When arguing, debating, or fighting with someone in English, the best ground rules I can think of for keeping the conversation moving in a productive direction (towards WHAT is right, not WHO is right) actually come from Spanish.
As I understand them, SER and ESTAR are both verb forms of what translates in English “to be”. But they’re very different in actual meaning.
SER – a mostly permanent characteristic of something’s or someone’s makeup.
Example: Soy hombre. (I am a guy.) Es un perro. (It’s a dog.) Son azul. (They are blue.)
SER is used for characteristics that either don’t change ever or are defining characteristics of the object in discussion. Soy de los Estados Unidos. (I am from the United States. Maybe in 20 years I’ll say I’m from some other country, but the defining location where I am from is in my life still the US.)
ESTAR – a temporary state of being. It might be defining in the moment but it’s not a part of the object’s permanent makeup, it’s a passing descriptive.
EXAMPLE: Estamos en la playa. (We’re at the beach). El nino esta llorando. (The boy is crying.) Alli esta. (It’s over there.)
Those things are factually correct right now, but they are not permanent. They’re not always at the beach, the boy is not always crying, and the thing might not always be over there.
So when you’re in an argument, and you use words and phrases (in English) that have the SER connotation, you’re implying that something is permanent.
But with ESTAR, the blame is more properly assigned to the situational facts, which leads to more logical discussion and eliminates character assassination.
Ironically, for all of English’s variability, I think the Spanish SER and ESTAR do a better job of differentiating between this very important distinction.
SER: “You’re a bad communicator.” (You’re always a bad communicator, it’s part of the fiber of your being.)
ESTAR: “That was bad communication.” (That specific thing you said – or didn’t say – was not clearly delineated and led to a temporary situation of misunderstanding born from our momentary poor communication.)
SER: “You’re so immature.” (You have a stunted personality and are completely and totally unable to cope rationally with adult life. Ouch, right?)
ESTAR: “That was an immature thing to say.” (That specific thing you said was not becoming of a rational adult. Easier to accept, process, and respond to without firing back in like manner, because in order to initiate a defense you have to defend the thing that was said, not your being.)
SER: “You’re so selfish!” (You are narcissistic and don’t ever care about anyone else, you’ll do whatever it takes to please yourself no matter the negative impact on other people. That’s a pretty heavy statement of “fact”.)
ESTAR: “That was a selfish thing to do.” (The action that you took was shortsighted and failed to take into account the potential hurtful impact on those affected by it. If there were negative consequences already, then the receiver can rationally see that yes, their actions were as described.)
You see? MAJOR difference, because SER becomes hurtful daggers at the person’s character, at their being, at their soul, and SER is pretty irrational because rarely, if ever, is the accused actually that negative trait 100% of the time.
Whereas ESTAR is much more logical because it strips the negativity back to only the moment of offense, and is not a slam on the person, but a description of the offending action.
This is much more likely to actually be true, and keeps the person receiving the message out of the line of fire, so that the response is much more likely to be rational as well.
Let’s use one of the above examples and take it further, to see what happens.
SER: “You’re a bad communicator.” (You’re always a bad communicator, it’s part of the fiber of your being.)
SER RESPONSE: “How is it all MY fault, communication is the responsibility of both people, you are so rude!” (Interpreting the SER statement as it was stated, a blanket evaluation of their character. Responding in turn, with a blanket evaluation of the first person’s character – you are a rude person – which will lead the first person to defend themselves.)
SER: “I’m not rude at all, you are a bad communicator and you can’t handle the truth, that’s not rude! Tell me how that’s rude. You’re just so overly sensitive to everything.”
The fight escalates completely away from the original issue and gets entirely personal, and nothing positive is accomplished.
ESTAR: “That was bad communication.” (That specific thing you said – or didn’t say – was not clearly delineated and led to a temporary situation of misunderstanding born from our momentary poor communication.)
ESTAR RESPONSE: “Yes, we did not communicate clearly. I thought you understood that when I said X, I meant X, but I can see now how you might have thought I meant Y. I will be more clear next time, and if you have any question about my intention, you should ask as well.” (Interpreting the ESTAR statement as it was stated, a rational evaluation of the specific situation in question.)
And the discussion is probably resolved in a positive manner, and two rational adults move on without any emotional hangover.
What happens most of the time though, is that arguments quickly get away from dealing with the facts, and get personal.
There is never any positive resolution from arguments that get personal, because the parties engaged in battle are no longer looking for a rational solution – they have to defend themselves because every human with even a semblance of healthy self-image is going to bristle and take umbrage with a personal and probably unwarranted attack on their character.
The difference is a very fine line but an incredibly important one. If one is truly interested in healthy relationships and rational communication, then care must be given to deal in ESTAR during arguments, and never SER.
Another example:
SER: “You are always so uptight, chill out!” (You are incapable of loosening up and having fun, and you drag the party down. No matter how much of a J brain type someone is, nobody likes to be accused of being this because of the larger negative social implications.)
SER RESPONSE: “Well you’re irresponsible and you’re going to get someone killed!” (You are incapable of thinking logically and long term, to the point where your shortsighted actions are liable to cause irreparable damage for which you’ll never be forgiven.)
vs.
ESTAR: “You are worrying about thing X needlessly, don’t stress about it, I’m telling you, it will be fun.” (Your actions are strictly in relation to thing X, but I comprehend at least partially why you are stressed about it and can assure you that there is no need for these actions in this situation.)
ESTAR RESPONSE: “Ok, well I think that doing thing X is dangerous and so doing it seems irresponsible, even if some people think it is fun.” (Thing X is the culprit here, and there’s no character assassination. They can agree to disagree, or look at the facts of the situation deeper.)
In the ESTAR example, the two parties are not emotionally accusing one another of permanent character flaws.
They are openly discussing a situation which is the cause for disagreement, and by discussing it rationally, keeping the focus on their respective views on thing X, they will very likely be able to come to a peaceful agreement, even if that means they agree to disagree.
It’s a minor subtlety of language, but an incredibly important one in being able to communicate peacefully in most any situation.
Don’t attack peoples’ character. Don’t use SER forms of words for temporary situations.
Discuss the facts of the situation rationally – use ESTAR and arrive at a more productive outcome.
Because the person in question is just like you, on a journey of life that hopefully includes the desire to learn, grow, and evolve. Using SER insinuates that they have no hope, their character is set, and their character sucks.
But using ESTAR simply accepts them as a fellow human, and focuses the discussion, argument, or debate strictly on the momentary issue / action / thing at hand.
That’s going to lead to a lot more productive results.