What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide
From politics and religion to workplace negotiations, ace the high-stakes conversations in your life with this indispensable guide from a persuasion expert.
In our current political climate, it seems impossible to have a reasonable conversation with anyone who has a different opinion. Whether you're online, in a classroom, an office, a town hall—or just hoping to get through a family dinner with a stubborn relative—dialogue shuts down when perspectives clash. Heated debates often lead to insults and shaming, blocking any possibility of productive discourse. Everyone seems to be on a hair trigger.
In How to Have Impossible Conversations , Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay guide you through the straightforward, practical, conversational techniques necessary for every successful conversation — whether the issue is climate change, religious faith, gender identity, race, poverty, immigration, or gun control. Boghossian and Lindsay teach the subtle art of instilling doubts and opening minds. They cover everything from learning the fundamentals for good conversations to achieving expert-level techniques to deal with hardliners and extremists. This book is the manual everyone needs to foster a climate of civility, connection, and empathy.
"This is a self-help book on how to argue effectively, conciliate, and gently persuade. The authors admit to getting it wrong in their own past conversations. One by one, I recognize the same mistakes in me. The world would be a better place if everyone read this book." —Richard Dawkins, author of Science in the Soul and Outgrowing God
In our current political climate, it seems impossible to have a reasonable conversation with anyone who has a different opinion. Whether you're online, in a classroom, an office, a town hall—or just hoping to get through a family dinner with a stubborn relative—dialogue shuts down when perspectives clash. Heated debates often lead to insults and shaming, blocking any possibility of productive discourse. Everyone seems to be on a hair trigger.
In How to Have Impossible Conversations , Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay guide you through the straightforward, practical, conversational techniques necessary for every successful conversation — whether the issue is climate change, religious faith, gender identity, race, poverty, immigration, or gun control. Boghossian and Lindsay teach the subtle art of instilling doubts and opening minds. They cover everything from learning the fundamentals for good conversations to achieving expert-level techniques to deal with hardliners and extremists. This book is the manual everyone needs to foster a climate of civility, connection, and empathy.
"This is a self-help book on how to argue effectively, conciliate, and gently persuade. The authors admit to getting it wrong in their own past conversations. One by one, I recognize the same mistakes in me. The world would be a better place if everyone read this book." —Richard Dawkins, author of Science in the Soul and Outgrowing God
272 pages, Paperback
First published September 17, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 329 reviews
September 29, 2019
There are some really helpful hints in here but most of them are pretty obvious to anyone that has empathy or a little bit of emotional EQ. Don’t shoot people down, don’t assume your opponents are evil, don’t be an asshole. But I had some issues with this one: first of all, the book is pretty biased. The authors try not to be, but most of their examples are about how to convince liberals that they are wrong and how to convince religious folks that they are irrational. Which would not be a problem but for 2. Some of these tricks and tips are just about convincing other people over to your side or winning an argument, which is fine too, except for 3. The assumption is that people will be or should be swayed by reason and/or facts. The authors acknowledge that many disagreements are about identity and deeply held beliefs and not “reason,” but I’ve noticed a weird ideological fixation with reason in certain quarters that is starting to seem, well, unreasonable. Are they sure that people’s belief in God is crazy and unreasonable? Or enough so that they are on a mission to disabuse people of their notions? Some of the examples of crazy beliefs are definitely harmful—the anti-vaxxers for example, but others seem to me to be deep identity things that maybe are not the place where you want two “reasonable” people to keep prodding and poking at. The whole section where they are demonstrating examples of forcing people to acknowledge how belief in Jesus’ resurrection are unscientific seemed a little icky. You may not believe it, but it just seems like not the kind of thing that’s going to be hammered out in a difficult conversation.
December 3, 2020
I'm looking at the reviews here and wondering if I read the same book as everyone else. Yes, Boghossian and Lindsay use anti-liberal and anti-religious examples throughout the book but as someone who is both liberal and religious, I didn't feel like the usage of examples was the most important thing here.
Instead, the authors dig into ways to have impossible conversations. By impossible conversations, they mean discussions about highly contested topics. We're living in such an age of political polarization and so, they provide techniques for talking about such topics effectively.
Coming from a country, culture and family like mine, impossible conversations are an everyday all day occurrence so I was skeptical about this book. I assumed that I'm a pro since an average week in my life includes conversations with people who together disagree with me on every aspect of my identity.
In the last weeks, I started to feel frustrated with all of my impossible conversations. I could feel myself barricading myself in beliefs that I'm not even sure I hold, I found it harder to listen, harder to ask questions that aren't judgmental. And then this book showed up and I kid you not when I say it changed stuff for me.
The biggest change was that it made me pause. It made me stop and ask myself, "what am I saying and what will that cause in the person in front of me". It forced me to consider that there's a way to make this easier. I have never stopped and asked myself what I'm trying to accomplish. This book made me notice how I engage, what works and what doesn't. It made me see that I use "you" more than I speak about the beliefs themselves, that I have a tendency to approach the conversations without any planning, that I need to get comfortable with admitting when I'm wrong.
Are some ideas here obvious? Yes, but if you've never slipped on any of these things during an impossible conversation, you're either lying or you've never taken part in a real impossible conversation. As the book progresses, they dig deep into techniques that aren't as straight forward.
Here's a list of things that I learned from this book:
- Disconfirmation. Asking "what would make you stop believing in this?". This is cool because it shows you how the person feels about their belief. When I asked myself what it would take to make me believe that vaccines are bad, I realized that it would be if an overwhelming majority of doctors said so while nothing really could make me stop believing that Jews deserve a homeland. Looking at my own thoughts like this was enlightening.
- Altercasting. Asking the person to find solutions for a problem through different perspectives. Someone did this to me last week when he asked what I would do if I lived under the PA and it really did make me pause and reevaluate how practical my thoughts are.
- Using "we", avoiding "you", saying "yes, and" instead of "yes, but", repeating what the person said with a question mark.
- Understanding that sometimes topics are emotional and people want to vent. In that case, arguing won't work and listening is important. Last week, I mentioned to a Palestinian that a rocket once nearly hit my house and his response was to go, "well, that's because of what you've done to the people of Gaza". I was annoyed by this and only later realized that it was because I was looking for recognition for my pain, not a justification for it.
- Rapoport's Rules (anyone else constantly read this as rapport rules?):
1:You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
2: You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3: You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4: Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
- The fact that I disavow extremists on my side does not mean my conversation partner is obligated to do the same. I shouldn't do it if I'm only aiming for a transaction.
I do have two issues with this book. The first is that I'm not the biggest fan of changing people's minds. I think the diversity of thought in this world is amazing, I would hate for everyone to share my own thoughts. Ideally, you tell people that they're good moral people because you believe in that and not because you're trying to convince them to agree with you. You should be asking questions in order to see their view, rather than to get them to see flaws. Honestly, I'm doubtful about people's ability to change their minds based on a logical conversation- I think we're all more emotional than we let on.
So I preferred to read this book as ways to upgrade discussions. I think the authors are aware of this as they say that if someone uses these techniques on you, it's a chance to learn about flaws in your argument. However, they could be clearer on this.
Secondly, I do think it's very American-culture orientated. For me, some of the statements here came across as infantilizing and hypocritical. I wouldn't believe someone who'd say them to me (I come from a culture where Mr. and sorry are only used sarcastically, respect isn't shown by flattery). I understand that if they were to open the "different cultures communicate differently" box, this book would be thousands of pages long but some recognition towards the way communication differs based on culture matters, as this impacts our ability to have impossible conversations.
To conclude, Boghossian and Lindsay have written a great guidebook, full of handy descriptions and pointers. It's very easy to read and accessible. I think the world would be a better place if we followed these guidelines when talking about divisive topics.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I was surprised that humor didn't feature here. In the midst of a pretty intense conversation, a Palestinian said, "I blame all Jews and Zionists for the death of my pet bird when I was a child" and that defused a lot of the negative energy. The ability to laugh at the heavier topics usually opens the door to talking about them earnestly as well.
- Also, I'm falling in love with timed conversations. Giving people a speaking limit and building dialogue with rules, like "everyone has a minute to say what they've learned from what this person said" seems really helpful to getting somewhere.
- I never want to grow tired with impossible conversations. Like, even if the last few weeks made me feel alienated, I know I'm always going to go right back to being that person who seeks them.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
It's 9pm but that's not going to stop me from going to bed like a true adult. Review to come!
Instead, the authors dig into ways to have impossible conversations. By impossible conversations, they mean discussions about highly contested topics. We're living in such an age of political polarization and so, they provide techniques for talking about such topics effectively.
Coming from a country, culture and family like mine, impossible conversations are an everyday all day occurrence so I was skeptical about this book. I assumed that I'm a pro since an average week in my life includes conversations with people who together disagree with me on every aspect of my identity.
In the last weeks, I started to feel frustrated with all of my impossible conversations. I could feel myself barricading myself in beliefs that I'm not even sure I hold, I found it harder to listen, harder to ask questions that aren't judgmental. And then this book showed up and I kid you not when I say it changed stuff for me.
The biggest change was that it made me pause. It made me stop and ask myself, "what am I saying and what will that cause in the person in front of me". It forced me to consider that there's a way to make this easier. I have never stopped and asked myself what I'm trying to accomplish. This book made me notice how I engage, what works and what doesn't. It made me see that I use "you" more than I speak about the beliefs themselves, that I have a tendency to approach the conversations without any planning, that I need to get comfortable with admitting when I'm wrong.
Are some ideas here obvious? Yes, but if you've never slipped on any of these things during an impossible conversation, you're either lying or you've never taken part in a real impossible conversation. As the book progresses, they dig deep into techniques that aren't as straight forward.
Here's a list of things that I learned from this book:
- Disconfirmation. Asking "what would make you stop believing in this?". This is cool because it shows you how the person feels about their belief. When I asked myself what it would take to make me believe that vaccines are bad, I realized that it would be if an overwhelming majority of doctors said so while nothing really could make me stop believing that Jews deserve a homeland. Looking at my own thoughts like this was enlightening.
- Altercasting. Asking the person to find solutions for a problem through different perspectives. Someone did this to me last week when he asked what I would do if I lived under the PA and it really did make me pause and reevaluate how practical my thoughts are.
- Using "we", avoiding "you", saying "yes, and" instead of "yes, but", repeating what the person said with a question mark.
- Understanding that sometimes topics are emotional and people want to vent. In that case, arguing won't work and listening is important. Last week, I mentioned to a Palestinian that a rocket once nearly hit my house and his response was to go, "well, that's because of what you've done to the people of Gaza". I was annoyed by this and only later realized that it was because I was looking for recognition for my pain, not a justification for it.
- Rapoport's Rules (anyone else constantly read this as rapport rules?):
1:You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way."
2: You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3: You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4: Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
- The fact that I disavow extremists on my side does not mean my conversation partner is obligated to do the same. I shouldn't do it if I'm only aiming for a transaction.
I do have two issues with this book. The first is that I'm not the biggest fan of changing people's minds. I think the diversity of thought in this world is amazing, I would hate for everyone to share my own thoughts. Ideally, you tell people that they're good moral people because you believe in that and not because you're trying to convince them to agree with you. You should be asking questions in order to see their view, rather than to get them to see flaws. Honestly, I'm doubtful about people's ability to change their minds based on a logical conversation- I think we're all more emotional than we let on.
So I preferred to read this book as ways to upgrade discussions. I think the authors are aware of this as they say that if someone uses these techniques on you, it's a chance to learn about flaws in your argument. However, they could be clearer on this.
Secondly, I do think it's very American-culture orientated. For me, some of the statements here came across as infantilizing and hypocritical. I wouldn't believe someone who'd say them to me (I come from a culture where Mr. and sorry are only used sarcastically, respect isn't shown by flattery). I understand that if they were to open the "different cultures communicate differently" box, this book would be thousands of pages long but some recognition towards the way communication differs based on culture matters, as this impacts our ability to have impossible conversations.
To conclude, Boghossian and Lindsay have written a great guidebook, full of handy descriptions and pointers. It's very easy to read and accessible. I think the world would be a better place if we followed these guidelines when talking about divisive topics.
What I'm Taking With Me
- I was surprised that humor didn't feature here. In the midst of a pretty intense conversation, a Palestinian said, "I blame all Jews and Zionists for the death of my pet bird when I was a child" and that defused a lot of the negative energy. The ability to laugh at the heavier topics usually opens the door to talking about them earnestly as well.
- Also, I'm falling in love with timed conversations. Giving people a speaking limit and building dialogue with rules, like "everyone has a minute to say what they've learned from what this person said" seems really helpful to getting somewhere.
- I never want to grow tired with impossible conversations. Like, even if the last few weeks made me feel alienated, I know I'm always going to go right back to being that person who seeks them.
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
It's 9pm but that's not going to stop me from going to bed like a true adult. Review to come!
June 21, 2020
"Conversations that remain civil empower you, and change even the staunchest of minds are possible--even across deep divides."
- Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay
My first take on this book was it was "a pretty good practical guide. Not perfect." But the more I read, the more the message of civility grinds into the walls of debate technique and manipulation. I don't think this book was written with good faith. It isn't about patching the divide between the right and the left, the godless and Jesusland. That is its mask. If you are looking for technique, the book is great. If you are looking at a modest/humble approach to civil conversations, there are bits that sparkle (think of a lure). In the end it is a cynical hook that tries to help the reader not "appear to be a troll" by changing techniques. The motive of the book, after a bit of reflection, is encouraging just a more socially palatable form of trolling.
