
How to listen when you disagree - taheris
http://urbanconfessional.org/blog/howtodisagree
======
bcoates
"Hear the Biography, not the ideology"

This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added
bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not
communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility
that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you
need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

This, on the other hand, is a way of reconciling the fact that you obviously
don't have a good reason to believe the things you do (otherwise, you wouldn't
be _threatened_ by the mere fact that someone disagrees with you) with your
preference to believe that your views are in some meaningful way correct:
obtain ammunition against the other by "discovering" the real reason they
believe such obviously wrong things, then being the superior person by
empathizing with this poor benighted creature.

~~~
trjordan
If you're hearing the biography so you can attack the ideology, you're missing
the point.

Ideology is nearly pointless to discuss. Instead, the author suggests talking
about topics that are more personal. By talking about experiences, you can
expose the nuance that's so easily blown away by swapping talking points.

Perhaps the author and the woman both agree that people should be less
cavalier with pregnancy, and there's a productive way forward. Perhaps they
both agree it's a heartbreaking issues and more people need support to deal
with it. Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it
abstractly is a much less fruitful way to find common ground.

~~~
Ntrails
> Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it abstractly is
> a much less fruitful way to find common ground.

So my common response to strong ideological positions is to take a
hypothetical which exposes something I feel uncomfortable with if I were to
accept that ideological framework.

The world is pretty much all shades of grey to me (indeed to an extent which
occasionally offends), so I find ideological certainty very hard to relate to.
It's not that I think they're wrong and I'm right, I'm not attacking their
position, I just want to get my head around the fact that when faced with all
the ramifications of their position - they're still certain.

These conversations are really interesting to me, and I love talking to people
who see the world so differently.

------
woodandsteel
This is excellent. I think if there is one thing that might actually happen
that could make the world a better place, it would be if people listened to
each other more.

A couple of hints. One is that I think the easiest way to start doing this is
to practice active listening, which is just saying back to the other person
the main ideas and feelings they are expressing. This a simple rule, though it
can be hard to follow. Active listening forces you to pay attention, and it
shows the other person you are understanding, plus if you get something wrong
they can correct you.

The other is that when you are arguing disagreeing with someone and they won't
listen to you, try listening to them until they feel understood, and they will
probably be more interesting in listening to you. Or perhaps the two of you
could first reach an agreement that both of you will listen to the other until
they feel understood, and then decide which of you will be the first talker.

~~~
emcrazyone
agreed.. I live by a motto that goes:

First, seek to understand and then seek to be understood.

Active listening definitely works for me!

~~~
austinjp
That's excellent. So succinct, so valuable. Thank you.

~~~
js2
FYI, [https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-
habit5.php](https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php)

------
zw123456
I love the sentiment that the author was trying to convey. The example that
was provided was beautiful. It is really important to realize that usually it
does not work out as beautifully as was presented in this particular example.

My experience in active listening is that perhaps 1 out of 20 times do you get
a good outcome as was the case in this example. Generally, the person will
simply yell things at you about the Bible so something like that. However I
have had one similar experience a long time ago. When I first came out, almost
all my family members were accepting, except for one sister who had a lot of
trouble with it. It took a long time to get her into a situation where she
would even talk to me about it. When she finally did, it had a lot more to do
with her failed marriage and something about how hard she tried to make it
work and how it was not fair that she tried to live according to the Christian
way (my family is super religious, I am not, I am an atheist, all other family
is evangelical). She seemed to think I was getting away with something. It did
not really change a lot but it did seem like she softened a little perhaps
just being able to bitch at me about it helped I guess. I am not convinced the
listening approach actually changes much, but it certainly can be interesting.

~~~
Udo
I also found it interesting that this article is hugely concerned with making
someone feel _loved_ for expressing a desire to literally have everybody
killed who had an abortion. I think at some point, the severity of an ideology
has to outweigh the desire to accept a person as who they are.

We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of
storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes acceptable, _any_
ideology. We are expected to love characters who are even downright evil, just
because they suffered a personal loss. In other cases, we're expected to grant
special allowances to people just because they are very offended.

