Figuring out your passion starts with the passion profile quiz! take it ››

Why we all need to adopt “both/and” thinking right about now


If reading long blogs just isn’t your deal, you can listen to me read it instead!

(Click the orange play button to start playing right here on the page, or download and save it for later by clicking the downward arrow at the top right of the box below.)



When I was 3 years old, you could often find me perched in my booster seat, gathered around the kitchen table with my parents and baby brother, offering proclamations from on high.

I was fond of beginning any statement with, “As you know, Mommy…” or “As you know, Daddy…” What came next was probably standard for a 3-year-old, “As you know, Mommy, I ate all my spaghetti.” Or, “As you know, Daddy, I colored a picture of a dog today.”

I wasn’t sharing any earth-shattering revelations, but when I spoke, I did so with the slightly patronizing air of a true know-it-all.

And nothing much changed for the next 20 years.

I have always loved being right. Going to school only hammered this home for me; I was a real hand-in-the-air-24-7 Hermione Granger type, and because I was a good student, I got praised for being right.

And because I’ve never been shy about sharing my opinions, nor afraid of conflict, I was happy to tell anyone how right I was, and consequently how wrong they were.

It’s nice to be right, isn’t it? It feels good. You’ve got the moral high ground, and everyone else is just woefully inaccurate or brazenly stupid.

But … here’s the problem. There really is no such thing as “right.” There’s also no such thing as “wrong.”

What I’m about to share is one of the most important things I’ve had to learn in the past decade of my life. If I only had 5 minutes to tell you anything in the world, this is what I would want you to know. It’s that critical, especially in 2017.


Let’s back up to being 3 years old.

For all of us, this is when our vocabulary starts to explode and we can finally communicate with the adults around us in a more sophisticated way.

When we’re little, one of the first things we learn is the value of sorting the world in order to make sense of it:

  • This is a dog. That is not a dog. It’s a cat.
  • This weather is sunny. That weather is rainy. Therefore, it’s not sunny.
  • What does the cow say? Moo! What does the duck say? Quack! If it’s quacking, it’s definitely not a cow.
  • This is an apple. It’s food, so we’re allowed to eat that. This is a marker. We are not allowed to eat that because it’s not food.

This makes perfect sense. How in the world are you ever going to learn what something is if you don’t have a point of comparison?

And of course, labeling things in an “either/or,” “right/wrong,” “good/bad” way keeps us safe, too. We learn that it’s right to look both ways before crossing the street, and wrong to talk to strangers. It’s good to eat your vegetables and bad to put your hands in the toilet.

But there’s a HUGE problem with this: Most of us get unconsciously stuck labeling the world this way, even as adults.

Obviously as we age we learn to think in a more complex way. In theory we can acknowledge that two opposing things can be true at the same time, but in practice most of us aren’t doing that at all.


How many times have I heard someone say something like, “My sister is the smart one. I’m the athletic one.” Or, “He’s the loud one. I’m the quiet one.”

This sounds harmless, but you’d be surprised at how deeply that kind of “either/or” labeling affects people.

When you label something in that “either/or,” “right or wrong” way, then you only ever have two options in ANY scenario.

Which means that if your sister is smart, then you can’t be too. If your spouse is loud, and you’re not as loud as him, that must mean you’re quiet. There’s no wiggle room. Everything is black-or-white, yes-or-no.

Here are some more ways that I hear this showing up all of the time:

  • “I disappointed my mom. I’m a bad daughter.”
  • “I bombed that presentation. I’m a failure.”
  • “That person voted for someone I dislike. I can’t be friends with them.”
  • “If you don’t agree with me, then you must be against me.”
  • “I’m not as smart as that person. So I must be dumb.”
  • “That person believes X. I think that belief is stupid, so everything that person says can be dismissed.”

Let me be clear — until we give up our obsession with putting everything into 3-year-old “yes/no,” “right/wrong,” “good/bad” boxes, we can’t expect to make any progress either as an individual or as a society.


The whole “either/or” thing? It’s a false dichotomy. There are NEVER just two choices about how to sort, label, or understand anything … particularly not a human being (and that includes how you understand yourself).

But we continue to do it because A) it’s safer to stay in your box and B) it’s convenient to stay in your box.

Fear and laziness, that’s really what it comes down to.

We’re either afraid (or too prideful, which is just a sneakier form of fear) to acknowledge that many things could be true, simultaneously, because it might shake the foundation of our beliefs. And who might we be if our beliefs get questioned? Better to stay in our boxes and not find out.

Or, we’re too comfortable (uh, lazy) in our box to give a damn about what’s going on outside of it.

But staying in that box is going to cost you, BIG TIME.