I am a bit disappointed. I felt that while giving a nod to distancing themselves from manipulations, the book was mostly just an extended "how to" for manipulation. I was hoping for more of a how to have civil conversations, and got how to sow doubt and win in the long-term by not shitting on your friends. I wish I still could have returned my book. I rarely do this with books, but if I had the opportunity to return it I would have. If I had the foresight to NOT purchase this book, I would have avoided it.
One note: both authors were part of the Grievance studies affair in 2017 and 2018.
- Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay
My first take on this book was it was "a pretty good practical guide. Not perfect." But the more I read, the more the message of civility grinds into the walls of debate technique and manipulation. I don't think this book was written with good faith. It isn't about patching the divide between the right and the left, the godless and Jesusland. That is its mask. If you are looking for technique, the book is great. If you are looking at a modest/humble approach to civil conversations, there are bits that sparkle (think of a lure). In the end it is a cynical hook that tries to help the reader not "appear to be a troll" by changing techniques. The motive of the book, after a bit of reflection, is encouraging just a more socially palatable form of trolling.
I am a bit disappointed. I felt that while giving a nod to distancing themselves from manipulations, the book was mostly just an extended "how to" for manipulation. I was hoping for more of a how to have civil conversations, and got how to sow doubt and win in the long-term by not shitting on your friends. I wish I still could have returned my book. I rarely do this with books, but if I had the opportunity to return it I would have. If I had the foresight to NOT purchase this book, I would have avoided it.
One note: both authors were part of the Grievance studies affair in 2017 and 2018.
June 2, 2020
If you're looking for a book written by Mansplainers, this is for you! Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have apparently spent a life-time trying to mansplain better and they've learned a few things they want to share with the class. I honestly went into this book thinking I might learn a few things but again and again I was just struck by how shallow and ignorant the authors were. If you've never thought about anything for more than few seconds you might find some insight here, but for a normal well-adjusted human who has basic empathy there isn't much to learn here. I'll briefly highlight some of the rather myopic ideas espoused here.
Let's just start with the fact that our Mansplainers are really only addressing a very small part of the population. They make it clear that they are not addressing what they call "extremists." Extremists are people who don't buy into the false dichotomy that the population is divided between "liberals" and "conservatives." This book is primarily aimed at people who believe the two factions of the Business Party (Democrats and Republicans) are somehow diametrically opposed. It's a minority of the American population at best.
For instance, the authors equate people who oppose fascism (anti-fascists) with actual Neo-Nazis. It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous point of view. Fighting fascism is not an extreme position. It's one that most of the civilized world understands and supports. We literally fought a global war against fascism. Yet the authors see opposition to fascism as extreme.
Here's another great quote from our Mansplainers, "Did protestors for a cause you support turn violent and vandalize property? Did they create massive societal disruptions that inconvenienced innocent people?" As an aside, I just love the ridiculous phrasing "turn violent." It just sounds so ridiculous. Here the author conflates actual violence, like a group of police officers kneeling on a mans neck until he's dead, with acts of defiance, like destroying property that can easily be replaced.
In other words, our authors confuse radicals--those who seek the root cause of societal ills--with actual extremists, like neo-nazis. If you take a stand against Nazis our police brutality you're an extremist in the eyes of our authors.
In another part of the book the author's show their true inclinations when they write, "You may have heard that American society is a patriarchy from the extreme end of the feminist spectrum. You might find this statement bizarre." They go on to split hairs and present us with other societies that are even more patriarchal! Somehow they never actually mention what patriarchy means: A social system where men hold primary power. This seemingly bizarre statement aligns quite well with our reality, which brings me to one of the strangest views espoused by the authors.
Our mansplainers are very emphatic that we should not bring facts into our discussions! No facts! How else can you maintain the delusion that the statement "American society is a patriarchy" is bizarre if you allow facts like the tiny percentage of women who hold position of power within our corporate and political institutions? Once we bring up the facts that a paltry 37 of the Fortune 500 corporations are women the statement seems much less bizarre.
I could go on but this book really doesn't merit it. It's awful. It's clearly written by two men who have probably spent a life-time trying to mansplain their repugnant views to people and had an epiphany that being less of an asshole might be a good thing. In order to carry this new view forward they had to relegate the majority of the population as extremists and focus on people who essentially agree with them on every major point: support for state terrorism, support for mass-incarceration, patriarchy and the white supremacy that sits at the core of all this violence. Any one who opposes this state violence is simply an extremist that should be ignored. I'll continue to stand with the extremists.
Let's just start with the fact that our Mansplainers are really only addressing a very small part of the population. They make it clear that they are not addressing what they call "extremists." Extremists are people who don't buy into the false dichotomy that the population is divided between "liberals" and "conservatives." This book is primarily aimed at people who believe the two factions of the Business Party (Democrats and Republicans) are somehow diametrically opposed. It's a minority of the American population at best.
For instance, the authors equate people who oppose fascism (anti-fascists) with actual Neo-Nazis. It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous point of view. Fighting fascism is not an extreme position. It's one that most of the civilized world understands and supports. We literally fought a global war against fascism. Yet the authors see opposition to fascism as extreme.
Here's another great quote from our Mansplainers, "Did protestors for a cause you support turn violent and vandalize property? Did they create massive societal disruptions that inconvenienced innocent people?" As an aside, I just love the ridiculous phrasing "turn violent." It just sounds so ridiculous. Here the author conflates actual violence, like a group of police officers kneeling on a mans neck until he's dead, with acts of defiance, like destroying property that can easily be replaced.
In other words, our authors confuse radicals--those who seek the root cause of societal ills--with actual extremists, like neo-nazis. If you take a stand against Nazis our police brutality you're an extremist in the eyes of our authors.
In another part of the book the author's show their true inclinations when they write, "You may have heard that American society is a patriarchy from the extreme end of the feminist spectrum. You might find this statement bizarre." They go on to split hairs and present us with other societies that are even more patriarchal! Somehow they never actually mention what patriarchy means: A social system where men hold primary power. This seemingly bizarre statement aligns quite well with our reality, which brings me to one of the strangest views espoused by the authors.
Our mansplainers are very emphatic that we should not bring facts into our discussions! No facts! How else can you maintain the delusion that the statement "American society is a patriarchy" is bizarre if you allow facts like the tiny percentage of women who hold position of power within our corporate and political institutions? Once we bring up the facts that a paltry 37 of the Fortune 500 corporations are women the statement seems much less bizarre.
I could go on but this book really doesn't merit it. It's awful. It's clearly written by two men who have probably spent a life-time trying to mansplain their repugnant views to people and had an epiphany that being less of an asshole might be a good thing. In order to carry this new view forward they had to relegate the majority of the population as extremists and focus on people who essentially agree with them on every major point: support for state terrorism, support for mass-incarceration, patriarchy and the white supremacy that sits at the core of all this violence. Any one who opposes this state violence is simply an extremist that should be ignored. I'll continue to stand with the extremists.
August 15, 2020
Unlike other difficult conversations books that cover things like how to give bad news or ask for a promotion, this one is specifically about how to have political, moral, or religious conversations. Despite what some of other reviewers assert, and despite the author’s opinions elsewhere, it does not take any specific viewpoint on what the outcomes of the conversations should be. It’s a pragmatic, slightly repetitive, guide on how to talk to people that you don’t agree with.
Here’s a dump of my rather comprehensive notes. Unfortunately the indenting in the outline didn’t translate when I pasted it in, maybe I’ll work on that later or if you’d like a copy, I’m happy to email it:
Focus first on instilling doubt rather than changing beliefs
Basics
1. Goals - why are you having the conversation?
2. Partnerships - be a partner, not an adversary
3. Rapport - build the relationship
4. Listen - talk less, listen more.
5. Delivering messages does not work. Conversations are exchanges, not debates. Deliver a message only on explicit request.
6. Intentions - Socrates Meno dialog. People don’t knowingly desire bad things.
7. Walk Away. If your primary emotion is frustration, it’s time to quit. Breathe.
Beginner Level
1. Model the behavior you want to see in others
1. “Should women be stoned to death for adultery” - the person he was debating waffled on giving a direct answer. He then said “ask me that question.” The guy did, then the questioner gave a straight answer—“No, now do you believe women should be stoned?” “Yes.”
2. The unread library effect or “the illusion of explanatory depth”. Do you know how a toilet works? “Yes.” “Explain it.” Modeling ignorance-being willing to admit the limits of your own knowledge allows your conversation partner to lead themselves into doubt rather than feeling pressured. It also exposes the gaps in your own knowledge.
3. Model other traits—listening, honesty, admitting ignorance, sincerity, curiosity, openness, fairness, charity, humility, humor, willingness to change your mind.
2. Define terms up front. Go with their definitions. Does the word have moral implications?
3. Focus on a specific question. Ask open, authentic questions that invite long answers.
1. “Just so I’m clear, the question is...” “Let’s get back to...”
2. Don’t ask leading questions that carry agendas
4. Point out bad things extremists on your side do. Find areas of moral agreement by pointing out where people on your side go too far. Pointing out extremists can help this happen. Check yourself for extremist views.
5. Don’t vent on social media
6. Shift from blame to contribution. “What factors contributed to.”
1. Avoid causal statements.
2. Don’t say “both sides do it,” it’s defensive.
3. If your side is accused acknowledge and don’t deflect. “Yeah, it’s true they (we) sometimes do that.”
4. If you can’t avoid blame, say “I feel tempted to blame X for Y, can you explain the logic X uses to justify their actions?”
7. Focus on epistemology - figure out how people know what they claim to know. This avoids “talking points” and gets to how they know what they know.
1. Types of epistemologies
1. Personal experience and feelings
2. Culture (everyone believes it)
3. Definition (too much X is bad because too much anything is bad)
4. Religion (appeal to a holy book)
5. Reason
6. Evidence (sufficient evidence to warrant belief)
2. How to engage on an epistemological level
1. What leads you to conclude that?
2. Ask outsider questions. “Why are there so many divergent opinions?” “Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?”
3. Start your conversation with genuine wonder as to how your partner arrived at the conclusion they have.
4. “If someone’s reasoning makes no sense, there’s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified.” Find examples of using this type of reasoning in other situations and see if it applies. Or, try to derive other conclusions from their reasoning process. E.g. We shouldn’t blow up anti-aircraft guns in a civilian area because of collateral damage. Wouldn’t this lead to more civilian deaths because the enemy repeats the pattern?
8. Learn. Is it actually me who’s the ideologue?
9. Things to avoid
1. Don’t display anger
2. Don’t punish people for asking help, information, or feedback
3. Don’t focus on the belief, focus on how they know it. The epistemology.
Intermediate Level
1. Let friends be wrong. Offer a listening ear “I hear you.” If you don’t understand, say it.
2. Build golden bridges. Be graceful when people change their minds. “All good.” “No worries.” “It’s a complicated issue.”
1. Build a golden bridge when you feel attacked. “The way my position is stated might lead someone to believe I want X (bad thing) but I really want Y” (good thing).
2. Build a golden bridge to escape anger. “These issues are really frustrating. I know. They get to me too.”
3. Build Golden Bridges by explicitly agreeing.
4. To alleviate pressure to know/understand everything. “No one is expected to know everything, that’s why there are experts.”
5. Reference your own ignorance and reasons for doubt. “I used to believe X, when I learned Y, I changed my mind.”
3. Avoid “you” use “we” and “us.”
1. Use the hostage negotiator tactic of “We’re all in this together.”
2. Say “that belief” or “that statement” rather than “Your..”
3. Switch from “I disagree” to “I’m skeptical.”
4. Reframe the conversation to keep it going smoothly
1. Focus on commonalities - “ultimately we’re both interested in...”
2. Reframe to be less contentious, especially if it becomes contentious. “Maybe we can look at it another way”
3. Figure out how to get someone to say “that’s right.” (Not “you’re right”)
5. Change your mind on the spot
6. Introduce scales - “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true”
1. Use this to introduce perspective. “If X is a 9 on a scale of 10 for ‘-ism’, where is Y?”
2. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true?” At the beginning & end.
3. “How does X compare to Y?” (Now/Then, Here/There, For Him/Her, etc.) E.g. racism today vs in the 1950’s
4. How important is X compared to Y? E.g. racism vs. climate change
5. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you” then “Why not 6?” “Why not 10?” “What would it take to get to 10?”
7. Turn to outside information to answer the question “how o you know that?”
1. “I’m not sure about that. If I could be shown reliable data, I’m open to changing my mind.”
2. Ask who the strongest experts on both sides of an opinion are.
3. Ask for specific evidence that could persuade “an independent observer” or “every reasonable person.”
4. If someone says no evidence could be provided, there’s no point.
5. Don’t attempt to use outsourcing on moral questions, it only works for empirical.
Advanced Skills
1. Keep Rapoport’s rules. Re-express. List points of agreement. Mention what you learned, only then rebut.
1. Express their opinion so clearly & fairly that they say “thanks, wish I’d put it that way.”
2. Avoid facts
1. Instead ask questions that pose problems and contradictions
2. Focus on epistemology
3. Ask disconfirming questions: “If X couldn’t be replicated, would Y be true?”
3. Seek disconfirmation. “How could that belief be incorrect?” This is the best way to instill doubt.
1. There are 3 categories of disconfirmable beliefs:
1. Not disconfirmable. Usually tied to what someone thinks it means to be “a good person.” “Belief in Belief” as Dennett says.
