This conversation is about what happens when our views and beliefs about reality meet perspectives and ideas contrary to our own. It’s all very relevant in this increasingly polarised world, where even a family meal can become a minefield.
I want to explore how we can ‘manage’ these situations more authentically and skilfully than the fight, freeze, or flight patterns so familiar to us. I have two personal examples to share of totally different responses to disagreement, and some thoughts along the way.
Let’s begin with where it all started last week. I knew the film would be controversial, but I was shocked by the response it got from some of the audience. We were showing The Agenda (details below) as it was documentary month for the local Cinema Club my husband and I run.
We have 150 people in the Cinema Club, and each month we vote on which film to watch. In the eight-year history of the club, this month’s vote for a ‘documentary’ was unique. Two films tied, exactly. One was The Agenda, the other was about Bee Keeper’s.
An executive decision was made to show both, one this month then Bee keeper film as a Director’s Choice in October. This distinction matters, because it shows how some wanted a deeper film exploring current issues, and some wanted a safe, comfortable option that didn’t challenge. I’ve seen this play out in the voting patterns over time, but this month the difference was visible in an unprecedented tie for the top two nominations.
On Monday night, about thirty people showed up to watch The Agenda, upstairs in the ‘Cinema’ room of our local pub. Halfway through, we always have an interval for drinks and ice creams. At this point, one man announced loudly that he wasn’t staying to watch such utter rubbish, because it was all nonsense.
Someone gently asked him what specifically upset him. He said, “I refuse to talk about it here.” But he did talk about it — outside the pub, with others who also left. We lost half the audience; the rest leaving quietly, but still showing their disapproval.
The other half stayed long after the credits, wanting to talk about the film. Some were amazed, others overwhelmed by the information, some visibly shaken. Others were pleased to see their perspective validated.
This film caused a stir — a rupture in the fabric of local life that went far beyond the film itself. We saw a range of reactions, from validation to feeling threatened. The ‘angry’ man sent us an email the following evening, saying how surprised he was that the club could vote for such a right-wing film. One that challenges vaccines and the climate crisis, that is dangerous and shouldn’t have been shown.
This email could be unpacked in a number of ways, not least the irony that the Agenda film is also about censorship and the loss of free speech. He didn’t stop there — his anger propelled him to go round telling people not to come to the second showing on Thursday night. This had the opposite effect. No one cancelled, and no one walked out. Some said, “no one is going to tell me what I can watch.”
Yet it mirrors many of our own experiences of coming up against opposing views at the meal table, socially, or at work. Which raises the question: how do we navigate these encounters with skill, and ideally with grace ?
We cannot convince anyone or win in these situations. That’s the structure of conquering or appeasement, and neither helps. Both only perpetuate the old paradigm.
“Story is power - and power, when used rightly, can ease suffering. Beginning within and radiating outward”. Camilla Sanderson
One way to view what happened in the audience is through the lens of stories rather than surface-level opinions. Our perspectives and views depend on the stories we’ve created and adopted to make sense of the world. These stories are powerful. They shape our lives more than facts do, because they’re emotionally charged and they’re about what we believe to be true.
It has been said that next to hunger and thirst, our most basic human need is for storytelling.”
— Khalil Gibran
We all know we see and interpret reality differently, and that this depends on numerous factors. Including our physiology, neurology, culture, values, beliefs, and what we ‘consume.’ Our stories help us make sense of things; they give us security, and they receive confirmation from the biases we all carry.
Our stories fit with our values and beliefs about how we see ourselves. These are identity-level beliefs for example.. I am a caring person, I am successful, I act for the good of all.
Our personal stories, like maps, show us where we belong and the values we hold sacrosanct. Potentially making any disagreement more than a difference in opinion. If someone threatens our story, it’s like an assault on the fabric of our internal architecture, our very identity.
The walls of our constructed stories might be exposed as fragile, or crumbling under the weight of reality. Stories provide us with psychological shelter, and for many of us they must be defended rigorously. This is why a strong disagreement can be experienced as more threatening than a physical assault. It’s a challenge to who we are, how we live and how we see ourselves in the world.
Seen through the lens of stories, the ones who left at half-time weren’t necessarily closed-minded. Their actions may have been about self-preservation. Feeling a threat to what they hold important, and wanting to protect themselves. Sensing what might happen if they lost their coherent sense of the world. Their trust in the institutions they need in order to function. When you can no longer trust governments, health experts, scientists or the media, where do you go?
