Understanding the Problem From the Inside Out

Two people can experience the same event and tell very different stories about it.

One person may say, “You ignored me.”

The other may answer, “I was busy. I did not even see you.”

Both describe the same moment, but each speaks from a different Conflict Position. In PeaceDNA, a Conflict Position is not simply a demand, argument, or side to defend. It is one person’s experience of the Conflict Problem, organized into three connected parts:

Facts → Feelings → Beliefs

Step 2 gives each person an opportunity to explain those parts and hear the other person’s Conflict Position before anyone rushes toward a Remedy. This is where empathy builds the experience. The purpose is not to decide immediately who is right. It is to understand what happened, how it was experienced, and what meaning each person gave it.

Begin With Adequate Conditions

Step 2 begins only when Step 1—Conditions—is strong enough for reasonably safe and voluntary participation. Both people must be willing, ready, and reasonably able to continue peacefully. They do not have to be completely calm or agree with each other. They do need enough freedom and self-control to speak, listen, disagree, pause, or leave.

If threats, intimidation, FOULs, coercion, or unsafe behavior appear, return to Step 1. Understanding a Conflict Position never requires someone to remain in danger or submit to an abusive exchange.

What Is a Conflict Position?

A Conflict Position is a description of one person’s current understanding and experience of the (Conflict) Problem.

Each position contains:

• Facts: What the person observed or can reasonably verify.
• Feelings: What the person experienced emotionally.
• Beliefs: What the person thinks the Facts and Feelings mean.

Each person owns their Conflict Position in telling it. It may be incomplete, mistaken, or changed by new information, but it remains their present experience. It can only be changed from within, expressed empathy, as compassion.

Two Conflict Positions can differ without either person deliberately lying. People notice different details, remember events differently, feel different emotions, and assign different meanings to what occurred. Step 2 makes those differences visible.

Position Part: Facts

Facts describe what could be directly observed, heard, recorded, counted, or otherwise checked. Examples include:

• “The meeting began at 9:00.”
• “You arrived at 9:20.”
• “I sent two messages.”
• “You said, ‘I am done talking.’”
• “The door was closed.”
• “Three people were present.”

Facts provide the outside structure of the story. What happened? When? By who? What did you/they do next? Do right before that? They answer the Guiding Question:

“What happened?”

However, people often mix Facts with judgments:

• “You ignored me.”
• “You were disrespectful.”
• “You tried to embarrass me.”
• “You never care what I think.”

These statements may express something important, but they are not Separate Facts. Words such as ignored, disrespectful, and tried to embarrass me assign meaning or intention. They belong mainly under Beliefs.

A more separated Fact statement might be:

Fact: “I spoke to you twice, and you did not answer.”

This wording does not prove why the other person did not answer. It simply identifies one moment of the observable event. Separating Facts does not mean denying interpretation or experience. It gives Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs their proper places so all can be examined more clearly.

Faux Facts are presented later under FOUL Buster, but for now Opinions/Beliefs claimed or mistaken for fact are fake (French: FAUX = Fake). Faux Fact is a Fake Fact in PeaceDNA.

Part Two: Feelings

Feelings describe the speaker’s internal emotional experience.

Unpleasant P2P Conflict examples include:

• Angry
• Afraid
• Confused
• Disappointed
• Embarrassed
• Frustrated
• Hurt
• Lonely
• Relieved
• Sad

Feelings answer the Guiding Question: “What did/do you feel?”

Feelings belong to the person experiencing them. Another person may disagree with the speaker’s interpretation of the event, but they cannot honestly decide that the speaker did not feel afraid, angry, or hurt.

However, not every sentence beginning with “I feel” names a Feeling. For example:

• “I feel that you lied.”
• “I feel like you do not respect me.”
• “I feel you were trying to control me.”

These are mainly Beliefs about another person’s behavior or intention. A clearer separation might be:

Fact: “You told me the work was finished, but the report was incomplete.”

Feeling: “I felt disappointed and worried.”

Belief: “I believed I could no longer rely on your updates.”

