It just means solutions are as complicated as the problem, and for any solution truly to stick, both sides need to admit that.
From my courtroom experience, however, that is very difficult. Hurt and fear (of loss of kids/money/status) are easier to tolerate if we default to anger and blame and focus our efforts on rejecting - and ejecting - that person as if they were a virus rather than your kids' mum.
We live in very fearful times. They are also legitimately very frightening times, but often the reactions are to the default position of the fearful: anger, blame and rejection.
Fear amplifies our tendency to revert to our most extreme corners and armour up.
We're increasingly encouraged to stay in our corners. Like most mums of teenagers, I'm constantly saying that social media is an echo chamber, but it's worse than that.
The algorithms are tuned to repeat whatever generates the most extreme reactions, especially anger. Mainstream media does it too. Extreme headlines sell: if, as the saying goes, it bleeds, it leads.
Neurologists say we're wired to focus on bad news, probably because that's how our ancestors survived: a jumpy caveman is an alive caveman.
But today, when life depends on the community, not the jungle, defaulting to anger and attack is the real danger.
In a British Conservative leadership party debate last week, the audience was asked whether they trust any politician. Not a single hand went up. Clearly, some recent British politicians haven't covered themselves in glory. But to not trust any of your leaders is extreme, and risky in difficult times.
Facts matter. Principles matter. Accountability matters. Debate about them matters. It's not that we argue: it's how we argue.
When the going gets tough, we're all drawn to fight or flight, but we need to find a way to stand our ground - without needing to level everyone around us.
The foundation for discussion is not even to concede common ground, it is to concede common humanity.
