How to talk to someone you disagree with

How to talk to someone you disagree with

For the mass scope of our evolution, we were not apex predators. We were terrified primates hiding from the real predators. We're kind of hardwired to be on guard for threats.

Kurt Gray, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina

We develop stringent ideas about right and wrong, and if someone did something wrong, something immoral, outrage would be one punishment.

This moral sense in our mind compels us to cooperate and not harm others. We get angry when other people might harm us or our 'group'. And so that's the force that keeps us together as a society.

The problem is that these days, the threats we face are less obvious.


If there's no obvious threats, no obvious violence around us, we begin to see as threatening, more benign or ambiguous threats.

So Kurt argues, and his research suggests that everyone is ultimately worried about the same thing, harm. But their ideas of what causes the most harm and who is most vulnerable, that's what differs based on personal politics, religion, culture, life, experience, all kinds of things. The problem is there are a few factors that often cloud our ability to grasp this. One is a tendency to engage in something called Moral typecasting, just as we typecast actors doing roles.
So too do we typecast people into moral roles. We tend to see people as either villains or victims, but not both.

Sana Qadar: All in The Mind

Villain or Vicitm

Talking to someone you disagree with

Ask yourself, what harms do they see?

Facts can be seen differently - so offering 'Facts' may be useless. Facts are not relevant to morality.

And so not only do we not agree on facts, but it turns out facts are not really relevant to questions of morality, because those things we feel in our gut and those things are without harm. A mistake people make is to lead with 'Facts'.

Use story telling instead of 'Facts'

We evolved telling stories around a campfire.

We respect those who tell us stories to back up their beliefs, especially when those stories, are grounded in experiences.

Studies have confirmed - that using stories led to more respect from the other person.

Facts are important, so this is not what you should lead with when you're about to start a conversation with someone who disagrees with you.

3 conversation steps -:

  • connect (questions that get at a person's values, beliefs and experiences) refer deep questions below
  • invite (I know you voted differently than me in the last election, and I'm trying to understand why.)
  • validate (I appreciate you sharing that, and if I'm listening correctly, I think this is what you're saying)

A deep question is something that asks a person about their values, their beliefs or their experiences. And it's pretty easy to ask a deep question once you start looking for them. So for instance, if I bumped into you and I said, Oh, what do you do for a living? You say, Oh, I'm a radio host. Then I might say, oh, did you always want to be a radio host? So interesting, like, when did you decide to become a radio host? What do you love about your job? Right? Those are easy questions to ask, and all three of them are deep questions, because what I'm really asking you to do is talk about your experiences, what brought you to this place, you know, your beliefs that brought you to journalism.

Charles Duhigg Author, Supercommunicators

A technique Charles Duhigg mentions is labelled the matching technique, where you match the type of conversation of the other person.

There's these practical conversations where we have to sort of make decisions or solve problems. But then there's also emotional conversations when I want to tell you what my problem is, and I don't want you to solve this for me. I want you just to listen and empathize. And there's social conversations, which is about how we relate to each other and how we relate to the world.

The technique is sometimes called mirroring and can involve including para-linguistic cues [non-verbal elements of communication]

Refer Deep Listening

A last thought

Often people simply have different views on how best to protect their family. (The gun debate in USA is the obvious example of moral outrage on both sides)

Democracy flourishes when there's distinct ideas. How humans developed morality and why we differ in what we consider right and wrong make opposing views a part of life. Dealing with them better, makes sense.

It will not take long for you to test these techniques. It seems with social media there is far more outrage today.

Refer A matter of opinion

References and Sources

Kurt Gray, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina
author of outrage, why we fight about morality and politics and how to find common ground.

ABC All in the Mind - Age of rage: the psychology behind our moral outrage
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/allinthemind/psychology-behind-moral-outrage/104494166

ABC all in the mind - How to be a supercommunicator
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/allinthemind/how-to-be-supercommunicator/104462696

Charles Duhigg Reporter, New Yorker Magazine, Author, Supercommunicators

SEARCH ARTICLES

advanced search tips examples: "Yoga Meditation" Therap* +Yoga +Meditation

Recent Posts

Sleep better

Jun 25 2024
Sleep better

Protein Decoys

Mar 21 2024
Protein Decoys

Showing Initiative

Oct 27 2023
Showing Initiative

All Articles