{"id":976,"date":"2021-08-17T19:05:20","date_gmt":"2021-08-18T02:05:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/?p=976"},"modified":"2021-08-17T19:05:20","modified_gmt":"2021-08-18T02:05:20","slug":"summary-of-how-to-have-impossible-conversations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/2021\/08\/17\/summary-of-how-to-have-impossible-conversations\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary of How to Have Impossible Conversations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is raw outline of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay’s fantastic book<\/a> on how to have tough conversations that potentially change minds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Focus first on instilling doubt<\/strong> rather than changing beliefs.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Basics<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
  1. Goals – why are you having the conversation?<\/li>
  2. Partnerships – be a partner, not an adversary<\/li>
  3. Rapport – build the relationship<\/li>
  4. Listen – talk less, listen more.<\/li>
  5. Delivering messages does not work. Conversations are exchanges, not debates. Deliver a message only on explicit request.<\/li>
  6. Intentions – Socrates Meno <\/em>dialog. People don\u2019t knowingly desire bad things.<\/li>
  7. Walk Away. If your primary emotion is frustration, it\u2019s time to quit. Breathe.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

    Beginner Level<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    1. Model the behavior you want to see in others
      1. \u201cShould women be stoned to death for adultery\u201d – the person he was debating waffled on giving a direct answer. He then said \u201cask me that question.\u201d The guy did, then the questioner gave a straight answer\u2014\u201cNo, now do you believe women should be stoned?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d<\/li>
      2. The unread library effect or \u201cthe illusion of explanatory depth\u201d. Do you know how a toilet works? \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cExplain it.\u201d Modeling ignorance<\/strong>-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.<\/li>
      3. Model other traits\u2014listening, honesty, admitting ignorance, sincerity, curiosity, openness, fairness, charity, humility, humor, willingness to change your mind.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
      4. Define terms up front. Go with their definitions. Does the word have moral implications?<\/li>
      5. Focus on a specific question. Ask open, authentic questions that invite long answers.
        1. \u201cJust so I\u2019m clear, the question is…\u201d \u201cLet\u2019s get back to…\u201d<\/li>
        2. Don\u2019t ask leading questions that carry agendas<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
        3. 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.<\/li>
        4. Don\u2019t vent on social media<\/li>
        5. Shift from blame to contribution. \u201cWhat factors contributed to.\u201d
          1. Avoid causal statements. <\/li>
          2. Don\u2019t say \u201cboth sides do it,\u201d it\u2019s defensive.<\/li>
          3. If your side is accused acknowledge and don\u2019t deflect. \u201cYeah, it\u2019s true they (we) sometimes do that.\u201d<\/li>
          4. If you can\u2019t avoid blame, say \u201cI feel tempted to blame X for Y, can you explain the logic X uses to justify their actions?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
          5. Focus on epistemology – figure out how people know what they claim to know. This avoids \u201ctalking points\u201d and gets to how they know what they know.
            1. Types of epistemologies
              1. Personal experience and feelings<\/li>
              2. Culture (everyone believes it)<\/li>
              3. Definition (too much X is bad because too much anything is bad)<\/li>
              4. Religion (appeal to a holy book)<\/li>
              5. Reason<\/li>
              6. Evidence (sufficient evidence to warrant belief)<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
              7. How to engage on an epistemological level
                1. What leads you to conclude that?<\/li>
                2. Ask outsider questions. \u201cWhy are there so many divergent opinions?\u201d \u201cWould every reasonable person draw the same conclusion?\u201d<\/li>
                3. Start your conversation with genuine wonder as to how your partner arrived at the conclusion they have.<\/li>
                4. \u201cIf someone\u2019s reasoning makes no sense, there\u2019s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified.\u201d 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\u2019t blow up anti-aircraft guns in a civilian area because of collateral damage. Wouldn\u2019t this lead to more civilian deaths because the enemy repeats the pattern?<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                5. Learn. Is it actually me who\u2019s the ideologue?<\/li>
                6. Things to avoid
                  1. Don\u2019t display anger<\/li>
                  2. Don\u2019t punish people for asking help, information, or feedback<\/li>
                  3. Don\u2019t focus on the belief, focus on how they know it. The epistemology.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                    Intermediate Level<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
