Why is it so hard to disagree?
Issue 159: How to have conversations across divides: Lessons from a psychologist, a neuroscientist, and a political scientist.
Why is it so hard to disagree?
I spent the day at a fantastic conference on discourse and democracy at the The University of Texas at Austin on was on a panel about how to have better conversations across political and intergroup divides.
The panel consisted of a psychologist (myself), a neuroscientist (Mina Cikara), and a political scientist (Matthew Levendusky), and was moderated by an expert in social conflict and prosocial behavior (Marlone Henderson). We took turns answering questions from the moderator and the audience as we grappled with the challenges of how to disagree in a diverse society.
Our conversation was covered by The Daily Texan (you can read a summary of the full conference here). We discussed how it has become difficult to have civil disagreements and possible solutions:
“A key aspect of our mission as teachers and researchers is to prepare students to be successful in life,” said UT liberal arts professor Marlone Henderson, who moderated the discussion. “Given the ever-increasing divisiveness that exists in society, some argue that we as educators could be doing a better job at fulfilling our mission.”
Henderson asked panelists if moral divisiveness has become more recent.
“I think anytime moral issues are on the table, we have the potential to get incredibly heated because the easiest explanation for why we don’t think the same things is that (an opponent is) immoral,” Cikara said. “We stop at the concept of their beliefs, and don’t necessarily interrogate how they came to hold those beliefs in the first place.”
Panelists also discussed potential solutions to this problem.
“One of the benefits of growing older is that you realize that you will screw up, and that you will need people to forgive you, so in return, you would send them that same courtesy,” Levendusky said.
Panelists also discussed if the concept of truth has been eroded because of the rise of social media, and if people can come to agreements if truth does not exist.
“Ideally, it would be great if we had a deeper understanding of people and their differences in order to respect them, embrace some of the things that we can agree on and enrich our own thinking,” Van Bavel said.
People are surprised how much they enjoy talking to people—even strangers or people different from themselves—in real life. If possible, have a face-to-face conversation where you should try to do the following:
1) Genuinely listen: Deep, high‐quality listening that offers a non-judgmental approach, understanding, and careful attention when speakers share disparate views can have the power to bridge divides and change speakers' attitude—and it is a skill that can be developed by all of us!
2) Find some common ground: One of the most effective strategies for reducing intergroup animosity is to established common ground among partisans—blurring the boundaries between groups can foster empathy and lay the foundation for cooperation.
3) Share your personal experiences: People believe that facts are essential for earning the respect of political adversaries, but research finds that this belief is wrong. Instead, sharing personal experiences about a polarized issue—especially experiences involving harm—helps to foster respect and decreases political intolerance.
4) Move beyond group-based stereotypes: Negative stereotypes can be hard to overcome because they lead us to avoid out-groups entirely, which makes it hard to learn when we are wrong about individuals or groups. We learn by exploring and interacting with other people.
These were some of the key lessons shared by the panelists (including myself). If you have a genuine moral disagreement, it's OK to disengage. But if you are willing and able to do these things, research suggests you have the potential to open minds, foster cooperation, increase empathy, and even improve your own understanding of others.
I explained that these conversations are especially difficult online, where the most extreme voices dominate the conversation and the algorithms and design features often reward outrage and conflict.
This is why I tend to avoid 99% of the debates people try to spark with me online. Unfortunately, I’ve been trolled far too many times by this point and know the dynamics of social media make it extremely difficult to have a genuine, human conversation.
It also removes us from the humans in our immediate vicinity who want our genuine engagement. This is why one of my all-time favorite cartoons is one from The New Yorker that depicts a father dismissing his daughter to argue online with strangers about something completely absurd—the sexual orientation of puppets.
Yet, I tend to really enjoy a discussion or even a good faith debate with someone I disagree with in person. I tend to learn a ton and almost always walk away slightly wiser, even I don’t fully agree with them.
This is why we should try harder to facilitate these discussions with our friends, family, students, colleagues, and neighbors whenever possible. It doesn’t mean these conversations will always be easy, but at least there are ways we can make them more fruitful for everyone involved.
Upcoming Event:
Jay will be speaking at the Learning and the Brain Conference next month. He will be presenting a talk about "Educating Social Brains: The Impact of Technology on Morality and Identity" at the Learning & the Brain Conference in NYC on April 25th.
Catch up on the last one…
Last week we wrote a think piece on how the Department of Government Efficiency is undermining advancement in sciences + how social sciences are tied to the world’s most pressing problems.
 | A guest post by
|