Dialling down the heat: How to re-learn the skill of disagreeing well.

Speaking last month from Parliament House at a press conference announcing ASIO had just raised Australia’s terror threat level from ‘possible’ to ‘probable,’ Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pleaded with Australian’s to “lower the temperature of debate.” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a similar plea just days later as ideology-fueled violent protests spiraled out of control following the murder of three girls at a dance school in Southport.

While strong emotions around issues that matter are an essential part of what it means to be human, it’s hard not to feel that we have lost the ability to disagree without being disagreeable, or worse.

The practical implications of the tribalism that defines our modern era emerged strongly in recent Edelman Trust Index data, which revealed that more than three-quarters of us would refuse to help someone in need if the other individual strongly disagreed with our views. 

Similar research conducted by the University of Calgary found that the average person would rather talk to a stranger who shares their political views than a friend who doesn’t.   Consider that for a moment!

The trouble with modern tribalism is that we can easily come to see those we’re opposed to as not merely wrong or misguided but reprehensible, disgusting or even evil. The demonization that characterizes modern debate can make it difficult indeed to find common ground or engage with others in civilized civil discourse.

Clearly the current state of play isn’t worked. It is tearing apart friendships, families and even the very fabric of our liberal democracies. The question then even if we wanted to ‘lower the temperature’ of debate, where would we even start?

 In keeping with the Delphic maxim to ‘Know Thyself,’ a good start is understanding exactly what is happening in our bodies and brains when we descend into tribal outrage – and why doing so can feel so gratifying.

The key challenge is that feeling right feels good. In their book Denying to the Grave, Jack and Sara Gorman cite fascinating research that shows that we experience a genuine sense of pleasure in the form of a dopamine rush when exposed to information that reinforces our existing beliefs. But it’s how our brains respond when we feel threatened or challenged by opposing views and tribes that matters even more.

When this happens, a group of brain regions called the Limbic System swings into action. Buried close to the back of the brain and underneath the cerebral cortex, the limbic system plays a big role in emotion processing, tribal instincts, and our fight/flight reflexes. This part of our brains has kept up alive as a species for millennia because it helped us react quickly when physical threats emerged. However, our Limbic System responds to psychological threats just as it does physical ones

We’ve all had the experience of jumping to the defensive or going on the attack when our opinions or beliefs are challenged—even when part of us knows that we are overreacting. But once our Limbic System fires up gets under way, it can be hard to back down. Our pulse races, our hands get clammy, our face reddens. We are angry, incensed, and ready for a fight. It’s with good reason that we describe arguments as getting heated because, quite literally, our bodies warm up and brace for battle.

When we are in this state, our focus narrows, our memory becomes compromised, and, as award-winning mediator Diane Musho Hamilton observes, “We find ourselves trapped in the one perspective that makes us feel the most safe: ‘I’m right and you’re wrong.’”

Although this dynamic is an entirely natural response and nothing new, there is little doubt that the digital age and social media in particular has heightened the “fight” instincts of our limbic system.

The question then is how to counteract this impulsive response and lower the temperature. Having spent a decade studying the psychology of stubbornness and examining what it takes to get through to closed-minded people, the latest research offers some helpful ideas for re-learning the skill of disagreeing well.

Here are three starting points:

1. LISTENING

Effective listening is more than simply not talking—it’s about showing a genuine interest in another person and their views. Stephen Covey recommended listening with the intent to understand rather than reply, and this remains a timeless truth.

The key point here is that we need to lead with curiosity rather than conviction when engaging with people who we are looking to persuade. By all means we can be confident in our position and ideas, but we must always adopt a posture of openness.

Actor Alan Alda put it best when he said, “Real listening is a willingness to let the other person change you.” I like that. In fact, even if we persuade another person to substantially change their view, there’s a good chance we will leave the same interaction with our own perspective tempered or enriched.

Beyond the benefit of allowing the best ideas to win, genuinely listening makes an allowance for the dignity of the other person. If they feel that they have landed a few points and nudged your thinking even a little, they will be more open to taking your perspective on board. People who feel listened to are more likely to listen.

2. PROXIMITY

In the words of famed blogger Tim Urban , "Arrogance is ignorance plus conviction."  In considering the nature of ignorance in Urban’s equation, this is about more than simply a lack of understanding. Instead, ignorance is often a function of distance or detachment.

At some level, all conflict is based on an unwillingness to appreciate the multifaceted nuances of a person or circumstance. Whether it’s quarreling spouses, bickering coworkers, menacing schoolyard bullies or warring nations, our Instinctive Mind’s reluctance to see another individual as complex, nuanced, and truly human lies at the heart of all enmity.

Social commentator Dr. Natasha Moore suggests that the best warning sign for when we are falling into this trap is the language we use. “Every time we find ourselves starting a sentence with the immortal and deeply satisfying phrase ‘I just don't understand how anyone could...’  alarm bells should be ringing,” Moore cautions.

The further removed we are from an issue, idea, or individual, the simpler our judgments tend to be. Pastor and author Andy Stanley suggests that when this happens, getting up close and personal is the best way forward. “When we get close, when we are confronted with the complexity disguised by the distance... we are forced to consider someone's current reality and context. In those moments, our well-rehearsed, simplistic, politically informed solutions become mostly irrelevant.” 

This tends to result in moments of empathy and clarity that translate into phrases like:

Oh! I've always assumed...

Oh! I thought people like that were…

Oh! I never took into account...

Oh! I didn't know... 

Prejudice rarely stands the test of proximity. Easier to dismiss, dislike or feel disgust towards someone you don’t know personally. Our simplistic judgements about others tend to fall apart when we get up close and personal with those we’d otherwise rather keep as a distance.

3. GENEROSITY

One of the most effective techniques for counteract our instinct for enmity was proposed by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann in their book Super Thinking. According to Weinberg and McCann, next time we feel inclined to write off our ideological opponents we’d do well to consider an MRI: a Most Respectful Interpretation (MRI). This approach is all about challenging ourselves to interpret the behaviour, beliefs and choices of another party in the most generous way possible. It’s about giving people the benefit of the doubt and maintaining what is often referred to as a “Presumption of Positive Intent.”

Something powerful occurs when we begin to shift the imagined motives of another party. Rather than casting them as our enemy, we begin to see them as three-dimensional people who are likely doing their best with the knowledge and skills they have.

The important thing about the MRI approach is that it doesn’t require us to abandon or discount our own point of view. Instead, it challenges us to consider whether there is more to the situation than what their Instinctive Mind may conclude. For instance, are there other ways of understanding or explaining the behavior of another person without resorting immediately to judgment? 

The reality is that although differences of opinion are completely inevitable, division is a choice. Making the choice to lower the temperature of debate will require us to set aside our egos, step towards those we’d otherwise like to keep at arms length and try to see the best in those we’re rather write off. This is by no means easy but given how destructive the alternative has proven to be, maybe it’s worth a shot?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Michael McQueen is a trends forecaster, change strategist and award-winning conference speaker.

He features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio and is a bestselling author of 10 books. His most recent book Mindstuck: Mastering the Art of Changing Minds explores the psychology of stubbornness and the art of 21st century influence. Find out more here.

To see Michael speaking live, click here.

For more information on Michael's keynote speaking topics, visit www.MichaelMcQueen.net.