Matthew Legge

Tj Jefferson wrote:Matthew,

I assume this diagram is an outgrowth of the Five Factor Model. The fascinating thing to me is that a functioning social network of more than a handful of people will benefit from people all over the spectrum, but we tend (in my social circle anyway) to see certain traits as better. It is totally subconscious, as can be seen in the statement you made

And finally yes, it is extremely important to approach an issue with curiosity rather than certainty

. As you can see those traits are on opposite sides of the openness axis. But there are times where certainty is a desirable trait. I would recommend avoiding surgeons high in openness. Mechanics probably are not strong in openness.

Society needs both, and it benefits from people who are not as polar to help them interpret data and maybe reach a consensus. Just one of those paradoxes of social psychology that makes it so interesting!

Hi TJ,
If you're interested in the research informing the diagram see: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/11/

Thanks for raising the idea that one area of focus isn't necessarily "better" than the other in the diagram. I think I was trying to imply that with what I was saying about seeking to understand where other folks may be coming from and to appreciating their values too, but I didn't make the point explicitly and it's an important one.

What I touched on in one my posts is that as much as we might like to think we have just one fixed way of being in the world that's always rational and consistent, actually all of us have some amount of each of these values, we're motivated in different ways depending on the situation, and if we're focusing on one area, such as how it's good to be open minded, that will inhibit our focus on another, such as how it's important to follow tradition. None of us is purely and consistently one way or another. We're each full of contradictions. And yes, at a societal level those play out in fascinating ways too, as you're describing.

In the book I argue in many cases how balance can be beneficial and that each of us have our own biases which can be balanced out by engaging with folks whose perspectives are different from our own. In some cases that may be more useful than in others.

My statement "And finally yes, it is extremely important to approach an issue with curiosity rather than certainty" was made in a particular context, which was in agreement with Meg's comment "I think it's really important to take the time to understand an issue before you start engaging with someone with a different viewpoint" in the case of people criticizing her gardening practices without understanding them, which itself was in response to Kenneth's question "What are people’s thoughts about taking time/making the effort to educate themselves about an issue in order to have a conversation across a divide?"

I don't think your examples (surgeons and mechanics) are quite the same as what we were talking about. It is very true that in some cases like those, narrow technical expertise and a high feeling of certainty can be more beneficial than being too open to other distracting or conflicting ideas, techniques, etc. (One would still hope that somewhere along the line there was someone with some genuine curiosity who helped to develop and test those techniques though. Some surgeries to shoulders, for instance, have been studied against placebo surgeries (making the incision and then just stitching the person back up again) and found to have no additional medical benefit.)

The point I was trying to make, though, is that in the context of disagreements with people about an issue like what to do with one's garden, curiosity, which is not the same thing as agreeing with the other person, but rather is simply about trying to genuinely listen and understand why they believe what they do, what values underpin that belief, what experiences led them to it, etc. is very beneficial. Curiosity is “associated with less defensive reactions to stress and less aggressive reactions to provocation” among its many other benefits: https://hbr.org/2018/09/curiosity.

Some great points being brought up here!

To answer the question no I don't get into neurodiversity or mental health issues in the book. In part I chose not to do that because there's a lot of controversy out there about how to define different conditions like autism - is it one condition, a number of distinct conditions, a spectrum, what are the cut-off points, etc. It's a very complicated topic and I didn't feel I could address it well (and the book already had a ton of content). One issue that's very significant in some violent conflicts and communications problems that I didn't get into is fetal alcohol syndrome.

In terms of triggers and emotions, that comes up in a few places but chapters 7, 8, and 16 in particular. I agree that we can do our best but we can never know which words will trigger which responses in people since literally any word could trigger someone in unexpected ways. I also talk about the drawbacks with trying to censor words and impose trigger warnings etc.

And finally yes, it is extremely important to approach an issue with curiosity rather than certainty. That alone makes a huge difference to how the conversation will go. If those people asked you, Meg, "Why are you doing thing X with your garden?" in a way that showed they were sincerely curious rather than being preachy or judgmental, even if you didn't feel like explaining it in detail to them, you might still have had a richer conversation that both of you got more out of.