This separation helps a listener understand the emotional experience without being forced to accept the speaker’s interpretation as proven Fact. Feelings are not proof of what happened, but they are real parts of a Conflict Position and often explain why the Problem matters.

Part Three: Beliefs

Beliefs are the meanings, explanations, assumptions, judgments, expectations, and conclusions connected to the Facts and Feelings. They answer the Guiding Question:

“What did you believe the Facts meant and why?”

Examples include:

• “I believed you were avoiding me.”
• “I assumed my opinion did not matter.”
• “I expected you to call.”
• “I thought you were making fun of me.”
• “I concluded that the agreement had been broken.”

Beliefs are not automatically false. They may be accurate, partly accurate, or mistaken. The important point is that a Belief should not be presented as a proven Fact without enough evidence.

Consider the statement:

“You ignored me because you do not respect me.”

Separated into Conflict Position parts, it could become:

• Fact: “I called your name twice, and you did not respond.”
• Feeling: “I felt hurt and embarrassed.”
• Belief: “I believed you heard me and chose not to answer because you did not respect me.”

Now the listener can respond to each part. The listener might agree that no answer was given, recognize the hurt, and explain that loud music prevented them from hearing. The original Belief made sense from one Conflict Position, but new Facts may change it. That is one reason Step 2 matters.

The Three Guiding Questions

A Conflict Position can be explored with three guiding questions:

1. Facts: What happened?
2. Feelings: What did you feel/experience?
3. Beliefs: What did you believe the Facts meant?

These questions are guides, not a rigid script. They do not have to be asked in order. A person may begin with anger, remember another Fact, explain a Belief, and then discover a deeper Feeling.

The listener can follow the story naturally:

• “What happened next?”
• “How did that affect you?”
• “What did you think that meant?”
• “Is there another Fact that seems important?”
• “Did your Belief change later?”

The three areas can be revisited as understanding grows. Questions should sound curious rather than prosecuting. Repeating them mechanically may make the conversation feel like an interview or interrogation.

Conflict Positions Are Not Fixed Positions

The word position can suggest a fixed demand:

“I want the money.”

“You must apologize.”

“I refuse to move.”

That is not what Conflict Position means in PeaceDNA. A Conflict Position is the person’s present view of the Problem—not a final demand and not a place they must defend forever. As Facts become clearer and Feelings are spoken aloud, Beliefs may change. Someone might realize:

• They misunderstood what happened.
• They were missing an important Fact.
• Their first Feeling covered a deeper one.
• They assumed an intention that was never stated.
• The other person experienced the event differently.

Changing a Conflict Position is not automatically surrender. It may be evidence that the person has learned something.

Listening Does Not Require Agreement

Understanding another person’s Conflict Position does not mean:

• Agreeing with every statement.
• Accepting every Belief as Fact.
• Approving of harmful behavior.
• Taking equal responsibility.
• Giving up a boundary.
• Forgiving or reconciling.
• Agreeing to a future Remedy.

A listener may say:

“I understand that you felt ignored and believed I did not care. I did not realize you had called my name.”

That response recognizes the other person’s experience without agreeing that the harm was intentional. Likewise, empathy should not be demanded or performed. Step 2 creates an opportunity for empathy by improving understanding, but no technique can guarantee it.

Rephrasing for Understanding

A listener may sometimes restate what was heard as a question:

“Are you saying that when I left without speaking, you felt abandoned because you believed I was ending the relationship?”

If that accurately reflects what the speaker already said, the speaker may answer yes, correct it, or add more information.

This kind of Rephrase for Yes should confirm understanding—not pressure the speaker into agreement. It must not add accusations, interpretations, or new information.

The speaker always remains free to say:

“No, that is not what I meant.”

A Simple Example

Suppose two coworkers disagree about a missed deadline.

Jordan says:

“You made me look incompetent in front of the manager.”

Casey replies:

“That is ridiculous. You are blaming me for your mistake.”

Both statements combine Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs. Step 2 separates them.