Leaving a room is sometimes the sanest thing a person can do with material they’re not resourced to metabolise, or be curious about. But the ones who stayed weren’t necessarily more resourced or open-minded either.
For some, this film landed on fertile ground. They were already holding a version of this map, so the film didn’t threaten their world, it confirmed it. For them, staying cost nothing; it was validation. As one person said,
“I have been learning about this ‘agenda’ for five years — they got it all in ninety minutes.”
Which is also why it was a revelation that those for whom this was mostly new information stayed too, wanting to talk about it afterwards.
Raising the questions: what determines capacity and curiosity for hearing versions of reality that challenge your own ?
How can one person sit with disorienting information and let it rearrange them, while another needs to leave the room to stay intact ?
None of us is immune to this. We all, consciously and unconsciously, protect, reinforce, and cling to our stories. They are powerful, animated structures, held together by our beliefs, our values and our versions of reality.
The ability to respond differently to a challenging view can be as simple as being willing to listen. But real change demands more than better communication skills.
This is why more facts don’t change minds. Facts get folded into the story, but they’re rarely what’s being defended. It’s the identity underneath that’s being protected. And that’s also why real change, real transformation, can only happen at an identity level.
That kind of change isn’t automatic. It means becoming someone who can meet a challenging view with curiosity instead of threat. It means being able to hold discomfort, anger, even rage, as information to notice ; not a signal to freeze, fight or flee.
That takes work. It takes self-awareness, and a working relationship with your own triggers. It is genuinely hard-won — a constant practice for which the world provides ample opportunities.
It takes two to create patterns in a relationship, but only one to change them.
I close with the other example of how to respond to disagreement in a comment I received from Gillian & Li'l Bean to the post on my conversation with Margaret Anna Alice This post was on whether we can challenge the science on manmade climate crisis, and why we should.
“I was curious to watch this, as I respect and appreciate you — what struck me is that we seem to notice many of the same patterns: greenwashing, corporate capture, surveillance, growing concentrations of power, and the erosion of trust — but we weave them into very different stories.
I see the climate crisis as real, and sucky — an unintended consequence of ordinary human ingenuity colliding with the laws of chemistry and physics, not a deliberately manufactured crisis. That doesn’t mean powerful interests don’t exploit crises to their advantage, which seems to be the core of your position.
What I find most interesting isn’t that we disagree, but how thoughtful, caring people can observe the same things and arrive at such different explanations. I’m increasingly curious about that process itself.
If you’re ever interested, I’d enjoy exploring that together — not as a debate to be won, but as an inquiry into how we each make sense of the world, and the more important consequence: how do we work together for genuine human thriving when we don’t agree?”
I read this beautifully constructed invitation a couple of times, to take in all the grace of the message. I said yes to Gillian and look forward to how we explore this together and will report back.
Whats important now is not how differently we see what is wrong , it is finding common ground for creating what is right for our futures . Not to be seduced into silo’s of outrage and distrust of each other. That only serves those who want to maintain power structures over us .
Having compassion rather than judgement for those who feel threatened or are struggling with the overwhelm and uncertainty. Seeing instead that we need to create and live new stories if we are to have any chance of working together for human flourishing. Starting with our own inner work of grace, curiosity and intention to find shared interests in a world of discord.
Is this even possible ?
I received this comment from Zahra Collapse Life when I posted a note about the angry walk out from the film.
“Interesting, Susan. Thanks for sharing. It’s the fear I’ve been feeling with regard to “community” - that it can quickly become tribalism.
The 20-minute post-walkout huddle shows that people rarely just “ignore” things they disagree with. They actively organize a counter-narrative with like-minded peers to restore their sense of reality. In modern communities, the gap isn’t just a difference of opinion; it is a completely different baseline of what is considered “real” or “safe” to think about.”
Let me know what you think in the comments and lets keep this conversation going…
With Love and Solidarity,
The Agenda: Their Vision – Your Future is a feature-length independent documentary by former UK broadcasting executive Mark Sharman (ITV, Sky). It explores claims of a decades-long plan by global elites to centralize control using tools like AI, surveillance, digital currencies, and digital identities. The film warns of a "digital prison" where everyday freedoms—food, energy, money, travel, internet access—could be restricted. It questions the role of institutions like the WHO and critiques the UN's Agenda 2030 and Net Zero goals as potential enablers of global authoritarianism. Featuring expert voices from the UK, USA, and Europe, the documentary draws parallels with dystopian visions from Orwell and Huxley.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.