You can’t make deep connections if you insist on sorting everything into convenient boxes. You can’t appreciate subtlety or nuance. You can’t live a deep and fulfilling life, because you will literally stay in the same place forever. Growth requires you to be open to changing your mind, over and over again.

I think we’re all seeing what happens when two people, or entities, or companies, or political parties, stay stubbornly rooted in their separate boxes. There’s a lot of name-calling, “he said, she said,” blame, and vitriol. And it gets us NOWHERE.

The world desperately needs more people who aren’t so stuck in their narrow little boxes. The more people who understand that there are really infinite choices and infinite ways of seeing the same thing — instead of just two options — the more possibilities we’ll ALL have.

So, from here on out you need to start considering that one thing does not have to cancel out another. BOTH/AND can be true:

  • “I’m a good daughter who also disappointed her mom.”
  • “I’m a talented person who bombed that presentation. I can fail without being a failure.”
  • “I like that person, AND they voted for someone I dislike.”
  • “I can disagree with you AND still be on your side.”
  • “That person is smart. And I’m smart, too. Their intelligence says nothing about mine.”
  • “That person has a belief I don’t share. That doesn’t mean that none of their beliefs are worth hearing.”

Both/and, both/and, both/and. Repeat it as many times as you need to.

We’re adults, and the only way we’re going to like who we are, learn to communicate with other people, and have productive conversations is by seeing the grey areas and embracing the paradoxes that life offers.

It’s hard. And it’s necessary. Both, and.

Where have you been thinking in an “either/or” way, and what does graduating to “both/and” look like for you? Share with me in the comments below!


When you’re convinced you’re right, but you’re actually dead wrong

Why your insecurity actually makes you entitled

Stop looking for evidence of what you don’t want

Much Love,

Rachel (& Kristen)

8 Comments // ADD COMMENT

The 4 most common roles people play in arguments. Which one are you?


If reading long blogs just isn’t your deal, you can listen to me read it instead!

(Click the orange play button to start playing right here on the page, or download and save it for later by clicking the downward arrow at the top right of the box below.)



When I was in second grade, my two best friends got in a fight with each other.

I can’t remember what started it (although I vaguely recall something about who was using the new box of colored pencils). All I know is that there were a lot of “you can’t play with us” and “you’re not invited to my birthday party anymore” type of comments thrown around.

When it was time for recess that afternoon, one of them headed off for the monkey bars and the other went for the jump ropes. They both looked at me like, “Whose side are you going to take?”

I still remember the visceral anxiety I felt in that moment.

I hated that they were fighting, and all I wanted was for us all to be friends again. So I pulled out my most sophisticated 7-year-old diplomatic skills and suggested a game that I knew they both loved. They couldn’t resist, and before long we were all playing together again, the argument from the morning totally forgotten.

I’ve been playing the “Peacekeeper” role in arguments ever since.

This may sound like a positive, healthy way to react during an argument, but it’s actually fueled from a place of deep fear and anxiety. Peacekeepers are extremely uncomfortable with negative emotions, so they’re constantly smoothing over conflicts the moment they arise. It might look positive on the outside, but all of that suppressed anger, frustration, or guilt can eventually turn ugly.

Being a Peacekeeper is only one of the most common roles that people tend to play in arguments. After coaching hundreds of people for thousands of hours, I’ve noticed patterns around the different ways people react when faced with conflict. They tend to fall into 4 major categories, which I’m explaining fully on the blog.


The Avoider

Avoiders are so conflict-averse that they’ll do anything to avoid getting into an argument. And if they do find themselves in one, they’ll find any possible way to escape. That might mean physically leaving the room or hanging up the phone, or it may just mean mentally or emotionally checking out of the conversation.

If you’re an Avoider, you likely feel a deep, almost primal instinct to flee in the middle of an argument or somehow make it stop. If you avoid the temptation to physically leave, you probably won’t say much in response to the other person’s anger. You’ll have short, clipped responses like, “Sure, whatever,” or “Fine, do what you want,” that are aimed at shutting down the conversation. You may try to change the subject if you see any opening.

The Avoider’s go-to moves in an argument:

  • Physically walking away or hanging up the phone
  • Changing the subject
  • Distracting themselves and/or the other person away from the argument
  • Acting like everything is fine
  • Putting up an emotional wall

The Peacekeeper

Peacekeepers, like I mentioned before, are almost as conflict-averse as Avoiders, but instead of walking away from an argument, they desperately want to step in and find a peaceful resolution. When someone is mad at them, they will do anything to get back in that person’s good graces, including compromising on their beliefs/values or putting their own needs last.

Not only do Peacekeepers hate being in arguments, they also hate seeing friends, family members, or coworkers arguing amongst themselves. They often feel compelled to try to step in and smooth things over in any way they can. If you’re a Peacekeeper, you’ve probably found yourself mediating arguments or being the “go-between,” even if the conflict had nothing to do with you.