2. Disconfirmable, but only under wildly implausible conditions. (“Aliens” in the beer truck).
3. ‘Ask why those are the conditions and why not something simpler?
4. If that doesn’t work, ask about morals, values, or identity concerns under the surface. The goal is to get the person to reflect more deeply on the conditions that anchor the beliefs.
5. Disconfirmable. Don’t become the messenger, let the person reflect on their beliefs themselves.
2. Ask on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are.
1. 10-disconfirmable,
2. 9-ask “why didn’t you say 10, what would make it 8?”.
3. Middle range-why isn’t your confidence higher? Altercasting gets them to focus on their doubt rather than belief.
3. Ask questions:
1. Epistemological questions:
1. “The belief isn’t held on the basis of evidence, right?”
2. “Are you as closed to revising other beliefs as this one? What makes this particular belief unique?”
3. “What are examples of beliefs you’re not willing to change?”
2. Moral questions:
1. “How it it a virtue not to revise this belief?”
2. “Would you be a good person if you didn’t hold this belief?”
3. “Who are examples of good people who don’t hold this belief?”
3. Think back 10/20 years ago, have any of your beliefs changed?
1. Y? “How do you know this belief won’t change too?”
2. N? Prob time to end the conversation.
4. Yes, and... (no “but”)
1. “Interesting, and what about...” or “ok, I hear you, and” if you’d don’t agree.
2. “If you don’t mind” rather than “however”
5. Anger.
1. Blinds and derails.
2. Seeks its own justification.
3. Carries a refractory period where information processing is slowed by the nervous system.
4. When you feel anger, pause, reframe, change the subject, listen, acknowledge and apologize.
5. Respect the refractory period
6. Identify your triggers like words that are likely to upset you.
Expert Skills
1. Synthesis—recruit your partner to help refine and synthesize your positions. The goal is to get closer to true beliefs, not produce agreement. It can be a form of collaborative steel-manning. Constructive, controlled disagreement.
1. Five steps
1. Present an idea. Moral beliefs are harder but can reveal epistemological blind spots.
2. Invite and listen to counterarguments. This is difficult because you might feel out matched or your identity may be challenged. The goal is to get your partner to expose at least one clear flaw in your thinking. Don’t move on until she confirms your understanding of her criticisms.
3. Employ the counter-argments to generate ways to disconfirm your belief
4. Use these to refine your original position
5. Repeat-start with your refined position and do another round
2. Help vent steam—Talk through emotional roadblocks. Keep listening until they’ve stated everything. It’s impossible to listen too much. Then use Rapoport’s rules (re-express, listen, list agreement, but don’t rebut). Don’t force a conversation.
3. Altercasting-casting your partner in a role that helps her think and behave differently. Can be ethically ambiguous; manipulative. Introduced by Eugene Weinstein and Paul Deutschberger.
1. “You seem like a person that would X...”
2. To avoid ethical concerns, limit altercasting to:
1. taking their favorite solution off the table. E.g. present a hypothetical where their solution wouldn’t be an option.
2. encouraging civility, fairness, open-mindedness. “You strike me as a person who is...”
4. Hostage negitations
1. Use “minimal encouragers.” “Yeah.” “I see.” “Okay.”
2. Mirroring - repeat their last few words, possibly as a question. “For their safety?” The goal is to keep them talking and providing info that may be useful in the conversation.
3. Emotional labeling - recognize feelings w/o judging them. Make sure you actually understand before you label.
4. Allow the person to save face. (Golden bridge).
5. Deal with small issues first to create a “climate of success.” Break down big problems to smaller ones.
6. Use specific cases rather than statistical information. It’s more vivid and influential than facts.
5. Probe the limits.
1. Use the Unmasking Formula
1. Apply Rapopport’s First rule (re-express)
2. Confirm you’ve understand their belief (giving them an opportunity to back down). “How long have you held this belief?”
3. Try to understand the limits of their belief in practice. “If your surgeon was a straight white male...” “If you were in a dark room and wanted to see would you ask about the race of the electrician..”
4. Ask “is there any circumstance that might lead you to act inconsistently with that belief?”
1. No? Continue with examples like in step 3
2. Yes? Ask for examples
5. At this point you know if the belief is possible to sincerely hold or not
1. No? Ask when to act on the belief and when to make an exception
2. Yes? Either they live in accordance w/ the belief or they’re lying.
6. Counter-intervention strategies. (Someone using these techniques on you)
1. Go with it, you’ll probably learn something.
2. Refuse to play. If you don’t say anything or respond with closed-ended questions, nothing can happen.
3. Use counter-interventions
1. State your confidence level as lower than it is on the 1-10 scale
2. Offer the illusion of success
3. Doubt your doubts. Reverse altercast to get them to help you strengthen your position
4. State that you believe it strongly, but would rather not.
5. Respond to rapid fire questions slowly. “Uh (wait 5 seconds)”
6. Use questions to reverse the intervention. “Why are you asking?”
Master Level
1. How to converse with an ideologue: understand how their “sense of morality relates to their personal identity.” It’s about being a good or bad person. It’s about emotion. All disagreement will mean you misunderstand or you have a moral failure. Extreme patience is needed. Focus on how they know (epistemology) rather than what they know. Be self-aware enough to know if you’re the ideologue.
1. Acknowledge their intention & identity as a good person
2. Change the subject to underlying values
1. “These beliefs seem important to you, how did you derive them?”
2. What values would have to change for your belief to no longer be true? This shifts the conversation away from rehearsed defenses.
3. Invite conversation about values
1. “What makes someone a good person?” “How does someone know that what they’re doing is good?” “Do good people think about things in a certain way?” “How would you interpret an example of someone who doesn’t believe that but who is good?”
4. Induce doubt about how they derived beliefs by asking sincere questions. Almost everyone has a brittle moral epistemology. This is the gateway to facilitating doubt and humility.
1. “Does a strong feeling that something is true make it more likely to be true?”
2. Potentially switch from to a superordinate identity if a conversation centers on divisive identity politics. “We’re both Americans/humans”
5. Allow the tether between the belief and the moral epistemology to sever on its own, later. It’s dangerous and difficult to do. It can cause “identity quakes” that can sever trust. It’s a slow process. Build golden bridges. Use the five values above.
2. Moral reframing. Recast an idea in moral terms that re less likely to evoke defense and more likely to resonate.
1. Jonathan Haidt’s six “moral foundations.” Conservatives respond to all 6, liberals to care, fairness, then liberty. Libertarians (Lt) focus on liberty. Conversations need to be recast to focus on your partner’s moral terms.
1. Care vs. harm (C, L)
2. Fairness vs. cheating (C, L)
3. Loyalty vs. betrayal (C)
4. Authority vs. subversion (C)
5. Sanctity vs. degradation (C)
6. Liberty vs. oppression (C, L, Lt)
2. Reframing - learn to speak their language using their terms. Expose yourself to their ideas. Practice with friends.
1. Home in on certain words or terms (ie. equity, faith)
2. Identify your own moral dialect (ie. race, violence). Take opportunities to learn to speak different moral languages.
Here’s a dump of my rather comprehensive notes. Unfortunately the indenting in the outline didn’t translate when I pasted it in, maybe I’ll work on that later or if you’d like a copy, I’m happy to email it:
Focus first on instilling doubt rather than changing beliefs
Basics
1. Goals - why are you having the conversation?
2. Partnerships - be a partner, not an adversary
3. Rapport - build the relationship
4. Listen - talk less, listen more.
5. Delivering messages does not work. Conversations are exchanges, not debates. Deliver a message only on explicit request.
6. Intentions - Socrates Meno dialog. People don’t knowingly desire bad things.
7. Walk Away. If your primary emotion is frustration, it’s time to quit. Breathe.
Beginner Level
1. Model the behavior you want to see in others
1. “Should women be stoned to death for adultery” - the person he was debating waffled on giving a direct answer. He then said “ask me that question.” The guy did, then the questioner gave a straight answer—“No, now do you believe women should be stoned?” “Yes.”
2. The unread library effect or “the illusion of explanatory depth”. Do you know how a toilet works? “Yes.” “Explain it.” Modeling ignorance-being willing to admit the limits of your own knowledge allows your conversation partner to lead themselves into doubt rather than feeling pressured. It also exposes the gaps in your own knowledge.
3. Model other traits—listening, honesty, admitting ignorance, sincerity, curiosity, openness, fairness, charity, humility, humor, willingness to change your mind.
2. Define terms up front. Go with their definitions. Does the word have moral implications?
3. Focus on a specific question. Ask open, authentic questions that invite long answers.
1. “Just so I’m clear, the question is...” “Let’s get back to...”
2. Don’t ask leading questions that carry agendas
4. Point out bad things extremists on your side do. Find areas of moral agreement by pointing out where people on your side go too far. Pointing out extremists can help this happen. Check yourself for extremist views.
5. Don’t vent on social media
6. Shift from blame to contribution. “What factors contributed to.”
1. Avoid causal statements.
2. Don’t say “both sides do it,” it’s defensive.
3. If your side is accused acknowledge and don’t deflect. “Yeah, it’s true they (we) sometimes do that.”
4. If you can’t avoid blame, say “I feel tempted to blame X for Y, can you explain the logic X uses to justify their actions?”
7. Focus on epistemology - figure out how people know what they claim to know. This avoids “talking points” and gets to how they know what they know.
1. Types of epistemologies
1. Personal experience and feelings
2. Culture (everyone believes it)
3. Definition (too much X is bad because too much anything is bad)
4. Religion (appeal to a holy book)
5. Reason
6. Evidence (sufficient evidence to warrant belief)
2. How to engage on an epistemological level
1. What leads you to conclude that?
2. Ask outsider questions. “Why are there so many divergent opinions?” “Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?”
3. Start your conversation with genuine wonder as to how your partner arrived at the conclusion they have.
4. “If someone’s reasoning makes no sense, there’s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified.” Find examples of using this type of reasoning in other situations and see if it applies. Or, try to derive other conclusions from their reasoning process. E.g. We shouldn’t blow up anti-aircraft guns in a civilian area because of collateral damage. Wouldn’t this lead to more civilian deaths because the enemy repeats the pattern?
8. Learn. Is it actually me who’s the ideologue?
9. Things to avoid
1. Don’t display anger
2. Don’t punish people for asking help, information, or feedback
3. Don’t focus on the belief, focus on how they know it. The epistemology.
Intermediate Level
1. Let friends be wrong. Offer a listening ear “I hear you.” If you don’t understand, say it.
2. Build golden bridges. Be graceful when people change their minds. “All good.” “No worries.” “It’s a complicated issue.”
1. Build a golden bridge when you feel attacked. “The way my position is stated might lead someone to believe I want X (bad thing) but I really want Y” (good thing).
2. Build a golden bridge to escape anger. “These issues are really frustrating. I know. They get to me too.”
3. Build Golden Bridges by explicitly agreeing.
4. To alleviate pressure to know/understand everything. “No one is expected to know everything, that’s why there are experts.”
5. Reference your own ignorance and reasons for doubt. “I used to believe X, when I learned Y, I changed my mind.”
3. Avoid “you” use “we” and “us.”
1. Use the hostage negotiator tactic of “We’re all in this together.”
2. Say “that belief” or “that statement” rather than “Your..”
3. Switch from “I disagree” to “I’m skeptical.”
4. Reframe the conversation to keep it going smoothly
1. Focus on commonalities - “ultimately we’re both interested in...”
2. Reframe to be less contentious, especially if it becomes contentious. “Maybe we can look at it another way”
3. Figure out how to get someone to say “that’s right.” (Not “you’re right”)
5. Change your mind on the spot
6. Introduce scales - “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true”
1. Use this to introduce perspective. “If X is a 9 on a scale of 10 for ‘-ism’, where is Y?”
2. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true?” At the beginning & end.
3. “How does X compare to Y?” (Now/Then, Here/There, For Him/Her, etc.) E.g. racism today vs in the 1950’s
4. How important is X compared to Y? E.g. racism vs. climate change
5. “On a scale of 1-10, how confident are you” then “Why not 6?” “Why not 10?” “What would it take to get to 10?”
7. Turn to outside information to answer the question “how o you know that?”
1. “I’m not sure about that. If I could be shown reliable data, I’m open to changing my mind.”
2. Ask who the strongest experts on both sides of an opinion are.
3. Ask for specific evidence that could persuade “an independent observer” or “every reasonable person.”
4. If someone says no evidence could be provided, there’s no point.
5. Don’t attempt to use outsourcing on moral questions, it only works for empirical.
Advanced Skills
1. Keep Rapoport’s rules. Re-express. List points of agreement. Mention what you learned, only then rebut.
1. Express their opinion so clearly & fairly that they say “thanks, wish I’d put it that way.”
2. Avoid facts
1. Instead ask questions that pose problems and contradictions
2. Focus on epistemology
3. Ask disconfirming questions: “If X couldn’t be replicated, would Y be true?”
3. Seek disconfirmation. “How could that belief be incorrect?” This is the best way to instill doubt.
1. There are 3 categories of disconfirmable beliefs:
1. Not disconfirmable. Usually tied to what someone thinks it means to be “a good person.” “Belief in Belief” as Dennett says.
2. Disconfirmable, but only under wildly implausible conditions. (“Aliens” in the beer truck).
3. ‘Ask why those are the conditions and why not something simpler?
4. If that doesn’t work, ask about morals, values, or identity concerns under the surface. The goal is to get the person to reflect more deeply on the conditions that anchor the beliefs.
