Our inability to resolve deep disagreements has become a major crisis of our times. Ideological division that blocks effective public discourse has arguably become a bigger problem than the loss of personal freedom, inequality, climate change, or COVID-19 because it is preventing us from having effective conversations to address these other issues in a well-coordinated manner.
A deep disagreement is a disagreement resulting from epistemic differences which cannot be resolved by rational means alone. In my coaching practice, I have been working with many clients recently who come seeking help to navigate deep disagreements with friends or family members. As opposing views on COVID-19 cause the sparks fly on social media, I hear stories of old friendships ending and family members becoming divided over this issue. The harsh polarization and contempt that used to be contained within the realms of politics and religion have now breached our personal lives in ways that are causing unavoidable confrontation. We find ourselves asking:
- How can I advocate for my point of view in a way that is most likely to help others see the truth?
- What others are saying is crazy, ignorant, and dangerous. How can I listen to them without giving power to their wrong thinking?
- What’s the point in trying to talk to someone who doesn’t listen to facts? Anything I try to say is immediately dismissed as disinformation.
- When the bridge has already been burned, is it even worth trying to repair? If so, how can I do that without betraying my own truth?
We tend to approach these types of conflict with the expectation that it might be resolved simply by proving what is factually true. The problem with this approach is that it presumes the existence of a shared context of values (the why) and shared beliefs related to those values (the what). Indeed, if we share the same values and beliefs, then a rational conversation can be effective for agreeing on what to do (the how). But if we are trying to agree on the how when there isn’t yet alignment on the what or the why, it tends to be met with strong opposition and we go in circles. When you notice this pattern, it’s a sign that you’re in a deep disagreement and that you need to take a different approach.
Taking the idea of confirmation bias to the next level and combining it with the concept of the affective domain and the analogy of Blind Men and an Elephant, we have the following model for making sense of what’s actually going on with deep disagreements:
This model illustrates some important concepts:
- Our actions (what we do and say) are always driven by our emotions, which are intimately connected to our values and beliefs.
- We either construct our beliefs or we inherit them. Beliefs exist in our minds and will always be an incomplete approximation of the truth based on our interpretation of the evidence we are able to see.
- Our beliefs are only meaningful within the context of our values. Our values will always be evolving, just as there will always be something new to discover that we didn’t know we didn’t know.
- To the degree that we are unaware of this, assuming that our beliefs encompass a whole picture of the truth makes us prone to the effects of confirmation bias, dismissing evidence that contradicts our current beliefs and actively seeking out evidence that confirms them.
- When someone objects to our actions, this assumption can cause us to incorrectly interpret their objection as an attack against our values and an ignorance of the truth as represented by our beliefs, instead of recognizing that it has more to do with their values and beliefs. The same can apply in the other direction when we object to the actions of others.
- Even if we happen to hold the same belief as another person, the values informing why we hold that belief may be different, and our emotions and behavior may therefore be different as well.
- Likewise, even if we happen to hold the same value as another person, the beliefs that we hold in service of that value can still be different.
For those who are expecting to resolve a deep disagreement simply by pointing out the evidence and the values that support their beliefs, it can feel legitimately frustrating to have to account for all of this complexity. It is much easier to blame it on the other person’s ignorance or to imagine that they must have evil intent than it is to accept all of this.
In the absence of such acceptance, we may demand that others comply, or we may feel justified in the use of coercive tactics. But such an approach is sure to backfire, either through direct retaliation, or indirectly through the increased effects of polarization which undermine the likelihood of cooperation and good will in the future. The end result over time is an enormous amount of wasted energy. As they say, “truth is the first casualty in war”. We think we are defeating the enemy of the truth when in fact, we are destroying our own growth opportunity to discover that the truth was bigger than we knew.
While there aren’t any one-size-fits-all solutions to resolving deep disagreements, here are 10 tips that you can use to navigate them more effectively:
1. Don’t shoot the messenger. Instead of interpreting another person’s objection as an attack on our values or an ignorance of the truth, we can interpret it as an opportunity to discover something about their values and their perspective on the truth. By objecting to your actions or your proposal, they are simply being a good messenger by letting you know that something is going on inside of them. Even if they communicate it poorly in the form of a personal attack, you can have faith that it isn’t about you.
2. Validate and redirect the conversation toward understanding what matters to them by asking open questions. Validation doesn’t mean agreeing with what they say. It signals respect and inclusion by accepting that they see it as they do. This can be as simple as “I understand that you don’t agree with X.” Then ask an open question, such as “What else have you been considering in relation to this?” When done with sincerity, this disarms the conflict by positioning yourself as someone who wants to understand. Keep going with this form of conversation until you get to the deeper values and beliefs. Then thank them for the explanation. Conor Neill has some good tips on how to develop this skill, which he refers to as conversational aikido:
3. Practice epistemic humility. Remain open to the possibility that there may always be more to the truth that you didn’t know you didn’t know. Remember that your beliefs are just one possible interpretation of the truth and are only meaningful within the context of your values, which are different for each person based on their culture and personal history.
4. Start by agreeing to disagree, but don’t stop there. Agreeing to disagree lays a foundation of trust that we can always reset back to if things start to go south. It allows everyone to feel safe and respected when nobody is trying to force us to change what we believe. This foundation of trust affords us the privilege of engaging in other conversations, the ones where we do the real work.
5. Engage in small acts of inclusiveness. Even if you don’t personally see something as important, be willing to go out of your way to accommodate the fact that the other person does see it as important. In whatever way you can without sacrificing your own values, doing these small things creates a culture where there can be a sense of trust in the common good, even if we don’t share the same values and beliefs. Wouldn’t you like the same to be done for you?
6. Beware of either-or thinking. When we try to win by proving our beliefs right and theirs wrong, we go in circles. The underlying values on both sides will always have their right place somewhere within a bigger context, even if the current beliefs distort the truth. By focusing your effort on understanding the values and looking for ways to integrate them into a both-and solution, the distortions will often disappear on their own.
7. Make it safe to be be wrong. When we search for the one thing we can prove wrong in the other’s thinking and dismiss their entire perspective based on this, we ignore the possibility that other aspects of their thinking can also be right. This can lead to a culture of defensiveness where everyone resists admitting where they are mistaken. This unhelpful tendency can be countered by actively looking to identify your own mistakes and maintaining respect for the other’s values even if something they believe comes into question. Let it be up to them to declare if they were wrong, and don’t let this stop you from acknowledging where they are still right.
8. Beware of group think. No matter how many other people see things the same way as you do, there can still be a collective blind spot that obscures the other half of the truth. History has taught us the hard way many times before just how dark things can get when we lend our power to mob dynamics. Don’t do it!
9. Develop a healthy respect for uncertainty. Our culture teaches us to think that the most trustworthy leader is the person who is the most certain and outspoken in their convictions. In this old paradigm, uncertainty is a sign of weakness or incompetence. However, at higher stages of development (Green and Teal in the Integral model), pluralistic values and awareness of shadow flips that upside down. As we progress into these higher stages, one’s ability to embrace uncertainty becomes a hallmark of greater maturity.
10. Advocate for what you value, while expecting to always be learning. In embracing all of this, it might seem like you will end up paralyzed by self-doubt, unable to stand for anything because of how it might be wrong. Not so. Letting go of the arrogance that insists you have to have it all figured out in order to stand for anything is actually a good thing. Instead, you develop the courage to do your best according to what you are currently aware of, and you develop the faith that you will always continue to learn as you go. The bonus is that it rubs off on other people and they start to become less arrogant, too!