A bad idea is a bad idea. Making it immune to criticism on account of the
personal circumstances of the person expressing that idea is a really
destructive mechanism, especially when that idea affects other people.

~~~
lifeformed
It's not saying the other person's beliefs are justified, it's saying that if
you want to change their beliefs, you have to understand how they got there in
the first place. If you approach it like a logical debate you're not going to
convince anyone. It's not about saying all the facts, it's about helping
people reprocess their feelings into more reasonable conclusions.

------
zzalpha
Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding
regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's
very compassionate, but I question if it's actually a step toward compromise,
or simply understanding.

After all, for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs
themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise.

To this woman, it doesn't matter that someone had to make the painful choice
to have an abortion. They don't care _why_. The act itself is morally
unjustifiable.

That is their belief.

There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that.

The same is true when you look at debates about gun control, climate change,
etc.

So, sure, listening and understanding is an important first step.

But in a world where we are actively encouraged to conflate facts and beliefs
(see: Trumpiness), and where beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-
white, good-and-evil, how can we have productive conversations on level ground
that lead to compromise? We can't even decide which facts are actually facts!

~~~
whiddershins
It was hard for me to resist the urge to downvote this comment. Yes,
everything you are saying has merit, but overall I completely disagree with
the main thrust of your point.

If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working
through these problems, nothing is. And I am unwilling to just call the
problems unfixable, throw my hands up, and resign myself to a world full of
such misunderstanding, recrimination, and pain.

I make a serious effort to nurture relationships with people who hold beliefs
very different from mine, some of these beliefs I even consider ethically
flawed, or counterfactual.

And yet I get so much out of talking and especially listening to these people
explain their beliefs to me. I feel grateful to have the opportunity to see
the world through other lenses, and I have learned and grown as a result.

If more people did this, I like to imagine that the timbre of discussion would
change from default contempt to something far better.

~~~
zzalpha
_If listening and understanding other people isn 't the first step to working
through these problems, nothing is._

So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days.
I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the
South.

But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done.

And so it was done.

Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is simply no room for compromise.
At that point, it's simply a question of who has the power to push their
agenda. That or there's gridlock and nothing happens at all (see: climate
change).

Now, on a one-on-one basis, I think this post is full of excellent lessons.
Active listening, empathic connection, these are great tools when dealing with
individuals, whether that be in a personal or professional setting.

But in the large? To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to
believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing
issues.

~~~
whiddershins
>> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that
people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues.

Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed
over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass
incarceration.

Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of
people without force being involved. People often change their views very
gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent
to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the
people around them.

I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the
assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them
to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness.

The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But
the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their
economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the
south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the
southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in
the form of the current presidential campaign.

Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the
aftermath of force far better.

~~~
notahacker
Since you raise it as an example: in the UK opposition to gay marriage (and a
few years earlier, more basic gay issues) didn't melt away through empathetic
discussion or addressing their concerns but simply from the government going
ahead and doing it (I doubt they'd have gone to war for it if it were
necessary, but that underlines the point about might being more significant
than right in the debate). Public opinion tended to shift more when decisions
were made and the debate stopped.

One of the first things to realise about people's apparently very strong views
is that often they're simply echoing what they think is the majority view (but
they generally _really_ won't like you pointing that out). A second is that
often they change quite swiftly when people stop talking about it. Not only
are they not constantly being reminded that X is bad by people and sources
they trust, but they also don't feel obliged to keep defending a position they
held a couple of years ago when not regularly prompted to justify it.

~~~
Joeboy
I think this is right. Societal change makes it feel safer to hold the new
opinion than the old one. A lot of people who have "changed their minds" about
gay people are actually just making a pragmatic adaptation to the realities of
modern life (consciously or subconsciously).

------
mVChr
I think there's even more value to it than this. Consider the whole pursuit of
philosophy. You must be able to leverage your intellect to deeply contemplate
things you don't believe are actually true in order to determine the root
foundations for what you believe, if in fact you still do believe them after
honest and critical analysis. If you close your ears to anything you disagree
with then you may miss a small but important detail that in overlooking has
lead you to a premature and incorrect conclusion. Or on the other hand be able
to further whittle away to the true core of your beliefs. Whether for this
cause or the one in the article the result is probably the same however,
understanding and love.

------
smcl
I'm sorry, it's possible that I am too cynical for this world, but this sounds
embellished if not entirely fictional like the precocious toddlers* waxing
lyrical on free speech and Donald Trump. After the author asked a single
question the stranger poured their heart out on a deeply personal issue,
conveniently vindicating the presence of a "free listening" booth at the RNC
and giving an all-too-perfect story for the author to write up on his return
home. The advice that (I think?) the author was trying to convey is fine -
listen, empathise, understand, withhold judgement - but the story is nonsense.