                    1. Let friends be wrong. Offer a listening ear \u201cI hear you.\u201d  If you don\u2019t understand, say it.<\/li>
                    2. Build golden bridges. Be graceful when people change their minds. \u201cAll good.\u201d \u201cNo worries.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s a complicated issue.\u201d
                      1. Build a golden bridge when you feel attacked. \u201cThe way my position is stated might lead someone to believe I want X (bad thing) but I really want Y\u201d (good thing).<\/li>
                      2. Build a golden bridge to escape anger. \u201cThese issues are really frustrating. I know. They get to me too.\u201d <\/li>
                      3. Build Golden Bridges by explicitly agreeing.<\/li>
                      4. To alleviate pressure to know\/understand everything. \u201cNo one is expected to know everything, that\u2019s why there are experts.\u201d<\/li>
                      5. Reference your own ignorance and reasons for doubt. \u201cI used to believe X, when I learned Y, I changed my mind.\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                      6. Avoid \u201cyou\u201d use \u201cwe\u201d and \u201cus.\u201d 
                        1. Use the hostage negotiator tactic of \u201cWe\u2019re all in this together.\u201d <\/li>
                        2. Say \u201cthat belief\u201d or \u201cthat statement\u201d rather than \u201cYour..\u201d<\/li>
                        3. Switch from \u201cI disagree\u201d to \u201cI\u2019m skeptical.\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                        4. Reframe the conversation to keep it going smoothly
                          1. Focus on commonalities – \u201cultimately we\u2019re both interested in…\u201d<\/li>
                          2. Reframe to be less contentious, especially if it becomes contentious. \u201cMaybe we can look at it another way\u201d<\/li>
                          3. Figure out how to get someone to say \u201cthat\u2019s right.\u201d (Not \u201cyou\u2019re right\u201d)<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                          4. Change your mind on the spot<\/li>
                          5. Introduce scales – \u201cOn a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true\u201d
                            1. Use this to introduce perspective. \u201cIf X is a 9 on a scale of 10 for \u2018-ism\u2019, where is Y?\u201d<\/li>
                            2. \u201cOn a scale of 1-10, how confident are you that X is true?\u201d At the beginning & end.<\/li>
                            3. \u201cHow does X compare to Y?\u201d (Now\/Then, Here\/There, For Him\/Her, etc.) E.g. racism today vs in the 1950\u2019s<\/li>
                            4. How important is X compared to Y? E.g. racism vs. climate change<\/li>
                            5. \u201cOn a scale of 1-10, how confident are you\u201d then \u201cWhy not 6?\u201d \u201cWhy not 10?\u201d \u201cWhat would it take to get to 10?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                            6. Turn to outside information to answer the question \u201chow o you know that?\u201d
                              1. \u201cI\u2019m not sure about that. If I could be shown reliable data, I\u2019m open to changing my mind.\u201d<\/li>
                              2. Ask who the strongest experts on both sides of an opinion are.<\/li>
                              3. Ask for specific evidence that could persuade \u201can independent observer\u201d or \u201cevery reasonable person.\u201d<\/li>
                              4. If someone says no evidence could be provided, there\u2019s no point.<\/li>
                              5. Don\u2019t attempt to use outsourcing on moral questions, it only works for empirical.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                Advanced Skills<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
                                1. Keep Rapoport\u2019s rules. Re-express. List points of agreement. Mention what you learned, only then rebut.
                                  1. Express their opinion so clearly & fairly that they say \u201cthanks, wish I\u2019d put it that way.\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                  2. Avoid facts
                                    1. Instead ask questions that pose problems and contradictions<\/li>
                                    2. Focus on epistemology<\/li>
                                    3. Ask disconfirming questions: \u201cIf X couldn\u2019t be replicated, would Y be true?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                    4. Seek disconfirmation. \u201cHow could that belief be incorrect?\u201d 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 \u201ca good person.\u201d \u201cBelief in Belief\u201d as Dennett says.<\/li>
                                        2. Disconfirmable, but only under wildly implausible conditions. (\u201cAliens\u201d in the beer truck). <\/li>
                                        3. \u2018Ask why those are the conditions and why not something simpler?<\/li>
                                        4. If that doesn\u2019t 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.<\/li>
                                        5. Disconfirmable. Don\u2019t become the messenger, let the person reflect on their beliefs themselves.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                        6. Ask on a scale of 1-10 how confident they are. 
