Do you know the difference between discussion and debate?  The difference can be subtle. When you discuss something, you talk to another person. When you debate, you talk AT the other person.  One is a productive form of communication, the other is not.  When you debate,  rather than active listening, you are spending time formulating a counter-argument.  When you discuss something, you spend your time actively listening to your opponent, trying to find common ground and trying to understand their point of view.er is not.  When you debate,  rather than active listening, you are spending time formulating a counter-argument.  When you discuss something, you spend your time actively listening to your opponent, trying to find common ground and trying to understand their point of view.

When a person debates, an opponents good points are deflected. No matter how valid they are, they continue to be deflected. Rather than trying to understand another point of view, the approach is to “win.”  There is no effort to understand your point of view.

There are people who are unable to listen actively and engage you without invalidating you. They deflect your point of view and convince themselves their point of view is the only valid one. Deflection can be an effective tool when used appropriately depending on how it is used, and whether is it used in functional or dysfunctional ways.

 

Imagine that you are having lunch with someone special, someone who means a lot to you, who cares about and respects you, and who you would be spending your time with right now if you could. You are sitting in an outdoor café with this person, and the restaurant is busy, but not too busy such that you can’t hear the birds chirping in the park down the street.

Now, as you are taking a bite out of you delicious meal, this person starts to go on about something that genuinely bothers you. It could be that they want to impose their ideals upon you, want to control you in some way, or that they say something that hurts your feelings. It’s not that they meant to do it; it just happened, and your feelings got hurt. (If you can pick a specific sentence or phrase, it will be easier to follow the rest of this article—and if you can pick something specific with ease, it may be a sign that something similar has already been said, which you have not yet addressed.)

Okay, so the other person, the one you enjoy spending your time with, says something that causes you to feel hurt. You put down your fork, take your napkin from your lap, wipe your mouth, and then put the napkin back into your lap. You wait until they are finished talking, and then you say to them, politely, but firmly, that you disagree/ you have been hurt/ you didn’t like what they said to you. You might even explain why if you can.

It’s their turn to respond now. For the sake of this imaginary scenario, they deflect your words right off their back, and here are some things they might say:

Destructive Deflections

“You are overreacting/ too sensitive/ taking it personally.”
“This is not about me; it’s about you—you are projecting your ‘stuff’ onto me.”

“By your reaction I can see you have a lot of repressed anger—why don’t you deal with that first?”

“This is triggering a lot of fear in you. Don’t worry, once you stop being afraid you’ll see I’m right.”

“You may not be enlightened/ aware/ conscious/ knowledgeable/ mindful/ smart/ open enough right now to see that I’m right, but some day you will.”

“I’m sorry I offended you; that’s not my intention. I care about you and respect you, but—(their justification of why they are still ‘right’)”

These destructive deflections serve one purpose: to invalidate your concern, disagreement, and/or your feelings. They are all meant to say: “Hey, there’s nothing here to see—let’s just get back the point that I was making, the point that is right, by the way.”

So we could say that your special someone’s deflection is indirect attack, but it’s more like an attempt at self-defense. Because if they were truly comfortable being who they are, and believing what they believe without needing your validation—they wouldn’t need to invalidate you when you disagree or have an emotional response.

Instead, they would simply address the issue, apologize for giving you cause for hurt, and if necessary, try to understand: (a) why what they said gave you cause for feeling hurt (and if there any misunderstandings that need to be cleared up); (b) how you two can resolve the issue; (c) how you two can come to an agreement, even if it’s an agreement to disagree, and (d) how they can make amends and regain your trust. Why would they do all this? Because they care about and respect you—they don’t just say they do.

Let’s imagine a little further.

So you spoke up about how you were bothered by what your special someone said. And they deflected you. Now it’s your turn.

This time, you deflect, but for different reasons. You deflect so as not to invalidate yourself by passively going along with their diversion tactic. Here are some things you might say:

Constructive Deflections

“You are not taking me seriously.”
“You’re dramatizing instead of focusing on what I’ve said.”

“You’re avoiding what I said when you accuse me of being too emotional to talk with you rationally.”

“You’re projecting fear onto me instead of listening to me.”

“By telling me I am not as enlightened/ aware/ conscious/ knowledgeable/ mindful/ smart/ open as you are, you are indirectly putting me down, and I don’t appreciate it.”

“You’re not really sorry when you still defend your actions.”

These constructive deflections serve one purpose: to express that you don’t appreciate the diversion tactic without getting distracted in the process. They are all meant to say: “Hi, I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not biting the bait—because bottom line is you just invalidated my point of view and I’m not going to argue my feelings as if they are point to be debated; they exist, whether you acknowledge them or not.”

Now, the whole point of this imaginary scenario was not to pit you against your special someone. It was meant to bring this concept of deflection close to home, so that you can see how easily it is to slip into the debate game and regard feelings as if they are points to be argued for or against.

This scenario was meant to illustrate the double-edge of deflection:

Deflections used destructively serve a diversion tactic so that one’s own point of view remains unchallenged and unquestioned (by themselves, mainly)—and they are not conducive to understanding different points of view, which is necessary for developing empathy and improving relationships.
Deflections used constructively serve a protection device so that one does not unnecessarily defend their point of view to anyone else who is trying to invalidate that point of view.
Deflections Delineate Boundaries

When someone deflects, they lay a boundary then and there. That boundary makes it so that whatever you say or do will not get through to them. That boundary may be placed for protection, or from fear. If it is for protection, it is used constructively so as not to expend energy on someone or something that is not worth their time. If it is from fear, it is used to deny other points of view in hopes of “winning” a debate—which really, is insecurity seeping through.

So if you want to master the art of deflection, you need to remember that any deflection forms a boundary, and that that boundary may be constructive or destructive—so lay them down mindfully and watch where others lay down theirs.