5. Disconfirmable. Don’t become the messenger, let the person reflect on their beliefs themselves.
2. Ask on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are.
1. 10-disconfirmable,
2. 9-ask “why didn’t you say 10, what would make it 8?”.
3. Middle range-why isn’t your confidence higher? Altercasting gets them to focus on their doubt rather than belief.
3. Ask questions:
1. Epistemological questions:
1. “The belief isn’t held on the basis of evidence, right?”
2. “Are you as closed to revising other beliefs as this one? What makes this particular belief unique?”
3. “What are examples of beliefs you’re not willing to change?”
2. Moral questions:
1. “How it it a virtue not to revise this belief?”
2. “Would you be a good person if you didn’t hold this belief?”
3. “Who are examples of good people who don’t hold this belief?”
3. Think back 10/20 years ago, have any of your beliefs changed?
1. Y? “How do you know this belief won’t change too?”
2. N? Prob time to end the conversation.
4. Yes, and... (no “but”)
1. “Interesting, and what about...” or “ok, I hear you, and” if you’d don’t agree.
2. “If you don’t mind” rather than “however”
5. Anger.
1. Blinds and derails.
2. Seeks its own justification.
3. Carries a refractory period where information processing is slowed by the nervous system.
4. When you feel anger, pause, reframe, change the subject, listen, acknowledge and apologize.
5. Respect the refractory period
6. Identify your triggers like words that are likely to upset you.
Expert Skills
1. Synthesis—recruit your partner to help refine and synthesize your positions. The goal is to get closer to true beliefs, not produce agreement. It can be a form of collaborative steel-manning. Constructive, controlled disagreement.
1. Five steps
1. Present an idea. Moral beliefs are harder but can reveal epistemological blind spots.
2. Invite and listen to counterarguments. This is difficult because you might feel out matched or your identity may be challenged. The goal is to get your partner to expose at least one clear flaw in your thinking. Don’t move on until she confirms your understanding of her criticisms.
3. Employ the counter-argments to generate ways to disconfirm your belief
4. Use these to refine your original position
5. Repeat-start with your refined position and do another round
2. Help vent steam—Talk through emotional roadblocks. Keep listening until they’ve stated everything. It’s impossible to listen too much. Then use Rapoport’s rules (re-express, listen, list agreement, but don’t rebut). Don’t force a conversation.
3. Altercasting-casting your partner in a role that helps her think and behave differently. Can be ethically ambiguous; manipulative. Introduced by Eugene Weinstein and Paul Deutschberger.
1. “You seem like a person that would X...”
2. To avoid ethical concerns, limit altercasting to:
1. taking their favorite solution off the table. E.g. present a hypothetical where their solution wouldn’t be an option.
2. encouraging civility, fairness, open-mindedness. “You strike me as a person who is...”
4. Hostage negitations
1. Use “minimal encouragers.” “Yeah.” “I see.” “Okay.”
2. Mirroring - repeat their last few words, possibly as a question. “For their safety?” The goal is to keep them talking and providing info that may be useful in the conversation.
3. Emotional labeling - recognize feelings w/o judging them. Make sure you actually understand before you label.
4. Allow the person to save face. (Golden bridge).
5. Deal with small issues first to create a “climate of success.” Break down big problems to smaller ones.
6. Use specific cases rather than statistical information. It’s more vivid and influential than facts.
5. Probe the limits.
1. Use the Unmasking Formula
1. Apply Rapopport’s First rule (re-express)
2. Confirm you’ve understand their belief (giving them an opportunity to back down). “How long have you held this belief?”
3. Try to understand the limits of their belief in practice. “If your surgeon was a straight white male...” “If you were in a dark room and wanted to see would you ask about the race of the electrician..”
4. Ask “is there any circumstance that might lead you to act inconsistently with that belief?”
1. No? Continue with examples like in step 3
2. Yes? Ask for examples
5. At this point you know if the belief is possible to sincerely hold or not
1. No? Ask when to act on the belief and when to make an exception
2. Yes? Either they live in accordance w/ the belief or they’re lying.
6. Counter-intervention strategies. (Someone using these techniques on you)
1. Go with it, you’ll probably learn something.
2. Refuse to play. If you don’t say anything or respond with closed-ended questions, nothing can happen.
3. Use counter-interventions
1. State your confidence level as lower than it is on the 1-10 scale
2. Offer the illusion of success
3. Doubt your doubts. Reverse altercast to get them to help you strengthen your position
4. State that you believe it strongly, but would rather not.
5. Respond to rapid fire questions slowly. “Uh (wait 5 seconds)”
6. Use questions to reverse the intervention. “Why are you asking?”
Master Level
1. How to converse with an ideologue: understand how their “sense of morality relates to their personal identity.” It’s about being a good or bad person. It’s about emotion. All disagreement will mean you misunderstand or you have a moral failure. Extreme patience is needed. Focus on how they know (epistemology) rather than what they know. Be self-aware enough to know if you’re the ideologue.
1. Acknowledge their intention & identity as a good person
2. Change the subject to underlying values
1. “These beliefs seem important to you, how did you derive them?”
2. What values would have to change for your belief to no longer be true? This shifts the conversation away from rehearsed defenses.
3. Invite conversation about values
1. “What makes someone a good person?” “How does someone know that what they’re doing is good?” “Do good people think about things in a certain way?” “How would you interpret an example of someone who doesn’t believe that but who is good?”
4. Induce doubt about how they derived beliefs by asking sincere questions. Almost everyone has a brittle moral epistemology. This is the gateway to facilitating doubt and humility.
1. “Does a strong feeling that something is true make it more likely to be true?”
2. Potentially switch from to a superordinate identity if a conversation centers on divisive identity politics. “We’re both Americans/humans”
5. Allow the tether between the belief and the moral epistemology to sever on its own, later. It’s dangerous and difficult to do. It can cause “identity quakes” that can sever trust. It’s a slow process. Build golden bridges. Use the five values above.
2. Moral reframing. Recast an idea in moral terms that re less likely to evoke defense and more likely to resonate.
1. Jonathan Haidt’s six “moral foundations.” Conservatives respond to all 6, liberals to care, fairness, then liberty. Libertarians (Lt) focus on liberty. Conversations need to be recast to focus on your partner’s moral terms.
1. Care vs. harm (C, L)
2. Fairness vs. cheating (C, L)
3. Loyalty vs. betrayal (C)
4. Authority vs. subversion (C)
5. Sanctity vs. degradation (C)
6. Liberty vs. oppression (C, L, Lt)
2. Reframing - learn to speak their language using their terms. Expose yourself to their ideas. Practice with friends.
1. Home in on certain words or terms (ie. equity, faith)
2. Identify your own moral dialect (ie. race, violence). Take opportunities to learn to speak different moral languages.
June 22, 2020
Oof.
Part of this is my fault for picking books up from the library by only their titles and not even bothering to read the description. Part of it is my fault for not keeping up with Internet drama and not realizing that some Twitter people have a problem with contemporary feminism because [insert Apache helicopter joke x infinity]. About 10% of the way into this book, after the third or so not-so-subtle example using a token feminist/evangelical Christian/conservative Muslim/pick-your-bro-politics-strawman, I sighed, put the book down, and did exactly the thing that this book was marketed to do: I Googled the authors. And then I said "Okay, yeah. This all makes sense now."
The bulk of this is some common-sense debating and negotiating advice, which packaged up all together is decent, I guess. However, I came into this thinking that this would actually be a guide to "hey here's how to approach difficult conversations with people you care about," and this is actually more along the lines of "how to persuade people who are on opposite sides of the ideological aisle that YOUR position is correct." There is some vague talk about how to think about your own beliefs, and what to do when you think your beliefs might not actually be correct/supportable, but the authors wrote this book from the position of I Am Right And You Are Wrong, And Whether Through Pop Psychology Or Pure Attrition, I Will Make You Realize It. Yeesh. Combine this approach with their Twitter presence, and the fact that the hypothetical conversation partner is always female is suddenly not so innocent. There's no real desire here to truly engage and learn about people, or about how their cultural contexts might differ so radically from yours that perhaps one conversation might not be enough to hand you the rhetorical victory you crave.
Also, I gotta say, the specific examples the authors use are actually unintentionally hilarious. In one example, he claims to have "altercasted" his son's teacher so she would agree to teach "the other side of gentrification"--um, sir, that interaction clearly indicated that she thought you were an idiot and wanted to get rid of you like the other 5000 busybody parents she has to deal with. In another example, the author gets wound around the axle about his female colleague joking that she wouldn't believe a white man even if he told her 2+2=4, and proceeds to lecture her about the logical conclusions of her argument, until she clearly just says something to make him go away. Who would ever have guessed that two men in academia might be so radically lacking self-awareness? Oh wait that's right, literally every woman in academia.
There's a short afterword here where one of the authors, Peter Boghossian, explains that he wrote this book from a place of regret; apparently, he lost many friendships because he wasn't communicating well with the people around him. Looking at his online presence, you can color me unsurprised. But looking back at this book, you can also color me unbelieving--this is not a book written by someone who's truly concerned about how he's hurt people in the past. In one of the examples, he claims to be close friends with a conservative Christian, while regularly insulting some of his core beliefs and comparing his religion to a cult. There is no regret about this behavior; he actually holds it up as an example of how open-minded and mature he is. By the time I read to the end of this book, and to that purportedly contrite afterword, the truth was saddening: this is not a man who actually has friends. He might have people around him who tolerate his presence for one reason or another, but despite his claims on the importance of deep, meaningful friendships, this is not someone who actually walks the walk. If it wasn't such a bad-faith book, I might actually feel sorry for him.
Part of this is my fault for picking books up from the library by only their titles and not even bothering to read the description. Part of it is my fault for not keeping up with Internet drama and not realizing that some Twitter people have a problem with contemporary feminism because [insert Apache helicopter joke x infinity]. About 10% of the way into this book, after the third or so not-so-subtle example using a token feminist/evangelical Christian/conservative Muslim/pick-your-bro-politics-strawman, I sighed, put the book down, and did exactly the thing that this book was marketed to do: I Googled the authors. And then I said "Okay, yeah. This all makes sense now."
The bulk of this is some common-sense debating and negotiating advice, which packaged up all together is decent, I guess. However, I came into this thinking that this would actually be a guide to "hey here's how to approach difficult conversations with people you care about," and this is actually more along the lines of "how to persuade people who are on opposite sides of the ideological aisle that YOUR position is correct." There is some vague talk about how to think about your own beliefs, and what to do when you think your beliefs might not actually be correct/supportable, but the authors wrote this book from the position of I Am Right And You Are Wrong, And Whether Through Pop Psychology Or Pure Attrition, I Will Make You Realize It. Yeesh. Combine this approach with their Twitter presence, and the fact that the hypothetical conversation partner is always female is suddenly not so innocent. There's no real desire here to truly engage and learn about people, or about how their cultural contexts might differ so radically from yours that perhaps one conversation might not be enough to hand you the rhetorical victory you crave.
Also, I gotta say, the specific examples the authors use are actually unintentionally hilarious. In one example, he claims to have "altercasted" his son's teacher so she would agree to teach "the other side of gentrification"--um, sir, that interaction clearly indicated that she thought you were an idiot and wanted to get rid of you like the other 5000 busybody parents she has to deal with. In another example, the author gets wound around the axle about his female colleague joking that she wouldn't believe a white man even if he told her 2+2=4, and proceeds to lecture her about the logical conclusions of her argument, until she clearly just says something to make him go away. Who would ever have guessed that two men in academia might be so radically lacking self-awareness? Oh wait that's right, literally every woman in academia.
There's a short afterword here where one of the authors, Peter Boghossian, explains that he wrote this book from a place of regret; apparently, he lost many friendships because he wasn't communicating well with the people around him. Looking at his online presence, you can color me unsurprised. But looking back at this book, you can also color me unbelieving--this is not a book written by someone who's truly concerned about how he's hurt people in the past. In one of the examples, he claims to be close friends with a conservative Christian, while regularly insulting some of his core beliefs and comparing his religion to a cult. There is no regret about this behavior; he actually holds it up as an example of how open-minded and mature he is. By the time I read to the end of this book, and to that purportedly contrite afterword, the truth was saddening: this is not a man who actually has friends. He might have people around him who tolerate his presence for one reason or another, but despite his claims on the importance of deep, meaningful friendships, this is not someone who actually walks the walk. If it wasn't such a bad-faith book, I might actually feel sorry for him.
November 17, 2019
This was a very practical and very helpful book. As in the case of "A manual for creating atheists", I noticed some negative patterns in my ways of building an argument. Now I am a better person and I strongly recommend this book to anyone who often engages in discussions about controversial subjects.
If you want to get the most out of this book, take notes as you go through it. Mine are here: http://railean.net/index.php/how-to-h...
If you want to get the most out of this book, take notes as you go through it. Mine are here: http://railean.net/index.php/how-to-h...
April 12, 2020
Contains some helpful tips, but is mostly just common sense. The authors really do not understand religious people, and they direct a fair amount of obtuse condescension at them. The epistemology is surprisingly naive, considering one of the authors has a PhD in philosophy.
It’s also amusing to follow James Lindsay on Twitter and see that he takes almost none of his own and Boghossian’s advice from the book. He is snarky, engages in put downs and dismissive remarks, and generally is an amusing jerk towards the woke left. I totally agree with him about how awful the woke left is, but if he followed his own advice, he would behave quite differently on social media.
It’s also amusing to follow James Lindsay on Twitter and see that he takes almost none of his own and Boghossian’s advice from the book. He is snarky, engages in put downs and dismissive remarks, and generally is an amusing jerk towards the woke left. I totally agree with him about how awful the woke left is, but if he followed his own advice, he would behave quite differently on social media.
