Based on the physics principle that Pressure = Force / Area, you can relieve the pressure of an attack without changing the force. Reframe the attack from being on you personally to being on a larger group or ideal you represent ('You're not just attacking me, you're attacking all of us').

Instead of waiting to be attacked for your weaknesses, preemptively address them yourself. By owning or diffusing the negative points first, you disarm your opponent, leaving them with nothing to say. This 'prebuttal' strategy seizes the narrative advantage by controlling the initial framing.

To defuse conflict, frame your perspective as a personal narrative rather than objective fact. This linguistic tool signals vulnerability and invites dialogue by acknowledging your story could be wrong, preventing the other person's brain from defaulting to a defensive, "fight or flight" response.

When facing a viewpoint you find incorrect, the instinct is to correct the facts. A better approach is to first validate the person's emotion ("It makes sense you feel X about Y"). This makes them feel heard and safe, preventing defensiveness before you present your own perspective.

Navigate disagreements with a four-step method: use uncertain language (Hedge), find common ground (Emphasize Agreement), demonstrate what you heard (Acknowledge), and frame points positively instead of negatively (Reframe). This prevents conversations from spiraling into negativity.

In a conflict, the person who has been wronged and is in a position to forgive holds the ultimate power. Responding to aggression with aggression creates a stalemate. Choosing forgiveness disrupts the opponent's framework, cancels their perceived debt, and creates an opening for radical change.

In high-stakes discussions, instinctually attacking a point leads to a zero-sum game. Grammarly's co-founder starts his responses with a genuine "Yes" (not "Yes, but…"). This tactic is primarily for his own benefit, mentally priming him to find common ground first, which then shifts the conversation's dynamic toward a productive outcome.

In disagreements, the objective isn't to prove the other person wrong or "win" the argument. The true goal is to achieve mutual understanding. This fundamental shift in perspective transforms a confrontational dynamic into a collaborative one, making difficult conversations more productive.

Based on a Zen story, "eating the blame" involves proactively apologizing for your part in a conflict, even when you feel your partner is more at fault. This emotionally counter-intuitive act breaks the cycle of defensiveness and creates space for resolution, making it a highly agentic move.