* = What I mean is summarised nicely here: [http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-don...](http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-donald-trump) \- stuff like 'my 3 year old daughter caught a glimpse of todays trump rally shut down and starting crying "daddy why do they want free speech to die?"'

~~~
clessg
Well... not disagreeing, but... when I turned on CNN at my sister's house, her
4-year-old toddler said "Donald Trump?! He's gonna kill the world!" And then
when Trump said he's gonna Make America Great Again™, "He's gonna make America
killed again!" My sister doesn't care about the news, or watch it, or anything
of that nature, and she's Canadian, so... hmm! If only Canadian toddlers could
vote

------
mgraczyk
"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand,
disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that
person has experienced that resulted in that point of view."

This is great advice for getting along with people and treating others
politely. However, I don't think it provides any insight into actually
improving public policy or improving one's own beliefs.

Of course we all "pick sides" based on our own experiences in debates like
these. There will never be any way to systematically remove all bias in a
debate. Rather than try to dig up and fully understand the causes of every
bias in every individual, we should take the simpler route: Examine just your
own biases, judge everyone else's viewpoints based on facts and data alone,
and never take strong positions on any point without an abundance of objective
justification. You will end up agreeable, epistemically cautious, and
continuously learning.

~~~
groby_b
I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening",
how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data?

Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific
view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not _that_
simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and
nuanced.

To stay with the article's example, there is no "correct" answer to "should
abortion be legal". It is, at its core, a choice about ethics, and personal
values. And any decision on the topic is a compromise. We will never
compromise if we don't hear the other person.

And even if they have outmoded or irrational beliefs, how will we ever get in
agreement if we just say "you are wrong"?

~~~
mgraczyk
> if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening",

I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention
to facts instead of positions or opinions. It's not important that your
conversation partner believes X or claims that "Y is obvious". Instead you
should pay attention when your conversation partner points on "people measured
X in in such and such a way and found Y". Collect evidence in your head, not
opinions or other people's' summaries of the evidence.

I agree that in many cases there is no obvious correct answer. In those cases
I think it is reasonable not to take a strong position. We should make
decisions and compromise by examining objective facts in tandem with our own
ethics and values, not by examining others' ethics and values.

To be specific, I should evaluate facts about abortion rates, fetal
development, and family planning outcomes in the context of my own ethical
worldview. If I want to change my ethics, then the conversation should be
about ethics instead of abortion.

> how will we ever get in agreement

I believe in many cases, we will not come to agreement. Many people will never
change their mind on abortion (in either direction). The goal is to be happy
and improve ones own worldview without it being necessary to agree or to
figure out why the other person is biased.

~~~
groby_b
I wish you good luck with this approach. I prefer to understand people I
disagree with - many arguments are rooted in personal history, not naked
facts.

I tried the "purely fact driven, ignore emotions" approach - it did not lead
me to a point where I was happy. (It tends to stunt relationships, in my
experience)

I hope it plays out better for you.

------
jakecraige
Great read. Reminds me of a book I read recently, Difficult Conversations,
where my key takeaway was to do everything I can to understand the other
person, and make sure they understand me. Then we can work together towards a
resolution.

The authors uses the term "Learning conversation" which I really liked. To
highlight that you're there to first and foremost, understand them, before
judging or criticizing or whatever else.

~~~
stefanwlb
Thank you for your contribution to the thread. I will look into acquiring the
book.

------
stared
From Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and influence people":

'''

"I don't blame you one iota for feeling as you do. If I were you I would
undoubtedly feel just as you do."

An answer like that will soften the most cantankerous old cuss alive.

And you can say that and be 100 percent sincere, because if you were the other
person you, of course, would feel just as he does.

Take Al Capone, for example. Suppose you had inherited the same body and
temperament and mind that Al Capone had. Suppose you had had his environment
and experiences. You would then be precisely what he was - and where he was.
For it is those things - and only those things - that made him what he was.
The only reason, for example, that you are not a rattlesnake is that your
mother and father weren't rattlesnakes.

'''

~~~
cvs268
Not only does it soothe the other person, this approach is ACTUALLY helpful in
improving oneself i.e. how one approaches an argument or a difference of
opinion.

