Some thoughts about improving dialogue. This is a subject I really care about, so I want to share what I’ve learned. Dialogue feels hard, but to me it seems that strategies are known, just not widely circulated. How Minds Change by David McRaney[1] addresses this, though I’ve seen it in other places too. Here’s a snapshot of how to do difficult dialogue as I understand it right now. [2]
Trust comes before facts; for most things, what we accept as facts depends on who we trust. Two people don’t build trust by relying on agreed upon facts so much as accept as facts those that are agreed on by people they trust.
To build trust, in my experience, you have to start by putting aside the desire to convince people about facts. Focus on earning trust. This starts by a sincere effort to understand another person’s point of view, even if it’s odious. You can invite them to comment on a topic by saying something like “I’m curious what you think about ___.”
And then you have to shut up and listen. When they pause, you say it back to them in your own words, without adding anything substantial. Avoid mere parroting; the idea is to show them that you were listening. This step can include what you think it means to them. If it includes gotcha questions or implicit shaming, you will lose them right there.
Assume good will, because that’s how you establish your good will. Occasionally there may be those who really don’t operate from good will; you may not guess ahead of time but you have the right to decide who to carry on talking to, and so does the other person.
When you say back to them what you think you heard, notice the values implicit in what they’re saying and say the values out loud. Mick West[3] points out, for example, that someone who believes in conspiracy theories cares about truth and trusting authorities; often they have had some kind of experience where they believed something, learned it was false, and felt betrayed by those they believed in. Those are understandable values.
Don’t try to correct them. Inhibit the desire to correct them! Motivational interviewing calls this the righting reflex: “you know that actually the thing you said is really this other thing, right?”[4] Especially when the correction seems really obvious to you, this impulse is so strong. You may even be right. But you won’t establish trust by saying so. Inhibit the urge and say their values. While you’re saying their values, agree with anything you can, without mentioning what you can’t.
If the conversation continues, you can signal a switch to your point of view, even explicitly asking: “Can I share a different point of view?” Then you wait. Wait for body language and words to match. If they don’t want to hear it, then resist the urge to tell them your point of view anyway. They have to agree to listen before you speak your mind.
Only if they say yes do you go on to your point of view. And when you do, tell why it matters to you, what life experiences lead you to your beliefs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are more details and skills in how to execute all this—see for example [5], [6], [7]. But those are the bones. And as David McRaney points out, people have discovered this process independently in different places, such as Deep Canvassing and Motivational Interviewing and Street Epistemology.
These seem to me to be among the principles that people converge to when asking the question, “How do we improve discourse.”
[2] A lot of this is from Braver Angels, especially their skills workshop which uses the acronym “CAPP”—Clarify the other’s point of view, Acknowledge their values, Pivot to your point of view, give your Perspective after they agree to listen
Some thoughts about improving dialogue. This is a subject I really care about, so I want to share what I’ve learned. Dialogue feels hard, but to me it seems that strategies are known, just not widely circulated. How Minds Change by David McRaney[1] addresses this, though I’ve seen it in other places too. Here’s a snapshot of how to do difficult dialogue as I understand it right now. [2]
Trust comes before facts; for most things, what we accept as facts depends on who we trust. Two people don’t build trust by relying on agreed upon facts so much as accept as facts those that are agreed on by people they trust.
To build trust, in my experience, you have to start by putting aside the desire to convince people about facts. Focus on earning trust. This starts by a sincere effort to understand another person’s point of view, even if it’s odious. You can invite them to comment on a topic by saying something like “I’m curious what you think about ___.”
And then you have to shut up and listen. When they pause, you say it back to them in your own words, without adding anything substantial. Avoid mere parroting; the idea is to show them that you were listening. This step can include what you think it means to them. If it includes gotcha questions or implicit shaming, you will lose them right there.
Assume good will, because that’s how you establish your good will. Occasionally there may be those who really don’t operate from good will; you may not guess ahead of time but you have the right to decide who to carry on talking to, and so does the other person.
When you say back to them what you think you heard, notice the values implicit in what they’re saying and say the values out loud. Mick West[3] points out, for example, that someone who believes in conspiracy theories cares about truth and trusting authorities; often they have had some kind of experience where they believed something, learned it was false, and felt betrayed by those they believed in. Those are understandable values.
Don’t try to correct them. Inhibit the desire to correct them! Motivational interviewing calls this the righting reflex: “you know that actually the thing you said is really this other thing, right?”[4] Especially when the correction seems really obvious to you, this impulse is so strong. You may even be right. But you won’t establish trust by saying so. Inhibit the urge and say their values. While you’re saying their values, agree with anything you can, without mentioning what you can’t.
If the conversation continues, you can signal a switch to your point of view, even explicitly asking: “Can I share a different point of view?” Then you wait. Wait for body language and words to match. If they don’t want to hear it, then resist the urge to tell them your point of view anyway. They have to agree to listen before you speak your mind.
Only if they say yes do you go on to your point of view. And when you do, tell why it matters to you, what life experiences lead you to your beliefs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
There are more details and skills in how to execute all this—see for example [5], [6], [7]. But those are the bones. And as David McRaney points out, people have discovered this process independently in different places, such as Deep Canvassing and Motivational Interviewing and Street Epistemology.
These seem to me to be among the principles that people converge to when asking the question, “How do we improve discourse.”
------
[1] How Minds Change by David McRaney
[2] A lot of this is from Braver Angels, especially their skills workshop which uses the acronym “CAPP”—Clarify the other’s point of view, Acknowledge their values, Pivot to your point of view, give your Perspective after they agree to listen
[3] Escaping the Rabbit Hole by Mick West
[4] Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change by Miller and Rollnick
[5] Motivational Interviewing
[6] Street Epistemology
[7] The Way Out by Peter T Coleman
Really interesting comment, thank you for sharing!