                                          1. 10-disconfirmable, <\/li>
                                          2. 9-ask \u201cwhy didn\u2019t you say 10, what would make it 8?\u201d.<\/li>
                                          3. Middle range-why isn\u2019t your confidence higher? Altercasting gets them to focus on their doubt rather than belief.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                          4. Ask questions:
                                            1. Epistemological questions:
                                              1. \u201cThe belief isn\u2019t held on the basis of evidence, right?\u201d<\/li>
                                              2. \u201cAre you as closed to revising other beliefs as this one? What makes this particular belief unique?\u201d<\/li>
                                              3. \u201cWhat are examples of beliefs you\u2019re not willing to change?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                              4. Moral questions:
                                                1. \u201cHow it it a virtue not to revise this belief?\u201d<\/li>
                                                2. \u201cWould you be a good person if you didn\u2019t hold this belief?\u201d<\/li>
                                                3. \u201cWho are examples of good people who don\u2019t hold this belief?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                4. Think back 10\/20 years ago, have any<\/em> of your beliefs changed?
                                                  1. Y? \u201cHow do you know this belief won\u2019t change too?\u201d<\/li>
                                                  2. N? Prob time to end the conversation. <\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                  3. Yes, and… (no \u201cbut\u201d)
                                                    1. \u201cInteresting, and what about…\u201d or \u201cok, I hear you, and\u201d if you\u2019d don\u2019t agree.<\/li>
                                                    2. \u201cIf you don\u2019t mind\u201d rather than \u201chowever\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                    3. Anger. 
                                                      1. Blinds and derails.<\/li>
                                                      2. Seeks its own justification. <\/li>
                                                      3. Carries a refractory period where information processing is slowed by the nervous system.<\/li>
                                                      4. When you feel anger, pause, reframe, change the subject, listen, acknowledge and apologize.<\/li>
                                                      5. Respect the refractory period<\/li>
                                                      6. Identify your triggers like words that are likely to upset you.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                                        Expert Skills<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
                                                        1. Synthesis\u2014recruit 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.<\/li>
                                                            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\u2019t move on until she confirms your understanding of her criticisms.<\/li>
                                                            3. Employ the counter-argments to generate ways to disconfirm your belief<\/li>
                                                            4. Use these to refine your original position<\/li>
                                                            5. Repeat-start with your refined position and do another round<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                            6. Help vent steam\u2014Talk through emotional roadblocks. Keep listening until they\u2019ve stated everything. It\u2019s impossible to listen too much. Then use Rapoport\u2019s rules (re-express, listen, list agreement, but don\u2019t rebut). Don\u2019t force a conversation.<\/li>
                                                            7. 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. \u201cYou seem like a person that would X…\u201d<\/li>
                                                              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\u2019t be an option.<\/li>
                                                                2. encouraging civility, fairness, open-mindedness. \u201cYou strike me as a person who is…\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                3. Hostage negitations
                                                                  1. Use \u201cminimal encouragers.\u201d \u201cYeah.\u201d \u201cI see.\u201d \u201cOkay.\u201d<\/li>
                                                                  2. Mirroring – repeat their last few words, possibly as a question. \u201cFor their safety?\u201d The goal is to keep them talking and providing info that may be useful in the conversation.<\/li>
                                                                  3. Emotional labeling – recognize feelings w\/o judging them. Make sure you actually understand before you label.<\/li>
                                                                  4. Allow the person to save face. (Golden bridge). <\/li>
                                                                  5. Deal with small issues first to create a \u201cclimate of success.\u201d Break down big problems to smaller ones.<\/li>
                                                                  6. Use specific cases rather than statistical information. It\u2019s more vivid and influential than facts.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                  7. Probe the limits. 