Once you say this and mean it, you are no longer thinking about how wrong or
stupid the other person is. You are no longer frustrated by someone else's
apparent incompetence. Instead you start thinking how to share with the other
person, the influential thoughts and experiences which you have already had.

The sooner you are successful in letting the other person experience the same
thoughts and experiences that you already have, the better the chances that
the other person can now see your point of view.

~~~
stared
I agree. The general tone of this books is not "how to trick people" but "how
to realize what is important for them, that they are important, and act
accordingly".

------
Mendenhall
If I really want to convince someone of something, its the last thing I do.
The first thing I do is befriend them. They could have wildly different
opinion on a subject that I think is dangerous, and its the last thing I would
talk about,if we even got that far.

I establish first the common ground,not even touching on hot button topics. I
find anything we can agree upon "those are cool shoes" and start up a normal
conversation void of any intent. If people have their guard up "convincing" is
never gonna happen. Too many want to try and force their opinion on others
through weight of logic and debate. I find that very lacking and unfruitful. I
get to know them,make them laugh,listen to them,ask questions,actually care to
get to know them. The little personality traits they display will help
establish a raport and know your angle of approach. They will see I am funny
and want to make them laugh and have things in common. No rush to convince
them of anything. Its like you dont rush trying to get someone to sleep with
you by pressuring them. You make the experience pleasant and make them want to
engage while you pick up little things about them that will help you get your
point across. Its easier to convince a friend to do something than an enemy.

Rush nothing and let things play out, if the correct opportunity doesnt arrive
then let it pass. When or if you see them again they will remember you in a
positive light and you can continue in that way. When the time is right start
with the smallest of things to get them to agree with you. Something or
anything you know they will like "those are cool shoes arent they?". Them
agreeing with you on the smallest of things primes the pump for them to agree
on larger. Their mind is already agreeing with you and sees you as friendly.
Then ever so slowly start to build on that, all while being content to walk
away having "proved" nothing yet always building towards it.

As some would say, be wise as a serpent.

------
nornagon
Fantastic essay. Listening in this way is an important part of Nonviolent
Communication[1], which I'd highly recommend as further reading if this
resonated with you.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication)

~~~
js2
I've recently started reading Nonviolent Communication[1]. I am in awe of some
of the examples in the book. It must take years of practice to be such an
effective communicator.

1\. [https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-
Lif...](https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Life-
Changing-Relationships/dp/189200528X/)

~~~
stefanwlb
Thank you for sharing the book, looks really interesting!

------
brhsiao
While I agree with the overall sentiment, people ought to have to earn the
privilege of being listened to by meeting a higher standard of reasonableness,
self-awareness, and intellectual responsibility than that.

The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view
that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She
manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with
whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is
just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just
wrong!" like that's somehow _sufficient._ Her view is driven by a
preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for
self-correction.

I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a
warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others.
Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an
eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already
given.

If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of
themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign
views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a _view._ It's not a window into any
meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it
sympathy.

~~~
eyelidlessness
This story seems to be a bit of a rorschach test. It seems that the primary
rejection of what the author observed and described is preoccupied with
correctness of ideas, while those of us who it touched are preoccupied with
understanding why people think the way that they do.

I too reject all manner of irrational and harmful views, but I'm concerned
with why so many of those views prevail. Understanding why people come to hurt
one another is at the center of my attention, because I think that
understanding is ammunition in reducing those tendencies.

Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds
of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong.

And more importantly, being correct is not the same as not being subject to
personal growth. It's a tremendous waste to go through life knowing
information that could be valuable to others and to be unable or unwilling to
communicate that information to others who don't share it.

Empathy is how politics and people move together.

~~~
brhsiao
Fair enough, especially this bit:

 _> Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the
kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're
wrong._

Here's my attempt at reconciliation. I would support all of the following:
withholding hostility; understanding that understanding something is not the
same as condoning it; having _empathy_ for everyone; understanding that
everyone has their own reason for how they are; and making atmospheres seem
less threatening to encourage more people to come forward.

But I remain slightly suspicious of the feeling of sympathy toward the world
view described in the article. Empathy, certainly. But I still say it's
condescending to pity someone like that before they've taken the slightest
steps toward self-correction.

~~~
eyelidlessness
I have to admit that I was brought to tears reading her story. I don't
sympathize with her opinion on abortion, I strongly disagree with it. But I
felt her hardship and her candor when offered space to admit her personal
motivations. I felt them despite being unmoved from my own opinions.