The Peacekeeper’s go-to moves in an argument:

  • Appeasing everyone to try to resolve things as quickly as possible
  • Suppressing their own uncomfortable negative feelings
  • Inserting themselves into an argument to try to calm everyone
  • Going against their own feelings, beliefs, or values in the name of compromise
  • Trying to distract everyone or play things down

The Martyr

Martyrs tend to feel personally attacked in an argument, which is why their gut response is to get either overly defensive, or quiet and miserable. Anything the other person says during the argument, the Martyr will take personally and feel deeply hurt and offended. Because of that, Martyrs feel like a victim, which makes the other person the perpetrator. This deflects all of the blame onto the “attacker,” giving the Martyr the moral high ground.

Because Martyrs feel so misunderstood and personally hurt in an argument, you’ll often hear them saying things like, “Why do you always make me the bad guy?” or “I guess you don’t love me anymore,” or “Why does no one appreciate me and all of the sacrifices I make?”

The Martyr’s go-to moves in an argument:

  • Playing the victim
  • Feeling misunderstood and attacked
  • Nursing their hurt feelings and holding on to grudges
  • Assuming the moral high ground
  • Assigning blame elsewhere

The Tyrant

Tyrants don’t shy away from an argument, and when triggered into one, they put on their boxing gloves and get ready for a fight. Once the anger is flowing, a Tyrant starts “seeing red” and can’t help but perceive everything the other person says or does as annoying, dumb, or flat-out wrong.

A Tyrant’s main objective during an argument is to prove that they’re right, which means the other person is automatically wrong. They’ll use any means necessary to prove the other person wrong, including interrupting them or criticizing/belittling them if they do get a chance to speak. Tyrants tend to have a mental log of all old grievances that they can bring up again during a fight, like a lawyer reading through an evidence file to make their case.

The Tyrant’s go-to moves in an argument:

  • Deflecting blame by making the other person wrong
  • Not letting others voice or complete thoughts
  • One-upping the other person
  • Criticizing, belittling, and patronizing
  • Hurtling accusations and bringing up old grievances


It’s pretty clear that none of these 4 roles is particularly healthy or helpful.

Nothing productive comes out of an argument when the Tyrant is yelling, or the Avoider is shutting down, or the Martyr is playing the victim, or the Peacekeeper is appeasing everyone.

If you and/or the people in your life fall into any of these roles, you may not even believe it’s possible for an argument to be productive. I know I didn’t believe that for the longest time. I thought arguments were always terrible and pointless and never productive.

But I feel differently now.

As I’ve grown in self-awareness over the past several years and started to detach from my Peacekeeper role, I’ve actually found myself in more arguments, not fewer. But because I’ve found ways to argue productively, instead of reactively, I don’t see this as a bad thing.

Here are some rules for arguing (that I always *try* to remember) to make conflicts productive instead of destructive:

  • Ask yourself and the other person, “What is this really about?” It’s usually not actually about the thing you’re fighting about, but about something deeper like a lack of respect, appreciation, support, etc.
  • Look for solutions instead of reasons the other person is wrong. Care more about getting to the heart of the conflict resolving it than about being right.
  • Take responsibility for your 50%. It’s never 100% the other person’s fault.
  • Instead of planning the next thing you’re going to say, be willing to listen to the other person and try to understand where they’re coming from.
  • Don’t use “always” or “never.” Statements like, “You always do this,” or “You never do that,” are unproductive and put the other person on the defensive.
  • Stay present. When you’re tempted to walk away or mentally check out, stay, no matter how uncomfortable it is. There’s no such thing as a productive ending to a conflict if one person is MIA.
  • Remember why you care about this person. We fight most often with the people we love (although it’s easy to forget that when we’re angry). Remind yourself that, while you’re annoyed in the moment, you still care about this person.
  • Don’t rush to an ending too soon out of discomfort. Remind yourself that arguments aren’t always a bad thing, and they can lead to greater connection on the other side.

I’m not going to lie and say I no longer find conflict super uncomfortable, because I definitely do. I haven’t totally eradicated my inner Peacekeeper — I’ve just quieted her down a bit.

The biggest surprise I’ve found is that, when I follow these rules for arguing, I often find myself feeling closer to the person once the fight is over, because we worked through an issue together. That’s something the Peacekeeper in me never knew was possible!

Now I’d love to hear from you! When it comes to arguments, are you an Avoider, a Peacekeeper, a Martyr, a Tyrant, or a combination? Which of the “rules” for productive arguing are you willing to try out? Leave a comment to let me know!


Why it’s totally OK when you don’t like someone

When you don’t speak up because “It’s not worth it”

Why I love jealousy (and you should, too)

Much Love,

Kristen (& Rachel)

4 Comments // ADD COMMENT