October 14, 2019
A superb book about how to have socratic dialogues with other people.
Good points:
-There is no fluff. The book is brief and readable; and at the same time one of those books you'll keep rereading. Such is the quality of the advice.
-It is quite well ordered, from easy techniques to difficult ones.
-Probably the authors know what they are writing about: they have a lot of experience.
Bad points?:
-The book is about conversing with a willing partner face to face. It doesn't deal with written conversations, nor with debates. And that's useful, but not very useful. In the real world, you usually talk about controversial topics in front of several people, not just one person (with your friends, your colleagues, your partners). The rules change if there is not only one person in front of you, and you have to convince several of them. The book doesn't adress this.
-The authors make a great deal of the platonic dialogue Meno, where Socrates defends the position that people don't consciously desire bad things. That is, no one desires something bad knowing that it is bad. This thinking pervades the book. And probably is quite efficient: it's better, in order to have a civil discussion, to treat the other one as if he is acting morally but with other information or beliefs. But deep down, it's bullshit. Malevolence exists. Bad people exist. People entrench themselves in bad beliefs out of cognitive dissonance, but they entrench themselves consciously, as in any other bad behaviour. If not, I don't know what "bad" is anymore. In sum, in the Meno dialogue...
Socrates: And do you believe that those who suppose bad things bring advantage understand that they are bad?
Meno: No, that I can’t really believe.
... if I had been Meno, I would have replied "Of course, you dummy!".
Good points:
-There is no fluff. The book is brief and readable; and at the same time one of those books you'll keep rereading. Such is the quality of the advice.
-It is quite well ordered, from easy techniques to difficult ones.
-Probably the authors know what they are writing about: they have a lot of experience.
Bad points?:
-The book is about conversing with a willing partner face to face. It doesn't deal with written conversations, nor with debates. And that's useful, but not very useful. In the real world, you usually talk about controversial topics in front of several people, not just one person (with your friends, your colleagues, your partners). The rules change if there is not only one person in front of you, and you have to convince several of them. The book doesn't adress this.
-The authors make a great deal of the platonic dialogue Meno, where Socrates defends the position that people don't consciously desire bad things. That is, no one desires something bad knowing that it is bad. This thinking pervades the book. And probably is quite efficient: it's better, in order to have a civil discussion, to treat the other one as if he is acting morally but with other information or beliefs. But deep down, it's bullshit. Malevolence exists. Bad people exist. People entrench themselves in bad beliefs out of cognitive dissonance, but they entrench themselves consciously, as in any other bad behaviour. If not, I don't know what "bad" is anymore. In sum, in the Meno dialogue...
Socrates: And do you believe that those who suppose bad things bring advantage understand that they are bad?
Meno: No, that I can’t really believe.
... if I had been Meno, I would have replied "Of course, you dummy!".
December 30, 2020
Piratical tips for a well established conversation and argumentation.
Read Summary here:
http://railean.net/index.php/how-to-h...
Read Summary here:
http://railean.net/index.php/how-to-h...
November 16, 2021
A useful and much needed manual on how to discuss with someone who disagrees with you. Most advice are fairly socratic and common sensical. Most of the recommendations discuss all the things you shouldn't say, because they will heat up the discussion and will be counterproductive. Eg.
— "Think of shaming someone as being like a live hand grenade (...) “There is no such thing as a diplomatic hand grenade.” Hand grenades damage or blow up bridges; they don’t build them."
One of Boghossian and Lindsay's advice that is counterintuitive to me is their advice not to rely on using facts for convincing you opponent. Most strong disagreements are based on diverging moral or ideological world views, which may not me reconciliated by pointing to facts and statistics supporting your view.
— "If someone’s reasoning makes no sense, there’s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified."
— "If you’re engaged in a moral conversation, your discussion is always—whether overtly or covertly—about identity issues. When you’re talking to an ideologue (or anyone else), it might appear that the conversation is about facts and ideas, but you’re inevitably having a discussion about morality, and that, in turn, is inevitably a discussion about what it means to be a good or bad person. Decoding this connection is vital."
My own strategy has been to only engage in discussions with on issues where people are willing to change their minds if facts and evidence should convince them (including convince myself). Discussing with ideologues, religious and fanatical people are fruitless. This book gives sound advice how to engage with such people, too.
— "Think of shaming someone as being like a live hand grenade (...) “There is no such thing as a diplomatic hand grenade.” Hand grenades damage or blow up bridges; they don’t build them."
One of Boghossian and Lindsay's advice that is counterintuitive to me is their advice not to rely on using facts for convincing you opponent. Most strong disagreements are based on diverging moral or ideological world views, which may not me reconciliated by pointing to facts and statistics supporting your view.
— "If someone’s reasoning makes no sense, there’s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified."
— "If you’re engaged in a moral conversation, your discussion is always—whether overtly or covertly—about identity issues. When you’re talking to an ideologue (or anyone else), it might appear that the conversation is about facts and ideas, but you’re inevitably having a discussion about morality, and that, in turn, is inevitably a discussion about what it means to be a good or bad person. Decoding this connection is vital."
My own strategy has been to only engage in discussions with on issues where people are willing to change their minds if facts and evidence should convince them (including convince myself). Discussing with ideologues, religious and fanatical people are fruitless. This book gives sound advice how to engage with such people, too.
February 11, 2020
In my case, it was a follow-up after "The Righteous Mind" (mainly) & "Predictably Irrational" (minorly).
In contrast to the explicit title, it's not 100% focused on the hardest of conversations - it starts with more "basic" cases, but to be precise: it's NOT about merit-based/fact-based conversations, but situations where beliefs or feelings overcome everything else. The book is surprisingly ... practical & dense - the initial set of chapters was very informative & packed with useful techniques. It gets more repetitive & unimaginative in the 2nd part, but it doesn't affect the overall review score much.
Interestingly, the book contains a chapter with techniques aimed to ... defend against primary techniques covered in this book :)
As a person who had (unfortunately) to deal (on several occasions) with tough interlocutors (professionally or not) - I can only recommend this one. 4.75/5.
In contrast to the explicit title, it's not 100% focused on the hardest of conversations - it starts with more "basic" cases, but to be precise: it's NOT about merit-based/fact-based conversations, but situations where beliefs or feelings overcome everything else. The book is surprisingly ... practical & dense - the initial set of chapters was very informative & packed with useful techniques. It gets more repetitive & unimaginative in the 2nd part, but it doesn't affect the overall review score much.
Interestingly, the book contains a chapter with techniques aimed to ... defend against primary techniques covered in this book :)
As a person who had (unfortunately) to deal (on several occasions) with tough interlocutors (professionally or not) - I can only recommend this one. 4.75/5.
November 25, 2019
YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK!
I don't care who you are.
What you believe.
What you don't believe.
What you . . . whatever.
You must read this book.
I'm formally college-trained in Logic and Rhetoric, have years of debate under my belt, and have worked in advertising as a copywriter, but I have never gained as much practical experience in civil discourse, discussion, debate, and persuasion as I did by reading this book.
I say in all seriousness, that if everyone I knew read this book our society would be transformed and public discourse would take a turn for the better.
Please, I appeal to you: Get, read, and apply this book.
Thank you.
I don't care who you are.
What you believe.
What you don't believe.
What you . . . whatever.
You must read this book.
I'm formally college-trained in Logic and Rhetoric, have years of debate under my belt, and have worked in advertising as a copywriter, but I have never gained as much practical experience in civil discourse, discussion, debate, and persuasion as I did by reading this book.
I say in all seriousness, that if everyone I knew read this book our society would be transformed and public discourse would take a turn for the better.
Please, I appeal to you: Get, read, and apply this book.
Thank you.
June 5, 2020
I've had the pleasure of having many contentious conversations over the past couple of years. This book dissects many of the problems and cognitive distortions present in these types of arguments and poses solutions to all of them.
All of the best techniques I've accidentally stumbled upon over the years (Rappaport's Rules, understanding falsifiability, etc) are here, plus more. I particularly enjoyed its focus on epistemology: understanding why someone holds a belief gives more leeway to challenge its foundations. I also appreciated the use of scales: "On a scale of 1-10, how sure are you?"—These types of questions open room for doubt which can be explored without needing to force it. There is a lot of good phraseology and techniques for even the most advanced quarreler to learn from.
The one thing I had a little issue with is their fairly frequent use of "...if this still isn't working, walk away." I get why—some people are so obstinate as to be unreachable. It feels like a copout though, and for those of us who truly enjoy debate, I would rather keep fighting as long as we can maintain some level of civility. But yes, they're right, most people should bow out.
Highly recommend this book. If people would just adopt the most basic techniques, such as assuming your interlocutor has good intentions, the world would be a much better place.
My Favorite Tactics:
* Do not parallel talk. Parallel talk is taking something someone says and using that to reference yourself or your experiences.
* Model language for your partner. For example, if someone refuses to answer a yes or no question, have them ask you that question. "Should women be stoned for adultery?" "No." By making a concrete statement you model for them the statement you'd like to see in return. Boghossian got a Muslim community leader to admit his answer was "Yes." this way when he was previously giving endless qualifying remarks.
* When in doubt, start with how or what. How and what questions don’t lend themselves to yes-and-no responses as do questions beginning with can, is, are, does, and do. For example, ask, “How does this seem to you?” as opposed to “Does this look good?”
* Focus on epistemology People have developed practiced responses to having their conclusions challenged. Often referred to as “talking points,” these are rehearsed statements/messages given in response to frequently heard arguments. Focusing on epistemology helps people explain how they arrived at their conclusions, providing a fresh route around rehearsed messages.
* Use scales. Ask people their level of conviction on a topic on a scale of 1-10. If they are less than a 9 or 10, we might be able to increase their doubt more. Also ask people their level of knowledge on a topic from 1-10. If the level of confidence outweighs the level of knowledge, inquire.
* Use scales on yourself. If they’re above a 6 on a 1 to 10 scale, ask, “I’m 3 on that 1 to 10 scale that X is true. I’m not sure how I’d get to where you are, at a 9. I want to see what I’m missing. Would you help walk me through it?” Used in this way, scales are an opportunity to have someone guide you step-by-step through their epistemology. This is effective because they’re explaining the epistemological gap without you having to think on your feet and generate questions.
* Keep a log of your conversations. Note what lowers confidence levels and what does not. Refine. Discard. Repeat.
* Utilize Rapoport’s Rules. Restate their opinion in a manner they’d agree with wholeheartedly, state areas of agreement, mention what you have learned from them on the topic, and only then can you say as much as a word of criticism.
* Seek Disconfirmation. The single most effective technique to instill doubt and help people change their minds is to ask, “Under what conditions could [insert belief] be wrong?” If someone states their belief is not disconfirmable, they’re claiming to be absolutely positive about an aspect of reality where the belief operates. Colloquially, an unwillingness or inability to change one’s mind is called “incorrigibility,” philosophically it’s termed “epistemic closure” or “doxastic closure,” and in other domains like religion and pop morality it’s known as “conviction.” This idea behind disconfirmation sometimes appears in the philosophical/epistemological literature either under the term defeasible, or in the philosophy of science literature as falsifiable.
* Synthesize your own beliefs with theirs. Synthesizing means modifying your beliefs by using your partner’s beliefs and disconfirmation statements. The goal is to clarify and strengthen your position and get closer to having true beliefs, not to produce agreement. Synthesis involves collaboratively arriving at a better understanding of the topic and developing a more refined, nuanced view.
* Altercast for civility. If you say to someone who’s texting, “Wow, you’re a really fast texter,” you’ve altercasted them as a fast texter. They’ll then embrace that role and want to text more quickly... Altercast your partner into the role of better conversationalist. Say, “You’re good at having civil conversations.” Or, simply, “You’re good at keeping your cool.”
* Use mirroring, but do not overuse it. When mirroring, you repeat the last few words of what someone said. For example, if someone exclaims, “I am just so sick and tired of these people pushing everyone around and trying to get their way,” you say, “Get their way?” McMains and Mullins provide the following example: “A trapped armed robber in a bank might say, ‘I have to get out of here with the money. It’s for my kid. It’s not for me.’ A good mirroring response would be ‘For your kid?’ To which the robber might say, ‘Yeah, He’s got a fever and an infection and we don’t have money for the pills he’s supposed to take. He needs the money for the pills.’”
* Focus on values. At the core of nearly all impossible conversations lies at least one person’s inability to provide (realistic) disconfirmation criteria for beliefs or denial that any such criteria exist...“Why do you feel that belief is more justified than competing beliefs?” and “Does the intense feeling that a belief is true make it more likely to be true?” "What values would have to change for your view to no longer be true?”
* Shift to superordinate identities. When a conversation centers on race, gender, or any other divisive marker in identity politics, people can become defensive and tempers can flare. If you find the conversation getting heated or stuck, shift the focus to superordinate identity markers instead. Rather than dividing, these unify people. Superordinate identity markers go “up” and include commonalities among people, not down to identity features of certain groups (black skin, particular sex organs, etc.). Crudely, “You’re white (or Muslim) and I’m black (or Christian), but so what, because we’re both Americans and both human beings.” Notice how this statement moves the conversation toward common ground at the identity level.
* Beware the backfire effect: the seemingly paradoxical outcome when our existing convictions are actually strengthened by evidence that contradicts them.
