Welcome to From Insults To Respect. 

Recently, I came across an article by Hanna Wallace that presents in a Q&A format a discussion with Mónica Guzmán, author of the book, I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times.

David Byrne

The article appears in Reasons to be Cheerful, a nonprofit publication founded by artist and musician David Byrne, who tells us he believes in the power of approaching the world with curiosity—in art, in music, in collaboration and in life.

In the article, Ms Guzmán argues that siloing–the tendency for people to just listen to media outfits and others who agree with their political point of view–can lead to dehumanizing the “other side.” In contrast, thoughtfully engaging with those with  different views leads to building bridges and challenges us to freshen our thinking.

There are risks with these types of challenges. Some people, upon hearing that you disagree with them, can immediately decide they don’t like you. Vilifying anyone who disagrees with your political views is such an automatic visceral response for many people that it takes courage to engage. In my post today, I suggest an approach to engaging with people who disagree with you in a manner that greatly reduces this risk.

A Relatively Safe Approach For Having Discussions With People Who Differ From Your Political Point of View

Consider, if you will this approach. As political issues arise, before presenting your view, let those who are listening know that you are interested in civilly participating in the discussion if they are open to this. Then, listen to the tone of voice of the responses. If any appear to respond angrily, listen fully to the angry party or parties, really show you are listening to what is being said. People really value being listened to.

Then summarize the expressed opinions in an animated manner absent an angry tone of voice. In as friendly a manner as you can muster, provide thanks for the sharing of views and express real interest in the topic. Leave it at that. I understand that by doing so, you might be concerned you are leaving what had been said having given the impression that you agree with some or all of what had been said, which you may be loath to do; but keep in mind that if others who are engaged are expressing anger at the very start of this conversation, there is little hope of changing their minds.

If, after your summary, someone asks you for your views on what had been said, repeat saying, “I’d love to discuss these issues further, but only if we are all open to discussing the issues civilly.” Presenting the idea of a civil discussion could motivate the angry folks to put some breaks on their anger. If anger displays continue, I suggest listening to what is said, but avoid presenting your opinions.  You can get around this issue by saying you are still in the midst of considering my opinion.

If those present show an openness to a civil discussion, after listening thoroughly to positions in which you disagree, and then summarizing these positions in as favorable light as you can, then say, “I have heard the following counter arguments, and I’d be very interested how you would respond.”

Notice that you don’t claim that these counter arguments are something you personally believe. Instead, you are showing an interest in what others in the discussion think about the counter arguments, while also demonstrating you are open to hearing, and thoroughly listening to, counterarguments. By engaging in this manner, going back and forth with airing both sides, you leave yourself open to making nuanced modifications in your point of view without becoming too attached to what you had previously said, and clarifying points that have been misunderstood.

Any name calling on your part regarding any of the positions being discussed is a definite no-no. And your tone of voice is crucial during this type of discussion. You want to present yourself as curious about the issues, but not completely sold on any one position.

Another point well worth considering, is to not rely solely on facts. When making any point, see if you can attach it to a personal experience that those who are making counter arguments to your own can emotionally relate to. Facts are fine to some degree, but neglecting personal emotional arguments is perhaps the biggest mistake we too often make.

As an example, if you are opposed to someone’s proposal to cut Medicaid benefits and you personally know someone who, if they lost their benefits, and would thus face dire health consequences, describe that person in very personal terms, along with the troubling consequences if the cuts proposal did go through. Then see if you can make some additional personal emotional connections to the person or persons expressing cuts to the program.

In the end, express thanks for the discussion, and if some of what was said really upset you, take a walk until you have calmed down.

It has been my experience that this type of approach will increase the chances that more people will productively hear your dissenting views while reducing the chances of antagonizing those who disagree with them.

Now, I understand many people believe it is a total waste of time to discuss politics with others with whom they disagree. People, they believe, are just too set in their opinions. However, even in the most deeply held beliefs within the realm of religion there are often cases of people undergoing conversions. William James,’s wonderful book, The Varieties Of Religious Experiences, not only provides numerous examples, but insightfully provides the process that led to these.

In the realm of politics, I can share my own conversion experience. In 1965, when I was 15, I fully supported the Vietnam War. During my 16th and 17th years, through many discussions and learning of several horrible experiences that soldiers were having over there, I began to have some doubts about the wisdom of the war. By October of 1968, I had completely turned against it.

So, I now believe minds can change, especially when exposed to ideas in certain ways. If you agree, I hope you consider trying some of the ideas shared here.

My Best,
Jeff

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.