I also have to admit that I haven't always been self aware enough to make
healthy corrections for my own beliefs and attitudes. 100% of those times,
I've grown more with the support of people who showed care and compassion
despite the flaws in my reaction to the world I find myself in.

I have to constantly remind myself that we're all in a wilderness. Nothing of
importance comes easy to everyone. Nearly every person can grow, given the
right conditions. And working toward making those conditions available to more
people is worthwhile.

------
ellyagg

        It takes a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience,
        and courage to listen in the face of disagreement.
    

I can't help but find this condescending. Listening should only take a small
bit of intellectual humility. On controversial subjects, people with whom you
disagree almost certainly have valid points. It's not heroic to acknowledge
them. It's a sign of maturity to be able to admit where your opponent's
arguments are strong and, on the other hand, admit the weaknesses in your own
position.

~~~
kaybe
They might not be talking about the opposed option itself but the way
controversial viewpoints are often presented: Full of emotion, and in a full-
frontal attack if you're perceived to be not on their side. It can be hard to
dissipate that and actually get to the quiet earnest exploration part.

------
gumby
For a tech reference: this is the function of "Hearing Aid" in John Brunner's
prescient novel The Shockwave Rider from 1975. A novel that also introduced us
to the computer network worm, the Bay Area as a tech mecca, the current social
anomie reflected in the current election, etc.

Part of a triplet of loosely related novels along with The Sheep Look Up and
Stand on Zanzibar. Many accurate predictions of the last 15 years, 25 years
before.

It was a lovely article by the way. I used to work on a crisis line and I was
surprised how many people simply needed someone to talk to.

------
mindslight
I wholeheartedly agree with this article's premise (to listen and truly
understand conflicting ideas), but its specific approach seems like just
subjecting oneself to emotional warfare. Listening to someone's story will get
you an understanding of why they believe something, but not necessarily an
understanding of the actual belief.

What if this woman didn't have a compelling personal narrative (infertility)
driving her viewpoint, but had instead just copied the advice from a culture
with only 2 kyr of success? I'm guessing the author would have likely
concluded something less empathetic like the woman was just a victim of
backwards thinking.

I think this phase we're going through is mainly people who rely on peer-
scoped emotional reasoning having to come to terms with a wider communication
scope and get used to the left-brain verbal communication engendered by the
Internet. In order to truly understand something, your intellectual gamut must
be able to describe it. If you wish to understand a different point a view,
you must work at expanding your own logical framework to be able to express
the new idea simultaneously with what you already believe. This is not a skill
most people have developed, so instead of working to understand, they give in
to their gut and treat the differing idea as a threat.

------
pklausler
There's an important distinction to be made between disagreement on the facts
and disagreement on their implications. I find that the best conversations can
be had by figuring out which points of disagreement are on questions of fact
and then asking "how do you know X?". Repeat respectfully as necessary.

Peter Boghossian calls this technique "street epistemology".

~~~
stefanwlb
Excellent point!

------
rababa
In poker your hand is what it is whether you realize it or not. It doesn't
matter if you say 'I have two pairs of aces' because you still actually have
four of a kind.

I do the same with arguments. I try very hard to 'steel man' opposing views in
total sincerity.

This doesn't take any kind of kindness or humility at all, just a desire to
actually be right and not delude oneself.

------
ThomPete
I have always hated the idea that it's the communicators job to make sure
people understand them.

This is of course true in any professional setting like advertising, PR etc.

But in a debate between two parties this insistence and demand is killing most
possibilities of actually having a debate.

The first problem is that if someone is arguing from a position we have
predujize against we will be interpreting the worst possible intent of what is
being said while if it's something we agree with we are much more forgiving
when interpreting.

So we are biased either against hearing the argument or from hearing the flaws
depending on whether we agree with the original stance of the argument.

So much potential for actually learning something is lost because of the idea
that it's only up to the communicator to make sure they are understood. So
many insights are lost from demanding other people make themselves
understandable rather than trying to understand what they are trying to say.

~~~
aninhumer
Of course communication is the responsibility of both involved, but you can
only ever control one side of it, so you might as well do the best you can.

~~~
ThomPete
Thats my point though. Its not only the communicators job to be understandable
since even if they are the other side is biased against what they say.

------
Rachine
"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand,
disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that
person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." True

------
callesgg
This is a very good attitude i try to use it myself, it is often hard to
phrase the questions to be subtle enough to not be rude. But the one he used
here was actually very good, and fairly generic.

