Every time we defend ourselves with it, we must do so in an offensive way with the Other feeling compelled to defend themselves likewise, once more provoking us or someone else to aggressive response, and on and on it goes. Their opinions diverge, they disagree. We will focus on disagreement since it is more obvious and accessible, easier to resolve than are conflicts at deeper levels which involve differing characteristics rather than opinions. In the M-m model, arguments are stated by the parties in conflict, each using them to put oneself in the right. Among the disempowering devices used are racist, ageist and sexist remarks.
Arguments stimulate an escalation of the conflict, feeding the fire so to speak.
Both parties use whatever they can find to strengthen their point of view in opposition to that of Other and to surmount it. One simply expands the conflict from above, feeding fuel to the fire. By contrast, the E model works with foundations, not arguments. These elements can be either rational or emotional. Through exploring foundations, one understands the conflict in depth rather than simply feeding it at the surface.