* Beware of identity effects. The general idea of social identity theory is that one’s moral standing is tied to the moral standing of the groups with which one identifies. For example, if a conservative identifies as a conservative, every reason she has to view conservatives as good gives her a reason to believe that she must be good too, by association with the “good” group.
* Recognize psychological bias. People are extremely prone to believe incorrect conclusions based upon “the evidence” because of our susceptibility to two biases: confirmation bias and desirability bias
Phraseology:
* Say, “Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?” If the person says yes, follow up with, “I’m a sincere, reasonable person and I’m having trouble drawing the same conclusion. How do I get there?”
* “I’m having trouble understanding. How did you go about setting your bar for doubt so high? I’m wondering why some simpler problem, like why after all this time a dead Bigfoot has never been found, isn’t good enough to cast doubt?”
* If you wish to pursue a conversation with someone who holds a belief that is not disconfirmable, then ask the following questions, with brief follow-ups, in this sequence: Epistemological questions “Then the belief is not held on the basis of evidence, right?” “Are you as closed to revising other beliefs or just this one? What makes this particular belief unique?” “What are some examples of other beliefs you’re not willing to change?”
Useful Expressions:
* The mark of an educated mind, it has been said, is to understand a statement without having to accept it.
* Though many arguments seem to be about matters of substance, they’re often just disagreements about the meanings of words.
Common sense in uncommon practice:
* Most basic elements of civil discussion, especially over matters of substantive disagreement, come down to a single theme: making the other person in the conversation a partner, not an adversary. To accomplish this, you need to understand what you want from the conversation, make charitable assumptions about others’ intentions, listen, and seek back-and-forth interaction (as opposed to delivering a message).
* How do you switch from viewing people as opponents, moral degenerates, or even enemies to valued partners and collaborators? Answer: Shift your goal from winning to understanding.
* Anger tells us that something needs to change. If we are to bring about that change most effectively, we need to know the source of our anger." In these cases, you need to alter course and not press the issue. And yes, it must be you who changes even if your partner is angry—or dreadfully wrong—because you cannot control other people; you can only control yourself.
View my best reviews and a collection of my mental models at jasperburns.blog.
All of the best techniques I've accidentally stumbled upon over the years (Rappaport's Rules, understanding falsifiability, etc) are here, plus more. I particularly enjoyed its focus on epistemology: understanding why someone holds a belief gives more leeway to challenge its foundations. I also appreciated the use of scales: "On a scale of 1-10, how sure are you?"—These types of questions open room for doubt which can be explored without needing to force it. There is a lot of good phraseology and techniques for even the most advanced quarreler to learn from.
The one thing I had a little issue with is their fairly frequent use of "...if this still isn't working, walk away." I get why—some people are so obstinate as to be unreachable. It feels like a copout though, and for those of us who truly enjoy debate, I would rather keep fighting as long as we can maintain some level of civility. But yes, they're right, most people should bow out.
Highly recommend this book. If people would just adopt the most basic techniques, such as assuming your interlocutor has good intentions, the world would be a much better place.
My Favorite Tactics:
* Do not parallel talk. Parallel talk is taking something someone says and using that to reference yourself or your experiences.
* Model language for your partner. For example, if someone refuses to answer a yes or no question, have them ask you that question. "Should women be stoned for adultery?" "No." By making a concrete statement you model for them the statement you'd like to see in return. Boghossian got a Muslim community leader to admit his answer was "Yes." this way when he was previously giving endless qualifying remarks.
* When in doubt, start with how or what. How and what questions don’t lend themselves to yes-and-no responses as do questions beginning with can, is, are, does, and do. For example, ask, “How does this seem to you?” as opposed to “Does this look good?”
* Focus on epistemology People have developed practiced responses to having their conclusions challenged. Often referred to as “talking points,” these are rehearsed statements/messages given in response to frequently heard arguments. Focusing on epistemology helps people explain how they arrived at their conclusions, providing a fresh route around rehearsed messages.
* Use scales. Ask people their level of conviction on a topic on a scale of 1-10. If they are less than a 9 or 10, we might be able to increase their doubt more. Also ask people their level of knowledge on a topic from 1-10. If the level of confidence outweighs the level of knowledge, inquire.
* Use scales on yourself. If they’re above a 6 on a 1 to 10 scale, ask, “I’m 3 on that 1 to 10 scale that X is true. I’m not sure how I’d get to where you are, at a 9. I want to see what I’m missing. Would you help walk me through it?” Used in this way, scales are an opportunity to have someone guide you step-by-step through their epistemology. This is effective because they’re explaining the epistemological gap without you having to think on your feet and generate questions.
* Keep a log of your conversations. Note what lowers confidence levels and what does not. Refine. Discard. Repeat.
* Utilize Rapoport’s Rules. Restate their opinion in a manner they’d agree with wholeheartedly, state areas of agreement, mention what you have learned from them on the topic, and only then can you say as much as a word of criticism.
* Seek Disconfirmation. The single most effective technique to instill doubt and help people change their minds is to ask, “Under what conditions could [insert belief] be wrong?” If someone states their belief is not disconfirmable, they’re claiming to be absolutely positive about an aspect of reality where the belief operates. Colloquially, an unwillingness or inability to change one’s mind is called “incorrigibility,” philosophically it’s termed “epistemic closure” or “doxastic closure,” and in other domains like religion and pop morality it’s known as “conviction.” This idea behind disconfirmation sometimes appears in the philosophical/epistemological literature either under the term defeasible, or in the philosophy of science literature as falsifiable.
* Synthesize your own beliefs with theirs. Synthesizing means modifying your beliefs by using your partner’s beliefs and disconfirmation statements. The goal is to clarify and strengthen your position and get closer to having true beliefs, not to produce agreement. Synthesis involves collaboratively arriving at a better understanding of the topic and developing a more refined, nuanced view.
* Altercast for civility. If you say to someone who’s texting, “Wow, you’re a really fast texter,” you’ve altercasted them as a fast texter. They’ll then embrace that role and want to text more quickly... Altercast your partner into the role of better conversationalist. Say, “You’re good at having civil conversations.” Or, simply, “You’re good at keeping your cool.”
* Use mirroring, but do not overuse it. When mirroring, you repeat the last few words of what someone said. For example, if someone exclaims, “I am just so sick and tired of these people pushing everyone around and trying to get their way,” you say, “Get their way?” McMains and Mullins provide the following example: “A trapped armed robber in a bank might say, ‘I have to get out of here with the money. It’s for my kid. It’s not for me.’ A good mirroring response would be ‘For your kid?’ To which the robber might say, ‘Yeah, He’s got a fever and an infection and we don’t have money for the pills he’s supposed to take. He needs the money for the pills.’”
* Focus on values. At the core of nearly all impossible conversations lies at least one person’s inability to provide (realistic) disconfirmation criteria for beliefs or denial that any such criteria exist...“Why do you feel that belief is more justified than competing beliefs?” and “Does the intense feeling that a belief is true make it more likely to be true?” "What values would have to change for your view to no longer be true?”
* Shift to superordinate identities. When a conversation centers on race, gender, or any other divisive marker in identity politics, people can become defensive and tempers can flare. If you find the conversation getting heated or stuck, shift the focus to superordinate identity markers instead. Rather than dividing, these unify people. Superordinate identity markers go “up” and include commonalities among people, not down to identity features of certain groups (black skin, particular sex organs, etc.). Crudely, “You’re white (or Muslim) and I’m black (or Christian), but so what, because we’re both Americans and both human beings.” Notice how this statement moves the conversation toward common ground at the identity level.
* Beware the backfire effect: the seemingly paradoxical outcome when our existing convictions are actually strengthened by evidence that contradicts them.
* Beware of identity effects. The general idea of social identity theory is that one’s moral standing is tied to the moral standing of the groups with which one identifies. For example, if a conservative identifies as a conservative, every reason she has to view conservatives as good gives her a reason to believe that she must be good too, by association with the “good” group.
* Recognize psychological bias. People are extremely prone to believe incorrect conclusions based upon “the evidence” because of our susceptibility to two biases: confirmation bias and desirability bias
Phraseology:
* Say, “Would every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?” If the person says yes, follow up with, “I’m a sincere, reasonable person and I’m having trouble drawing the same conclusion. How do I get there?”
* “I’m having trouble understanding. How did you go about setting your bar for doubt so high? I’m wondering why some simpler problem, like why after all this time a dead Bigfoot has never been found, isn’t good enough to cast doubt?”
* If you wish to pursue a conversation with someone who holds a belief that is not disconfirmable, then ask the following questions, with brief follow-ups, in this sequence: Epistemological questions “Then the belief is not held on the basis of evidence, right?” “Are you as closed to revising other beliefs or just this one? What makes this particular belief unique?” “What are some examples of other beliefs you’re not willing to change?”
Useful Expressions:
* The mark of an educated mind, it has been said, is to understand a statement without having to accept it.
* Though many arguments seem to be about matters of substance, they’re often just disagreements about the meanings of words.
Common sense in uncommon practice:
* Most basic elements of civil discussion, especially over matters of substantive disagreement, come down to a single theme: making the other person in the conversation a partner, not an adversary. To accomplish this, you need to understand what you want from the conversation, make charitable assumptions about others’ intentions, listen, and seek back-and-forth interaction (as opposed to delivering a message).
* How do you switch from viewing people as opponents, moral degenerates, or even enemies to valued partners and collaborators? Answer: Shift your goal from winning to understanding.
* Anger tells us that something needs to change. If we are to bring about that change most effectively, we need to know the source of our anger." In these cases, you need to alter course and not press the issue. And yes, it must be you who changes even if your partner is angry—or dreadfully wrong—because you cannot control other people; you can only control yourself.
View my best reviews and a collection of my mental models at jasperburns.blog.
September 17, 2020
“You’ll need to overcome the urge to say everything that’s on your mind.” p.10
“Parallel talk is taking something someone says and using that to reference yourself or your experiences.” p.18
“Someone might say, for instance, “I hate the government,” when they mean they hate intrusive government, corruption, bureaucracy, concentrated political authority, or regulations that don’t comport with their values.” p.41
I find this advice quite narrow-minded and needs context in order to be given. This is not “general” advice. It’s from the section Disavowing Extremists on p.48, and under point three: “never defend indefensible behavior” on p.49:
“Placing yourself on the political Left in a civil society is not sufficient license to defend riots, violence, or injuring police officers.”
Personal comment: Calling riots, violence, or injuring police officers “indefensible behavior” and giving it as advice to disavow extremism is problematic. Isn’t is assuming that all riots and violence are extremist indefensible behavior, regardless of context?
“Challenging beliefs risks your conversation partner becoming defensive and hunkering down. Focusing on epistemology avoids many of these issues because people are less threatened by having their epistemology probed than having their beliefs challenged.” p.61
“Dealing with negative emotions, especially anger, requires identifying triggers before they come up in conversation. It also requires listening and managing your emotions in real time. If this is impossible during a tense discussion, you’ll need to discipline yourself to walk away.” p.96
“Avoid the word anger. Saying someone is angry when they’re upset can sound accusatory. Instead, consider acknowledging the conversation as frustrating and name it frustration.” p.129
Personal comment in CAPS and an interjection followed by a question: BUT WHAT IF SOMETIMES WE NEED TO GET ANGRY FFS!!!! ARGGGHHHHHHHGGGHHHHHHH!
What if occasional anger is healthy, and perhaps even an important element in a conversation? Or is it never?
“That is, conversations with ideologues seem, on the surface, to be about issues, ideas, and evidence. But underneath they’re about moral issues ultimately rooted in the ideologue’s sense of identity.” p.160
“Parallel talk is taking something someone says and using that to reference yourself or your experiences.” p.18
“Someone might say, for instance, “I hate the government,” when they mean they hate intrusive government, corruption, bureaucracy, concentrated political authority, or regulations that don’t comport with their values.” p.41
I find this advice quite narrow-minded and needs context in order to be given. This is not “general” advice. It’s from the section Disavowing Extremists on p.48, and under point three: “never defend indefensible behavior” on p.49:
“Placing yourself on the political Left in a civil society is not sufficient license to defend riots, violence, or injuring police officers.”
Personal comment: Calling riots, violence, or injuring police officers “indefensible behavior” and giving it as advice to disavow extremism is problematic. Isn’t is assuming that all riots and violence are extremist indefensible behavior, regardless of context?
“Challenging beliefs risks your conversation partner becoming defensive and hunkering down. Focusing on epistemology avoids many of these issues because people are less threatened by having their epistemology probed than having their beliefs challenged.” p.61
“Dealing with negative emotions, especially anger, requires identifying triggers before they come up in conversation. It also requires listening and managing your emotions in real time. If this is impossible during a tense discussion, you’ll need to discipline yourself to walk away.” p.96
“Avoid the word anger. Saying someone is angry when they’re upset can sound accusatory. Instead, consider acknowledging the conversation as frustrating and name it frustration.” p.129
Personal comment in CAPS and an interjection followed by a question: BUT WHAT IF SOMETIMES WE NEED TO GET ANGRY FFS!!!! ARGGGHHHHHHHGGGHHHHHHH!
What if occasional anger is healthy, and perhaps even an important element in a conversation? Or is it never?
“That is, conversations with ideologues seem, on the surface, to be about issues, ideas, and evidence. But underneath they’re about moral issues ultimately rooted in the ideologue’s sense of identity.” p.160
September 11, 2021
I found myself highlighting so many times, I needed to just summarize each chapter and all the bullet points in to a Google Doc. Here is the link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z...
January 9, 2021
3.5ish stars.