------
ppod
This is a really well written piece, so its petty to pick on an aspect of the
style, but:I hate the trend of writing really short sentences and starting a
new paragraph after almost every sentence. When you hear it in your head it's
supposed to sound like a grave and wise and worldly narrator over a poignant
montage or something. It's cheap and corny.

------
username3
Alan Kay quoted, "Forget about trying to win an argument -- use argumentation
to try to understand the issues better and from more perspectives ..."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11941417)

------
__s
It isn't just facebook feeds. Google's automatic per user tailoring of search
results, & even Google being the primary search provider, furthers this echo
chamber concept (as an aside, I remember when we were all referring to this as
the hivemind instead of an echo chamber..)

------
endgame
What the actual shit. Before I could read the text, I got hit with a "sign up
for our bullshit newsletter" pop-up. Then after dismissing that I hit space to
page down and got shown a SquareSpace login that I couldn't get out of.

------
polynomial
harder.

When you disagree, listen harder, past the point you find yourself in
disagreement, to the underlying agreement you share.

This is the place where your mutual understanding will let you engage in real
dialogue, and not just taking turns listening.

------
known
Insulate yourself from
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)

------
Mz
I generally agree with the points made, but I think it is rather poorly
written. Plus, like others here, I found the formatting a problem. I
repeatedly wondered if I had reached the end only to find I had not.

------
jld89
This is a great article.

We don't need to be always right or prove others wrong, choose carefully the
battles and aim for compromise, you don't have to agree to a solution, you
just have to approve it.

------
rachkovsky
The best on the topic is How To Disagree by Paul Graham
[http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

------
ycombinatorMan
I think this is childish.

------
kennethcwilbur
Those with deepest insights on this topic are least likely to post.

------
drudru11
This is beautiful.

------
AlexTes
Beautiful, thank you for your story.

------
z3t4
Can't stress enough that only listening to the ones with the same view is
_very dangerous_.

~~~
z3t4
Only surrounding yourself with like-minded will create a biased world view.

------
Snargorf
I've actually found it works a lot better if both people just allow the
contentious statements. Just let each person say, "Oh that's ridiculous
because..." and the other replies with "You're totally missing this point..."
Even if people raise their voice or scoff, it's fine. The key is to _just keep
going_.

If you go on long enough, the points do start sinking in.

Too many people assume that acrimony means that the discussion must end
immediately. But that's not true at all. It's exceptionally hard, sometimes,
to meet clashing beliefs with entirely soft voices and polite manners. You
don't have to suppress everything you want to say. You can let it out. So can
the other person. It's good. (Obviously it shouldn't raise to a degree where
people are screaming continuously or acting violent).

Maturity doesn't just mean always speaking softly. It can also mean being able
to make and reject points forcefully, and not wilt like a delicate flower if
the other person does the same.

The real key is that people need to not be so delicate. Accept the natural
difficulties of clashing belief systems. Just stick in there, let the acrimony
happen, don't give up. Eventually - 10 or 20 or 30 minutes later - you'll get
to something meaningful simply because there's no way to talk that long
without both people having a lot of time to make real points.

~~~
smcl
I hit "vouch" here as your post was marked as "Dead" even though it was pretty
reasonable. I don't necessarily agree that people should be so eager to lock
horns on contentious issues, but you're certainly not saying anything that
should be hidden or censored or anything.

------
BigDaddyD
That was hard to read! I mean that literally, the spacing was weird.

------
seangrant
This format was very hard to read for me

------
eClass
Nice post, so do you remember anything that Donald Trump said?

------
ploxiln
So you're saying, basically, we should "put words in their mouth".

~~~
wrsh07
You might be making a joke about active listening, but it's actually really
effective. Try it out next time you disagree with someone -- it is a good tool
to prevent you from talking over or past someone.

~~~
Esau
I once attended some training that discussed communication skills and one of
the things they asked us was: when talking to someone, are you listening to
what they are saying or are you merely waiting for your chance to talk?

I have to admit to frequently doing the latter.

~~~
protomyth
For me, I know I've listened when I can make their argument for them. This
also has the important point of testing what I believe in an honest way and
allows for modifying of what I believe or solidifying it with better ways to
explain it to others.

Sadly, many people are in the "chance to talk" side with a rather large
sprinkling of "people who disagree with them never get to talk".

