfect.

We are trying to be slightly
better than we were yesterday.

The hardest part isn't
learning the technique.

The hardest part is remembering
to use it when you are triggered.

When your heart is racing, when
someone just said the thing

that makes your blood boil.

But here is why I keep trying
every single time and manage to

stay curious instead of defensive.

Something shifts, maybe not
in them, but definitely in me.

I stay connected to my own values
instead of getting hijacked by reaction.

And sometimes, not always, but sometimes.

The other person feels that
shift and starts to soften too.

Remember, we cannot heal what
we refuse to discuss in 2025.

This feels desperate level, urgent.

Our disagreements are both the
wounds and potentially the medicine.

If we keep avoiding the hard
conversations, things just fester.

But if we can lean into them with some
skill and heart healing becomes possible.

So here's what I'm asking
you to experiment with,

and I am using the word experiment on
purpose because that's what this is.

It's not a guarantee, it's a practice.

Even in a spiritual
practice, some would say.

Start small.

Find some lowest stakes
disagreement in your life.

Maybe it's about where to go for
dinner or how to handle your work

project, or which movie to watch.

Try to four steps hedge something.

Um, I might be missing something, but
find one tiny thing you can agree on.

Acknowledge what they are saying
before you respond and reframe your

response without loaded language.

Notice what happens not just
with them but in your own body.

Do you feel different when
you approach it this way?

If you are feeling brave, try
it with something bigger, but go

and knowing it might be messy.

The person might not
respond the way you hope.

You might forget to use
the tools halfway through.

That's all normal.

I had someone tell me recently, this
hear HEAR stuff is nice in theory,

but my brother-in-law is impossible.

And you know what?

Maybe he's, maybe some people aren't
ready for this kind of conversation.

But you practicing it
anyway, that changes you.

And sometimes that's enough to
shift the whole dynamic over time.

Remember, we are not
trying to fix other people.

We are trying to show up
differently ourselves.

We are modeling what it looks like
to disagree without dehumanizing.

To stand firm in our values while staying
curious about others' perspectives.

This is long game work.

I'm not promising you'll solve family
feuds or heal political divides overnight.

I wish.

But I am saying that every time
you choose curiosity over contempt.

Every time you stay present,
instead of storming off, you are

contributing to something larger.

You are proving that
another way is possible.

You are showing first to yourself, then
to the others, that we don't have to

choose between having strong convictions
and treating people with respect

and in a world where disagreement.

Too often leads to violence or
silence that is revolutionary.

We started with grief and
rage on a Bolivian Street and

at an American dinner table.

We end with hope because
listening is contagious.

Your calm in the storm can invite
others to lower their shield.

Your willingness to hear the other
can inspire a chain reaction.

Disagreement handled with heart can be
the beginning of understanding even love.

Every time you engaged in
disagreement with empathy, you are

healing the world in small doses.

Each of us can be a tiny
fulcrum of transformation.

In our sphere.

In our next episode, we'll move
from disagreement to healing.

We've confronted the divide.

Next, we ask, how do
we tend to the wounds?

How do communities heal after the clash?

Thank you for being here with
me through this vital tarn.

Inside a hard portal, conflict
becomes communion, and the scars

become songs if we are willing.

Until next time, let's continue
walking together in this world.

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.