I do not consider myself as a particularly strong conversationalist. As the culture around us seems to become more and more divisive, I figured I could gain some helpful information and tips for engaging friends and family members who do not share my worldview. Overall, I am glad I picked this book up (i.e. listened to the audiobook). I think almost anyone could gain something out of this book.
I do not consider myself as a particularly strong conversationalist. As the culture around us seems to become more and more divisive, I figured I could gain some helpful information and tips for engaging friends and family members who do not share my worldview. Overall, I am glad I picked this book up (i.e. listened to the audiobook). I think almost anyone could gain something out of this book.
December 18, 2022
Asi jsem čekala trochu víc, ale možná je to tím, že tahle knížka je prostě průvodce základní komunikační empatie a tu (snad) jakž takž mám. Taky mě hrozně štval ten učebnicový styl a neustálé opakování informací.
Nicméně jestli máte pocit, že komunikace s lidmi s jinými politickými názory je naprosto nesmyslná, zkuste to, třeba se něco dozvíte!
Nicméně jestli máte pocit, že komunikace s lidmi s jinými politickými názory je naprosto nesmyslná, zkuste to, třeba se něco dozvíte!
February 21, 2021
Boghossian och Lindsay, mest kända för Grievance Studies med Helen Pluckrose (om ni inte känner till detta, skit i det du håller på med just nu och kolla på deras intervju med Joe Rogan och sedan Jordan B - i den ordningen), ger sig ut med denna bok i ett försök till att finna ett motgift för dagens samtalsklimat som är förpestat av begrepp som jag flitigt tar upp i mina ”reviews” (läs: raljeranden).
Boken är vad den lovar att vara på sitt omslag: “A very practical guide” till att navigera sig genom omöjliga konversationer (mer av politiska, filosofiska och moraliska diskussioner).
Utöver forskningsarbeten i argumentations- och diskussionstekniker från Harvard så visar det sig allt tydligare mot bokens slut, med en kumulativ känsla, att mycket av vad författarna skriver om förankras i Jonathan Haidts arbete inom moralpsykolgin och hans bok The Righteous Mind (och den sexiga underrubriken): Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Diskussioner som verkar tillslut vara meningslösa och omöjliga har alla något gemensamt:
”Seemingly impossible conversations typically have one thing in common: they’re about moral beliefs rooted in one’s sense of identity, but they play out on the level of facts (or assertions, name-calling, grandstanding, threats, etc). That is, the discussion appears to be about issues (Muslim immigration), ideas (defending Western values, however these are understood, from Muslim immigrants), and facts (numbers of immigrants from Islamic countries), but instead it’s really about the type of person the entrenched individual perceives herself to be (I am a good person and good people believe this)”.
Och vad som just definierar en moraliskt god person beror på ens moraliska intuitioner, alltså moraliska “lutningar” över sex olika, universella, fundament. Hur dessa fundament fördelas inom var och ens moralpsykologi påverkas av faktorer som: “(...)feelings, culture, psychology, greater or less information to information,, circumstances (including economic and social class), genetics, and the Zeitgeist (tidsandan)”. Resultatet gör att vi lutar oss lite mer åt vissa hjärtefrågor än andra, och fördelar oss mer/mindre över alla sex fundament som är:
1. Care versus Harm, 2. Fairness versus Cheating, 3. Loyalty versus Betrayal, 4. Authority versus Subversion, 5. Sanctity versus Degradation och 6. Liberty versus Oppresion.
I en nutida, amerikansk, politisk kontext så visar Haidts forskning på att liberaler (demokrater, progressiva och moderata) tenderar till att värdera mest 1. Care och 2.Fairness och till sist 6. Liberty, där resterande tre fundament värderas lite om inte alls i jämförelse med de andra nämnda. Konservativa (republikaner) fördelar sig i stora drag jämnt över samtliga fundament, och får därmed en politisk fördel, enligt Haidt, då de har flera moraliska receptorer att aktivera hos väljarna, då liberaler inte värderar moraliska koncept som Helighet (och renlighet) (Sanctity), lojalitet (mot nationen) eller auktoritet (vilket leder till trygghet, som i sig för en konservativ kan ses som något heligt värde). Libertarianer har i huvudsak endast fokus på frihetsfundamentet, där allt annat blir sekundärt och får aldrig föregå på frihetens bekostnad. Detta leder till att ju mindre en person bryr sig om ett givet fundament (ex. en liberal som inte värderar lojalitet högt/primärt), desto mer tror den andra som värderar den högt/primärt (en konservativ) att den förstnämnda engagerar sig i det motsatta värdet i det fundamentet (alltså förräderi, svek mot nationen (gruppen)). Men liberalen uppfattar ju inte det själv så, utan tycker endast att andra värden är av mer signifikans för vad som utgör en god människa.
Boken erbjuder konkreta exempel på hur man tar sig förbi detta moralpsykologiska hinder i diskussioner, vilket jag inte tänker återge här. Sen, som Anton mycket sant poängterade, så kan man inte hjälpa sig från att må fysiskt och psykiskt dåligt av läsa självhjälpsböcker som blir för mycket av dess egna genrer. Deras systematiska upplägg är förvisso nödvändigt i boken, då tillvägagångssätten blir allt mer sofistikerade och bygger på tidigare tekniker. Men att döpa dem till “Beginner Level”, “Intermediate Level”, “Six Expert Skills…” och den värsta: “Master Level” där man presenterar Haidts teorier som man har förskuggat genom hela boken. Poängen är att det känns att jag sitter hemma, 20 år gammal, och spelar RPG, fast jag är 20 år och läser en bok om diskussionstekniker inom självhjälpsgenrern. Man mår dåligt över en själv är väl vad jag vill komma fram till.
4+
Boken är vad den lovar att vara på sitt omslag: “A very practical guide” till att navigera sig genom omöjliga konversationer (mer av politiska, filosofiska och moraliska diskussioner).
Utöver forskningsarbeten i argumentations- och diskussionstekniker från Harvard så visar det sig allt tydligare mot bokens slut, med en kumulativ känsla, att mycket av vad författarna skriver om förankras i Jonathan Haidts arbete inom moralpsykolgin och hans bok The Righteous Mind (och den sexiga underrubriken): Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Diskussioner som verkar tillslut vara meningslösa och omöjliga har alla något gemensamt:
”Seemingly impossible conversations typically have one thing in common: they’re about moral beliefs rooted in one’s sense of identity, but they play out on the level of facts (or assertions, name-calling, grandstanding, threats, etc). That is, the discussion appears to be about issues (Muslim immigration), ideas (defending Western values, however these are understood, from Muslim immigrants), and facts (numbers of immigrants from Islamic countries), but instead it’s really about the type of person the entrenched individual perceives herself to be (I am a good person and good people believe this)”.
Och vad som just definierar en moraliskt god person beror på ens moraliska intuitioner, alltså moraliska “lutningar” över sex olika, universella, fundament. Hur dessa fundament fördelas inom var och ens moralpsykologi påverkas av faktorer som: “(...)feelings, culture, psychology, greater or less information to information,, circumstances (including economic and social class), genetics, and the Zeitgeist (tidsandan)”. Resultatet gör att vi lutar oss lite mer åt vissa hjärtefrågor än andra, och fördelar oss mer/mindre över alla sex fundament som är:
1. Care versus Harm, 2. Fairness versus Cheating, 3. Loyalty versus Betrayal, 4. Authority versus Subversion, 5. Sanctity versus Degradation och 6. Liberty versus Oppresion.
I en nutida, amerikansk, politisk kontext så visar Haidts forskning på att liberaler (demokrater, progressiva och moderata) tenderar till att värdera mest 1. Care och 2.Fairness och till sist 6. Liberty, där resterande tre fundament värderas lite om inte alls i jämförelse med de andra nämnda. Konservativa (republikaner) fördelar sig i stora drag jämnt över samtliga fundament, och får därmed en politisk fördel, enligt Haidt, då de har flera moraliska receptorer att aktivera hos väljarna, då liberaler inte värderar moraliska koncept som Helighet (och renlighet) (Sanctity), lojalitet (mot nationen) eller auktoritet (vilket leder till trygghet, som i sig för en konservativ kan ses som något heligt värde). Libertarianer har i huvudsak endast fokus på frihetsfundamentet, där allt annat blir sekundärt och får aldrig föregå på frihetens bekostnad. Detta leder till att ju mindre en person bryr sig om ett givet fundament (ex. en liberal som inte värderar lojalitet högt/primärt), desto mer tror den andra som värderar den högt/primärt (en konservativ) att den förstnämnda engagerar sig i det motsatta värdet i det fundamentet (alltså förräderi, svek mot nationen (gruppen)). Men liberalen uppfattar ju inte det själv så, utan tycker endast att andra värden är av mer signifikans för vad som utgör en god människa.
Boken erbjuder konkreta exempel på hur man tar sig förbi detta moralpsykologiska hinder i diskussioner, vilket jag inte tänker återge här. Sen, som Anton mycket sant poängterade, så kan man inte hjälpa sig från att må fysiskt och psykiskt dåligt av läsa självhjälpsböcker som blir för mycket av dess egna genrer. Deras systematiska upplägg är förvisso nödvändigt i boken, då tillvägagångssätten blir allt mer sofistikerade och bygger på tidigare tekniker. Men att döpa dem till “Beginner Level”, “Intermediate Level”, “Six Expert Skills…” och den värsta: “Master Level” där man presenterar Haidts teorier som man har förskuggat genom hela boken. Poängen är att det känns att jag sitter hemma, 20 år gammal, och spelar RPG, fast jag är 20 år och läser en bok om diskussionstekniker inom självhjälpsgenrern. Man mår dåligt över en själv är väl vad jag vill komma fram till.
4+
November 29, 2020
Some chapters are really helpful (the basic rules of polite debate, respectful talking and how to act when you or your opponent starts getting angry), but the general attempt of the authors is not very optimistic: The strategy is more to listen to the other, not to convince someone with arguments (which the author believes is not possible anyway, debating with extremists).
The strategy here is to create doubt in the extremist by asking critical questions about how he ended up with certain views or to nudge someone into seeing some contradictions in his position. All why pretending to be really interested in the other person's opinion (which is very hypocritical when in fact all you want to do is to sow doubts).
The authors are quite biased about certain topics, I don't like that the book has some very political examples which are basically representing mainstream opinions. Biased terms like "conspiracy theorists" are frequently used in the book. I personally avoid labelling other world views with such terminology - honest listening should include not to use such wordings, so the book is kind of contradicting its own strategy of respectful dialogue.
The good thing is, if everyone would apply the principles of this book, I am sure many of the "extremists" might change YOUR mind, instead of you changing the extremist's mind. I write that, because on closer look, many "conspiracy theories" turn out to be very reasonable, based on science and facts, while being discredited by the press with the help of propaganda methods.
Active listening is the first step to successful conversations, a quality getting rarer every day in the 21st century.
The funniest part is the praise for the book by Richard Dawkins.
I doubt he read the book at all, before he wrote his praise, because he does not apply ANY of the books basic principles in his own debates. I had to remember many of Dawkins debates while reading the book, he is the perfect example of how not to do it.
In general my intuition tells me that these authors do not stick to their own rules in real life, which has been verified by other reviewers who saw them insulting others or being disrespectful on twitter etc.
The strategy here is to create doubt in the extremist by asking critical questions about how he ended up with certain views or to nudge someone into seeing some contradictions in his position. All why pretending to be really interested in the other person's opinion (which is very hypocritical when in fact all you want to do is to sow doubts).
The authors are quite biased about certain topics, I don't like that the book has some very political examples which are basically representing mainstream opinions. Biased terms like "conspiracy theorists" are frequently used in the book. I personally avoid labelling other world views with such terminology - honest listening should include not to use such wordings, so the book is kind of contradicting its own strategy of respectful dialogue.
The good thing is, if everyone would apply the principles of this book, I am sure many of the "extremists" might change YOUR mind, instead of you changing the extremist's mind. I write that, because on closer look, many "conspiracy theories" turn out to be very reasonable, based on science and facts, while being discredited by the press with the help of propaganda methods.
Active listening is the first step to successful conversations, a quality getting rarer every day in the 21st century.
The funniest part is the praise for the book by Richard Dawkins.
I doubt he read the book at all, before he wrote his praise, because he does not apply ANY of the books basic principles in his own debates. I had to remember many of Dawkins debates while reading the book, he is the perfect example of how not to do it.
In general my intuition tells me that these authors do not stick to their own rules in real life, which has been verified by other reviewers who saw them insulting others or being disrespectful on twitter etc.
October 19, 2021
I thought it odd how this book, which is ostensibly about having difficult, yet evenhanded conversations, kept bringing up conservative talking points as the factual “middle” or basis on which to then converse around. It creates a difficult position, then, when the authors believe an “extreme” liberal position is to develop understanding of racism in society and then work to avoid such racism. I would characterize that as moral human behaviour, and something we need more of in society. If anything, it should be apolitical. It went off the rails when they characterized the Damore Google memo as Google gone diversity and inclusion wild, rather than come to grips with the fact that Damore has some questionable ideas about women, whether or not one feels his firing by Google was justified. Further, Damore accepted an interview by well-known white supremacist Stefan Molyneux. This could not be not known by this book’s authors, who provide a very flattering portrait of Damore. The authors have every right to hold their opinions, but when they are shading and misrepresenting like this it makes it difficult to go in with them on learning how to have difficult conversations.
