I’ve recently been thinking and writing about what it means to meet people where they’re at in a professional situation such as teaching yoga. This then led me to think about what it means to meet every single person I come across where they’re at and wonder if this is possible or even necessary.
In a professional context such as teaching yoga one to one, we can meet people where they’re at physically and emotionally by figuring out their physical ability and adapting sessions to suit their mood. You can also listen to how someone might talk about themselves and respond accordingly, such as giving more encouragement if needed.
When it comes to meeting people where they’re at professionally you could say this is about meeting people’s needs, but it’s also about attempting to really understand someone so you know what kind of a session to give in the first place.
But what about random meetings with people, whether they’re friends and family, or people you’ve just met? Since having my baby back in December, I’ve been exposed to such different views on parenting a baby.
To be fair, most people I meet share my view that every parent and baby are different and you just have to find what works best for you and your baby. However, every now and again, I will come across someone who will say something out of the blue which is clearly a personal opinion, but it’s framed as a throw away hard fact.
I have no problem with people stating their opinions but when some things are framed as universal truths that everyone should abide by or believe, I find it difficult. This, however, is only when someone has an opinion that isn’t directly causing any harm to people, animals, or the environment. These opinions most of the time come from an unselfish place of actually wanting the world to be a fairer place for everyone.
But what about the comments or opinions that aren’t straightforward and much harder to understand. You only have to look at what’s happening politically in the UK right now for this one. If, for many of us, our decision making process isn’t rational, or its based only on what an individual has personally experienced in their life (I’m not suggesting this is a bad thing), how do you address this?
It would, for example be far too easy to just write people off as ignorant for voting in a particular way? Similarly, I don’t actually think we should always just agree to disagree without engaging in any dialogue and leave it at that. In this case, there’s not even an attempt to meet someone where they’re at — it ends up feeling a bit like two magnets repelling.
So, what’s the solution? What I would like to see is more people not taking others with opposing views at face value, but instead responding with curiosity, which under no circumstances means you’re attempting to agree with them.
Why does someone think and feel what they do? How did someone really arrive here or form this belief system? What are the personal things in someone’s life that shaped who they are and what they believe? What sort of a life and upbringing has this person had? Have there been any major events in this person’s life which have caused them to have a shift in what they believe?
To engage in this kind of a dialogue is in no way saying you agree with someone — but it’s an attempt to know them better personally and meet them where they’re really at, and then take it from there, rather than instantly cutting someone off or bulldozing them for believing what they believe. Saying all of this — sometimes that’s exactly how I want to respond but I’m only human and can’t always feel in such an accommodating mood, but I try.
Photo by Jacek Dylag on Unsplash
