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.
Sana Qadar: All in The Mind
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'.
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.
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
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
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
Jan 28 2025
How to talk to someone you disagree with
Jan 27 2025
Alcohol Causes Cancer
Jan 14 2025
The role of the Amygdala
Oct 04 2024
A Support Guide for Anorexia Nervosa
Jun 25 2024
Sleep better
Jun 12 2024
7 Health Tips from Michael Mosely
Mar 21 2024
Protein Decoys
Oct 27 2023
Showing Initiative