About learning to have difficult conversations: this book, while discussing techniques, seems equally interested in teaching someone how to cause doubt in their conversation partner and bring them to your side. But is that really the point? There are many types of impossible conversations where it’s not a difference of opinion: revealing a medical diagnosis is one. I would want to have a conversation with someone to reach truth, not necessarily to use conversational ninja tactics to create discomfort. Yes, there are some who believe conspiracy theories and hold dangerous anti-science beliefs who I think need to be persuaded to a place of reality. But this book broadens the scope to include trying to overturn reasonable people’s entirely reasonable beliefs. That’s a step too far and quite cynical.
About learning to have difficult conversations: this book, while discussing techniques, seems equally interested in teaching someone how to cause doubt in their conversation partner and bring them to your side. But is that really the point? There are many types of impossible conversations where it’s not a difference of opinion: revealing a medical diagnosis is one. I would want to have a conversation with someone to reach truth, not necessarily to use conversational ninja tactics to create discomfort. Yes, there are some who believe conspiracy theories and hold dangerous anti-science beliefs who I think need to be persuaded to a place of reality. But this book broadens the scope to include trying to overturn reasonable people’s entirely reasonable beliefs. That’s a step too far and quite cynical.
August 24, 2021
I give this book 3.5 stars. There is useful, practical advice on having controversial conversations (many political and religious examples provided). However, it is apparent that the author is biased on certain topics and his advice is always winning the argument based on the stance that he favors.
October 30, 2020
This book is terrific. Honestly, the year 2020 is beginning to feel like one interminable Impossible Conversation. Marriages are dividing. Best friends are quitting one another. And nobody can even count on the soothing rituals of Thanksgiving meals or weddings to smooth over the bumps. What to do? What to do? It feels like none of us knows.
Peter Boghossian seems to know though, at least, a bit. Learn and practice these interactions and watch the tone of civility increase in your life. It works even if you are married to a “deplorable” (who is actually a hard-working, patriotic, America-loving man) and you are a “never-Trumper”. Ask me how I know.
Peace.
Peter Boghossian seems to know though, at least, a bit. Learn and practice these interactions and watch the tone of civility increase in your life. It works even if you are married to a “deplorable” (who is actually a hard-working, patriotic, America-loving man) and you are a “never-Trumper”. Ask me how I know.
Peace.
September 12, 2021
خلال السبعينيات من القرن الماضي قام أستاذ علم النفس بجامعة ولاية بورتلاند الدكتور فرانك ويسلي ، بالتحقيق في سبب هروب بعض أسرى الحرب الأمريكيين إلى كوريا الشمالية أثناء الحرب الكورية. أظهر بحثه أن جميع المنشقين تقريبًا جاءوا من معسكر تدريب أمريكي واحد. كجزء من تدريبهم ، تم تعليمهم أن الكوريين الشماليين هم بربريون قاسيون بلا قلب يحتقرون الولايات المتحدة ويسعون إلى تدميرها. ولكن عندما تمت معاملة أسرى الحرب هؤلاء بلطف من قبل آسريهم ، تلاشى تلقينهم العقائدي الأولي. لقد أصبحوا عرضة للانشقاق أكثر من أسرى الحرب الذين إما لم يتم إخبارهم بأي شيء عن الكوريين الشماليين أو أنهم تلقوا روايات أكثر حيادية عنهم.
.
Peter Boghossian
How to have impossible conversation
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
.
Peter Boghossian
How to have impossible conversation
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
July 5, 2022
I really liked the attention to changing your own mind when presented with new information; the emphasis to check your own emotions, bias, and ideologies; and Peter's ability to look back on previous conversations to see mistakes.
The book seemed to be about empathy--no one will listen if you can't empathize with their reasonings for believing a certain way. I love deep conversations and am looking forward to more after reading this book.
The book seemed to be about empathy--no one will listen if you can't empathize with their reasonings for believing a certain way. I love deep conversations and am looking forward to more after reading this book.
February 15, 2021
There are some valuable insights in this book and a book of this kind is much needed in the current political climate. That said it kind of reads like someone mansplaining how to be a good listener which is kind of a weird vibe.
June 13, 2020
I like it ,in our mechanical life we need good conversation and i think this book can help us
خلاصه از کتاب خواندم و به نظر کتاب جذاب و مفیدیه
خلاصه از کتاب خواندم و به نظر کتاب جذاب و مفیدیه
August 21, 2022
Increasingly we are having to live with a set of issues where as Thomas Sowell argued in a Conflict of Visions - the sides are using similar language with differing understandings. Our politics is increasingly fractured. So when I found this book, I thought it might be of interest.
This is a well organized manual for having difficult conversations. But it is also a disappointment for anyone who has kept even marginally current with the literature on Negotiations. At several points the author argues that the suggestions are sequential and that one should only go through the next level until they have "mastered" the previous level. I taught Negotiations at the Graduate level for many years and have relied on work, especially from the Harvard Negotiations Project.
There seem to be a couple of assumptions in the book which I find odd. For example, when discussing how to have a discussion with some who has a major disagreement with your position - I believe the author assumes that issues like Climate Change are not fundamentally theological - based on irrational beliefs. So he assumes that you can get someone to modify their theology by asking them to narrow their certainty through a couple of modest changes.
Let me give a very specific example, the author does an extended discussion about how to have a discussion about immigration issues - should we deport more or open borders? The problem with his model is that many complex issues may have absolute limits which can be modified only if one looks at multiple solutions. So for example working on only one side of an issue or one part of an issue may encounter theology which cannot be modified. Grant and Ury have a series of techniques for generating outrageous options (Mary Parker Follett called these things power with options).
I am also not a fan of using non-judgmental language. For example, "I hear you". - often these kinds of deflecting innocuous phrases are as likely to generate more heat than light.
So is the work worth reading? IF you are not well into the literature in the field there are a lot of good suggestions - but for my money HNPs Getting to Yes is a lot more effective in teaching the techniques.
This is a well organized manual for having difficult conversations. But it is also a disappointment for anyone who has kept even marginally current with the literature on Negotiations. At several points the author argues that the suggestions are sequential and that one should only go through the next level until they have "mastered" the previous level. I taught Negotiations at the Graduate level for many years and have relied on work, especially from the Harvard Negotiations Project.
There seem to be a couple of assumptions in the book which I find odd. For example, when discussing how to have a discussion with some who has a major disagreement with your position - I believe the author assumes that issues like Climate Change are not fundamentally theological - based on irrational beliefs. So he assumes that you can get someone to modify their theology by asking them to narrow their certainty through a couple of modest changes.
Let me give a very specific example, the author does an extended discussion about how to have a discussion about immigration issues - should we deport more or open borders? The problem with his model is that many complex issues may have absolute limits which can be modified only if one looks at multiple solutions. So for example working on only one side of an issue or one part of an issue may encounter theology which cannot be modified. Grant and Ury have a series of techniques for generating outrageous options (Mary Parker Follett called these things power with options).
I am also not a fan of using non-judgmental language. For example, "I hear you". - often these kinds of deflecting innocuous phrases are as likely to generate more heat than light.
So is the work worth reading? IF you are not well into the literature in the field there are a lot of good suggestions - but for my money HNPs Getting to Yes is a lot more effective in teaching the techniques.
August 24, 2023
If you just read the bullet points and the cited research, it's worth borrowing from the library.
If you want to read the explanation, have a friend nearby you can bring in for some point-and-laugh time because boy howdy these guys are assholes. I mean, they share anecdotes about themselves being assholes and sometimes present it as model behavior, which just boggled my mind. Like on pp35-36 when PB tried to get a Muslim community leader to answer a question about stoning women for adultery--the way he presented the scenario sounded like he was trying to egg a group on until someone finally gave him the answer he was looking for, which he described as direct questioning. Or when both authors describe some of their "just asking questions" tweets that to me looked like straight up homophobic and ableist trolling, and being surprised that people called them assholes. Their conclusion? Don't expect people to be civil to you on social media when you want a nuanced discussion. The whole book is like that. It's honestly kind of impressive, and I say that in the most Minnesota way possible.
It would have been a more worthwhile book if the authors displayed any capacity for learning to incorporate the ideas they present into their own communication repertoires but unfortunately they don't seem to have reached that level of emotional maturity yet. It's kind of sad, honestly.
If you want to read the explanation, have a friend nearby you can bring in for some point-and-laugh time because boy howdy these guys are assholes. I mean, they share anecdotes about themselves being assholes and sometimes present it as model behavior, which just boggled my mind. Like on pp35-36 when PB tried to get a Muslim community leader to answer a question about stoning women for adultery--the way he presented the scenario sounded like he was trying to egg a group on until someone finally gave him the answer he was looking for, which he described as direct questioning. Or when both authors describe some of their "just asking questions" tweets that to me looked like straight up homophobic and ableist trolling, and being surprised that people called them assholes. Their conclusion? Don't expect people to be civil to you on social media when you want a nuanced discussion. The whole book is like that. It's honestly kind of impressive, and I say that in the most Minnesota way possible.
It would have been a more worthwhile book if the authors displayed any capacity for learning to incorporate the ideas they present into their own communication repertoires but unfortunately they don't seem to have reached that level of emotional maturity yet. It's kind of sad, honestly.
May 6, 2020
"If you do not listen, you cannot understand. And if you cannot understand, there is no conversation."
Labai praktiška knyga, skirta tiems, kurie nori būti geresni pašnekovai diskutuojant jautriomis temomis. Šiaip ji labai trumpa ir lengvai skaitosi, bet neužtenka ją tik kartą perskaityti - reikia vis sugrįžti, kol visi aptariami konstruktyvaus ir pagarbaus diskutavimo principai prigis. Tai aš dar ne kartą prie jos grįšiu.
Be praktinių patarimų, jos teorinis pagrindas ne mažiau tvirtas. Išnašos kartais ilgesnės nei pagrindinis tekstas - daug mokslinių šaltinių, istorinių pavyzdžių, komentarų.
Kas man labiausiai patinka - kad knyga orientuota ne į kažkokias manipuliacijas pašnekovu, o į lygiavertį, pagarbų kontaktą ir intelektualinį bei moralinį kuklumą.
"It’s always worth remembering: to give others the gift of doubt, you need to possess it yourself."
"Recognizing that we rarely have good reasons for our moral beliefs should lead us to cultivate something often lacking in conversations: moral humility. That is, we should enter into moral conversations not absolutely certain of our starting principles and willing to recognize that we’ve probably not been as thoughtful and rigorous about how we arrived at our moral beliefs as we normally assume we’ve been. Unfortunately, this is obvious only to those few who have earnestly reflected on their moral beliefs, have considered the possible weaknesses in their own moral epistemologies, understand something of the complexity involved in moral reasoning, and know how to generate defeasibility criteria.
We cannot rely upon other people to be morally humble, nor can we force them. We can model moral humility in our conversations, but, to paraphrase Socrates, a person doesn’t want what he doesn’t think he lacks. If you don’t think you lack moral humility, why try to obtain it."
Labai daug dalykų siūlomų konstruktyviems pokalbiams pritaikiau tiesiog pati matuodamasi savo įsitikinimus.
Rekomenduoju visiems.
Dar ištraukų.
Nepreachinkim:
"Attempting to fill your partner’s doubt and wonder with your beliefs is sometimes genuinely educational, but it can also be a form of evangelism. Don’t evangelize. It is an unethical abuse of the vulnerability that accompanies doubt to use it in an attempt to sway your partner (except in exceptional circumstances of genuine expertise or if someone holds a fantastically implausible, antiscientific belief)."
Kodėl online diskusijos retai kada būna konstruktyvios:
"More significantly, when people have a public conversation they put their pride on the line; consequently, we tend to cling even more tightly to our views in a public forum than in private. Imagine how much more fiercely you’d argue for your position if you did it taking a stand in front of a crowd of people you wanted to impress than if you were discussing it in private, one-on-one. Because changing one’s mind or “losing” an argument is perceived as humiliating, it’s no surprise that many discussion threads go viciously awry."
Kodėl svarbu išsiaiškinti, kaip žmogus priėjo prie savo nuomonės:
"A significant benefit of focusing on epistemology, as opposed to engaging conclusions, is that people have developed practiced responses to having their conclusions challenged. Often referred to as “talking points,” these are rehearsed statements/messages given in response to frequently heard arguments. Focusing on epistemology helps people explain how they arrived at their conclusions, providing a fresh route around rehearsed messages."
Ne visi savo įsitikinimus formuoja besiremdami įrodymais:
"The most difficult thing to accept for people who work hard at forming their beliefs on the basis of evidence is that not everyone forms their beliefs in that way. The mistake made by people who form their beliefs on the evidence is thinking that if the person with whom they’re speaking just had a certain piece of evidence then they wouldn’t believe what they do. Many people believe what and how they do precisely because they do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence—not because they’re lacking evidence. The same goes for forming beliefs based upon reasoned arguments. Few people form their beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments. Complicating matters, most people believe they do have evidence supporting their beliefs because they consider only those points that support what they already believe.
Vaccine deniers, for example, are most concerned about being good parents, and their erroneous beliefs about vaccines are based upon a network of other beliefs—like that “natural” means good and “artificial” means bad—that leads them to conclude withholding vaccines is crucial to good parenting. (What if their child is vaccinated and something goes wrong? How could they live with themselves having made that choice? Worse, what if they’re wrong, and they’ve been withholding potentially life-saving medical care from their children?) Consequently, presenting someone with facts will almost never do what almost everyone thinks it will do, change minds."
“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris
Displaying 1 - 30 of 329 reviews