Jordan’s Conflict Position

• Facts: “Casey told the manager that my section was unfinished. The deadline had passed.”
• Feelings: “I felt embarrassed, angry, and worried.”
• Beliefs: “I believed Casey was placing all the blame on me and damaging my reputation.”

Casey’s Conflict Position

• Facts: “The manager asked which sections were unfinished. I said Jordan’s section had not been submitted.”
• Feelings: “I felt pressured and defensive.”
• Beliefs: “I believed I was answering a direct question, not trying to embarrass Jordan.”

The Conflict Positions still differ. Jordan experienced public blame. Casey experienced pressure to report accurately.

Step 2 does not force the two stories into one approved version. It shows exactly where they agree, where they differ, and where assumptions may need to be checked. That clearer understanding prepares the Conflict Problem for the next step without prematurely trying to solve it.

Try This

When someone explains a Conflict Position , listen for the three parts:

• What can be observed or checked?
• What did the person feel?
• What meaning did the person give the event?

Then ask for more:

“What happened?” (or “What did you directly see or hear?”)

Other useful versions include:
“What did you personally observe?”
“What was said or done?”
“What happened from your perspective?”
“What do you remember seeing and hearing?”
“What happened first?”
“What part of this do you know firsthand?”

“What were you feeling?” (or “What feelings came up for you?”)

It invites more than a one-word answer and avoids making the person feel pressured to identify one “correct” emotion. Other useful versions include:

“How did that affect you emotionally?”
“What were you feeling at that moment?”
“What are you feeling now as you talk about it?”
“What feelings do you remember having?”
“What was happening inside you?”
“Which part affected you most?”
“Did your feelings change as the situation continued?”

“What did that mean to you?” (“or what did you believe that meant?

This is simple, neutral, and invites the speaker to explain the Belief they formed about the event.

Other useful alternatives include:

• “What did you think was happening?”
• “What did you believe was behind it?”
• “How did you understand what happened?”
• “What conclusion did you reach?”
• “What did you believe the other person intended?”
• “What did you assume at the time?”
• “What did the situation seem to say about you, the other person, or your relationship?”
• “Has your understanding changed since then?”

Remain open to corrections. Do not rush to defend yourself, prove your version, or propose a Remedy.

When both Conflict Positions have been explored clearly enough, the conflict is better prepared for its next peaceful step.

Four-Perspective Red-Team Review

1. Conflict-Resolution Practitioner

Analysis: The post separates Conflict Positions into practical parts while allowing the conversation to move naturally.

Risk tested: Separating Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs too strictly could interrupt someone’s story or make the method feel mechanical.

Response: The Guiding Questions may be asked in any order and revisited. The categories organize understanding; they are not intended to control how someone tells their story.

2. Trauma-Informed and Safety Reviewer

Analysis: The post makes clear that understanding another person does not require agreement, forgiveness, reconciliation, or continued contact.

Risk tested: A controlling person could use Step 2 to demand emotional disclosure, challenge someone’s memory, or pressure them into accepting a shared version.

Response: Participation remains voluntary, each person owns their Conflict Position, and worsening Conditions require a return to Step 1. Direct dialogue is not required when it would be unsafe.

3. Teacher and Peace-Education Reviewer

Analysis: The repeated pattern of Fact, Feeling, and Belief gives learners a clear way to examine conflict language.

Risk tested: Students may label every disputed statement as a Belief and then treat Beliefs as unimportant or false.

Response: The post explains that Beliefs may be accurate, partly accurate, or mistaken. Separating a Belief from a Fact does not dismiss it; it makes its role in the Conflict Position clearer.

4. Skeptical First-Time Reader

Analysis: The workplace example demonstrates how two conflicting accounts can both contain meaningful information.

Risk tested: A skeptic may argue that dividing a personal experience into three categories oversimplifies memory, emotion, and interpretation.

Response: PeaceDNA presents Facts, Feelings, and Beliefs as a practical educational framework, not a scientific claim about everything occurring in experience. Its value is whether the separation improves understanding and reveals where the two Conflict Positions connect or differ.