When someone doesn't have curiosity, one tip you can use is to ask them how questions. How does their belief work? If they're just parroting something they don't understand too well, it's unlikely they'll know the specific details about how it works. So if they say "You should be doing your gardening like this." You can respond with "How would that work?" Once we try to explain things and discover that we don't understand the mechanisms at play as well as we thought we did, studies find that our certainty (over-confidence really) is greatly reduced. So this can open up a space for dialogue better than trying to simply convince the other person that they're wrong. More about this in Chapter 6 of the book, which you can get for free on the website https://arewedonefighting.com

Nicole Alderman wrote:It's my favorite time of the week--time to announce the winners!!!

Congratulations!

Kenneth Elwell
Michael McKay
Pavel Mikoloski
Amy Arnett

I'll be sending each of you a PM--please reply by Sunday to claim your copy of the book!

Many thanks to Matthew for joining us this week in so many thought-provoking discussions!

Thanks to everyone for the great discussions. I really enjoyed them. I was recently reading a book by media theory prof Douglas Rushkoff and he argues: "We can apply the insights of permaculture practitioners to education, social justice, and government: look for larger patterns, learn from elders, understand and leverage natural cycles." What you're doing is important and inspirational and I wish you all the best with it!

Xisca Nicolas wrote:I do not really see how to use this big diagram!
We cannot either be some sort of false chameleon trying to use others' values in order to be créate some bond... This looks like strategy I have seen dating men use, or comercials trying to sell!

I find true though that meaning in the sense of making meaning of life, has to do with values, but who has ever met somebody who shares all the same values?

Hi Xisca,
I think you're raising some good points here! My purpose in sharing that particular image wasn't to say you have to do something with it if you don't want to. I think it does a good job of showing how there are different values out there and research suggests that if we're thinking about one value, we'll tend not to think about an opposing one. We're each complicated and full of contradictions! So the point isn't to try to manipulate people, but it is to think carefully about what values are we encouraging by our communications and what values are we blocking? Each of us has a range of these values but if you care a lot about one and I care a lot about another that can make it tougher for us to hear each other. I agree with what Kenneth says here:

I think the diagram is a bit like a thesaurus, where some people think the different things when asked about the topic. For example: ACHIEVEMENT, one person might think INTELLIGENCE, while another might think CAPABLE, which might mean one person values a college degree, while the other values real world experience/on the job training.

I think these values were studied in around 30 countries so they should be relevant cross-culturally to a degree, but they're still only one theory with other ones out there too. Thanks for your more recent post on this thread too, which draws attention to the ways our understanding and experience of meaning can change.

Kenneth Elwell wrote:Just last night I heard a news summary on the radio, where the announcer made an error when reporting about a proposed gun regulation (used an incorrect model number for an affected rifle). I get that he may have misread a script, that may have had a typo... but to me it was a glaring, cringeworthy mistake.
The sort of thing that instantly identified them/the news outlet as a outgroup to any gun enthusiast. Leading to a shutdown of communication, “here we go again...how about you educate yourself first, and then maybe we can talk...”
So, how about it? What are people’s thoughts about taking time/making the effort to educate themselves about an issue in order to have a conversation across a divide?
Paul Wheaton wants folks coming to stay at the lab to have listened to ALL the podcasts. In hopes that the conversation can build on them rather than spend the time getting everyone up to speed.

I think you're right that the wrong term can sometimes cause us to shut down and think we're being lectured at by someone who doesn't understand or care about what matters to us. A very important aspect of communication too isn't just using the right words, but speaking in terms of values the other party will resonate with. Here's on model of those values:

Jasmine Dale wrote:Hi Matthew,in the process of leaving an eco village after 10 years of unharmonious group dynamics. As a permaculture designer, I have been doing plenty of evaluation of what we could have done differently to have lessened the fighting. I've been aware we never had an explicit group vision and in a design that feels essential. A vision board or graphic representation to explore the diversity of our visions for the project is one technique I would've used. What's your thoughts on a) initial visioning and b) reclaiming a project that's gone sour through vision building techniques? Thank you!