                                                                    1. Use the Unmasking Formula
                                                                      1. Apply Rapopport\u2019s First rule (re-express)<\/li>
                                                                      2. Confirm you\u2019ve understand their belief (giving them an opportunity to back down). \u201cHow long have you held this belief?\u201d<\/li>
                                                                      3. Try to understand the limits of their belief in practice. \u201cIf your surgeon was a straight white male…\u201d \u201cIf you were in a dark room and wanted to see would you ask about the race of the electrician..\u201d<\/li>
                                                                      4. Ask \u201cis there any circumstance that might lead you to act inconsistently with that belief?\u201d
                                                                        1. No? Continue with examples like in step 3<\/li>
                                                                        2. Yes? Ask for examples <\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                        3. 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 <\/li>
                                                                          2. Yes? Either they live in accordance w\/ the belief or they\u2019re lying.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                          3. Counter-intervention strategies. (Someone using these techniques on you)
                                                                            1. Go with it, you\u2019ll probably learn something.<\/li>
                                                                            2. Refuse to play. If you don\u2019t say anything or respond with closed-ended questions, nothing can happen.<\/li>
                                                                            3. Use counter-interventions
                                                                              1. State your confidence level as lower than it is on the 1-10 scale<\/li>
                                                                              2. Offer the illusion of success<\/li>
                                                                              3. Doubt your doubts. Reverse altercast to get them to help you strengthen your position<\/li>
                                                                              4. State that you believe it strongly, but would rather not.<\/li>
                                                                              5. Respond to rapid fire questions slowly. \u201cUh (wait 5 seconds)\u201d<\/li>
                                                                              6. Use questions to reverse the intervention. \u201cWhy are you asking?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                                                                                Master Level<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
                                                                                1. How to converse with an ideologue: understand how their \u201csense of morality relates to their personal identity.\u201d It\u2019s about being a good or bad person. It\u2019s 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\u2019re<\/em> the ideologue.
                                                                                  1. Acknowledge their intention & identity as a good person<\/li>
                                                                                  2. Change the subject to underlying values
                                                                                    1. \u201cThese beliefs seem important to you, how did you derive them?\u201d<\/li>
                                                                                    2. What values would have to change for your belief to no longer be true? This shifts the conversation away from rehearsed defenses.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                                    3. Invite conversation about values
                                                                                      1. \u201cWhat makes someone a good person?\u201d \u201cHow does someone know that what they\u2019re doing is good?\u201d \u201cDo good people think about things in a certain way?\u201d  \u201cHow would you interpret an example of someone who doesn\u2019t believe that but who is good?\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                                      2. 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. \u201cDoes a strong feeling that something is true make it more likely to be true?\u201d<\/li>
                                                                                        2. Potentially switch from to a super<\/em>ordinate identity if a conversation centers on divisive identity politics. \u201cWe\u2019re both Americans\/humans\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                                        3. Allow the tether between the belief and the moral epistemology to sever on its own, later. It\u2019s dangerous and difficult to do. It can cause \u201cidentity quakes\u201d that can sever trust. It\u2019s a slow process. Build golden bridges. Use the five values above.<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                                        4. Moral reframing. Recast an idea in moral terms that re less likely to evoke defense and more likely to resonate. 
                                                                                          1. Jonathan Haidt\u2019s six \u201cmoral foundations.\u201d 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\u2019s moral terms.
                                                                                            1. Care vs. harm (C, L)<\/li>
                                                                                            2. Fairness vs. cheating (C, L)<\/li>
                                                                                            3. Loyalty vs. betrayal (C)<\/li>
                                                                                            4. Authority vs. subversion (C)<\/li>
                                                                                            5. Sanctity vs. degradation (C)<\/li>
                                                                                            6. Liberty vs. oppression (C, L, Lt)<\/li><\/ol><\/li>
                                                                                            7. 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)<\/li>
                                                                                              2. Identify your own moral dialect (ie. race, violence). Take opportunities to learn to speak different moral languages.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                                                                                This is raw outline of Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay’s fantastic book on how to have tough conversations that potentially change minds. Focus first on instilling doubt rather than changing beliefs. Basics Goals – why are you having the conversation? Partnerships – be a partner, not an adversary Rapport – build the relationship Listen – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[90],"class_list":["post-976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-etc","tag-books"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/ppj2P-fK","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=976"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":977,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976\/revisions\/977"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcusvorwaller.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}