Hi Jasmine,
I work for Canadian Friends Service Committee, the peace and social justice agency of Quakers in Canada. A few years ago we realized that we didn't have a shared definition of "peace." There can be benefits to not having things too rigidly defined, but it was also creating problems for us - making it tougher for us to decide when a piece of work was or wasn't appropriate to take on for instance.

So the lack of a shared understanding of where we wanted to go (we did have a vision but it was so broad as to not help us much) meant that while we weren't all on totally different pages, we did have differences that were largely hidden because we weren't trying to come to a shared vision. There was enough confusion that it was leading some of us to feel overburdened and exhausted.

One of the reasons this book now exists is because we did the difficult work of trying to come up with a shared definition of "peace" that worked for us and we found it was still quite holistic and broad, but just doing the exercise gave us a new focus and has really helped. We also made structural changes to decision making processes, etc. I can't say that such positive outcomes will always happen of course, each group is different. Also there are so many different ways of planning and orienting a group's efforts and evaluating whether things are working or not (they often have fancy names like results-based management, social-drama topography, or participatory narrative inquiry). I don't get into those kinds of tools in the book but there are lots of free resources online and of course one can always seek out the help of experts.

One thing to keep in mind when working with groups is more to your second question - the dynamics of who's involved. Will they speak up, what are the "mainstream" positions in the group and what ideas or identities does that, not necessarily consciously or deliberately, push to the "margins"? Group change is really benefited by knowing where the margins are and listening to them. That can be tough to draw out and painful to hear, but once it's on the table, if skillfully navigated, it can be rejuvenating and transformative. Chapter 15 looks at group dynamics, and they come up in some other areas of the book too.

Chapter 16 has an example of really difficult dynamics playing out and I suggest a few tips but one often overlooked one is to take a break and do something to feel good physically before returning to the difficult conversations. We think we're more rational than we are, but if our bodies don't feel good, that will have impacts on how we engage with each other. Any trust building exercise might help though, again depending on the particulars of the group.

Hi Lito,
I don't know the situation or the people well enough to give you a simple answer to your question. It seems like there's a lot of pain here for sure. It sounds from your description as if you feel mental health issues may be playing a role (at least that postpartum depression has and it's unclear what else).

What are her feelings and needs and can you communicate them to her in her own language so she believes you've really heard and understood her? That would be a big step if it hasn't already happened.

I don't believe that every relationship is salvageable, but it's certainly much tougher for everyone when there are children involved. I felt sad to read that your four year old would tell you that.

I think the book offers some evidence-backed ideas and techniques that may be useful to you up to a point, but I can't say just how useful or what the outcome of all this will be.

Tyler Ludens wrote:Most of my close neighbors, both in town and in the country, are to the right side of the spectrum, whereas I am a wild-eyed lefty.  We get along fine, even though we are well aware of each others' political leanings.  We get along by being kind and helpful to each other.  We share interests (gardening, nature, birding), tools, labor, food.  We don't discuss politics or religion much, because there wouldn't be a point.  We're all mature and set in our ways, and not likely to be persuaded by argument.

So I think the divide can be bridged by finding common ground.  I believe it's possible to find common ground with anyone who is interested in doing so.  

Hi Tyler,
Well said. I would add that it's even possible to find common ground with people who think they aren't interested in doing so. The book has many examples of this, such as a former member of a hateful church group who eventually wound up leaving that group and her entire family and former life behind, simply because people reached out to her and engaged with her... on Twitter! The process took years, but dramatic shifts are sometimes possible even when a person initially seems totally opposed to them.

Hi Paul,

Thank you for this important question! Yes the book offers many practical tips that can be used to bridge this divide to a degree. I'm not claiming it will always work or offering any guarantees, but I have collected a lot of evidence that will surprise you. Here are a few reflections on this issue in no particular order:

1) The left/right divide in the US is regularly misrepresented and amplified by the media. The book has a chapter on peace education that explains this dynamic but in a nutshell if you pick up on points of difference between people and ask them to talk about those, you can push those people further apart. But it's also possible to pick up on points of commonality, and the truth is, you have a TON in common with people you totally disagree with on some points. For instance there are all kinds of conjectures thrown out there in the media about different segments of society think or why they do what they do, but this is regularly based on imaginary caricatures of people rather than strong evidence. Many other articles will try to find the "one trait" that explains some complex situation - for instance support for Trump - as though there can be just one true reason for anything (spoiler, even if they find one trait that has some statically predictive validity, it's hardly representing the whole picture of what's going on! e.g. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/16/donald-trump-support-2020-oostburg-wisconsin-chevy-chase-maryland-225161, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533)

2) Various studies find that folks in the US don't understand "the other side" so well, and drastically over-estimate how different they are. So the divide may be more about identity than about issues! For instance Democrats said 52% of Republicans would agreed with the statement: “Properly controlled immigration can be good for America.” In fact, 85% of Republicans agreed. The same perception gap exists when asking Republicans about what Democrats believe. https://perceptiongap.us. Chapter 2 of the book looks at othering (the process of seeing someone as an "other" rather than part of your group.) It's full of tips that can help when interacting with someone who you experience as being from another political party (which too often seems to be as strong of a divider in the US as if they were from another planet!)

3) There are experts hired by politicians who are very good at finding words and phrases that push emotional triggers. These words don't trigger everyone in the same way though, so they contribute to polarizing us between the people who are strongly supportive and strongly opposed. I've written a short blog post about this offering an example from George Lakoff: the term “tax relief.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/are-we-done-fighting/201905/how-language-can-polarize-us. The key point is that we may not be that far apart on key issues, but what exact words those issues are conveyed in makes a BIG difference.

Similarly studies from the US, UK, and Germany found that even on supposedly very polarizing issues like gun control, immigration, and policing, folks change their responses dramatically depending on how the information is framed https://psmag.com/news/the-grand-old-party-longs-for-the-good-old-days. So we need to learn to speak in terms that the other side cares about, understanding that they may value things differently from us. And we need to be able to translate what they're saying from their terms into ours to better hear them.

4) We're heavily influenced by polarizing messages from elites (politicians, news media pundits, etc.) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379418301975 so a major shift could happen simply by having a small number of people tone down their rhetoric and look too for points of commonality. Not saying that's easy or even likely, but it's not impossible. I think the same about online information. A handful of companies control the information accessed and shared by billions of people. Right now platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook are designed to maximize how much time we'll spend on them and how many ads we'll see. They're also designed to collect endless data about us, which can be used for psychological profiling and targeted messaging/manipulation. That's all quite disturbing. I believe it is contributing to shifting people's views - for instance fueling the spread of hateful conspiracy theories. Chapters 6 and 7 look at that. But this also means that just a few decisions by a few companies could drastically improve the situation if they built their platforms to stop promoting hateful clickbait.

5) Lots of groups are working on countering polarization and building bridges in the US. Here are just a few:
• https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/bridging_differences
• https://allianceforpeacebuilding.org/resources-for-peacebuilders/domestic-peacebuilding/
• http://ac4.ei.columbia.edu
• https://openmindplatform.org
• https://heterodoxacademy.org
• http://www.civilpolitics.org
• http://www.reckonings.show
• https://www.moreincommon.com
• https://www.solutionsjournalism.org
• http://www.thepeacemakerspodcast.com
• https://www.nifi.org
• https://narrative4.com

6) Finally the importance of communication skills can't be overstated and the book has a chapter and exercises on that.

Jay Angler wrote:Welcome Mathew! I always figured that some of the most important things in life, like communication and child rearing, seem to be "learn on the job", "absorb by osmosis" sorts of things, when in fact, many people need instruction books on how to do it well as a start, and good role models to practice on! I will head over and read your book review.

Thank you Jay. I think there's a huge role for learning by experience and so the book is not prescriptive or offering a "these are the rules" or "this is the checklist" type framework. The book has experiential activities because I think that it's important to learn by feeling and by trying things out for ourselves, not just reading about them.

What I've tried to do with it is to collect all kinds of stories about what has worked for people, and to see why this may be the case based on evidence from scientific findings. Much of this content goes against a lot of "common sense" out there. I've learned a ton in this process and I hope that it's presented in a way that's easy to get into, take something from, and use.