If it seems that Americans are more polarized than ever, eagerly segregating into “us versus them” camps on every issue, it’s not your imagination. Polls suggest that Americans are creating divides amongst themselves faster than other nations, which threatens national security and well-being.
What hope is there for civil democracy when we are so fervently divided that the impetus to understand one another evaporates? How can you have a constructive conversation with people who directly oppose your values or deny the facts as you see them?
As a scientist who engages in public outreach, I frequently encounter skeptics of topics like climate change, vaccines, and evolution. My responses used to be counterattacks, drawing on an arsenal of facts and figures. As my fellow science communicators will admit with befuddlement, this strategy often fails, especially on topics that have become politically charged. How do you break through to someone so divorced from the reality you know?
No one forms their beliefs in a vacuum
When science skeptics scoff at attempts to rectify a knowledge deficit, we conclude they are being willfully ignorant and disengage. This unproductive response ignores mounting evidence that free will is an illusion. Invisible forces beyond our control shape personality, behavior, and beliefs. We don’t pick our genes. We had no say in our prenatal or childhood environment. We do not choose the culture, religion, or ideology that gets etched into our psyche during our formative years.
We can certainly change our minds, but that too is contingent on experiences that befall us: who we encounter, what we’re taught, whether trauma or privilege alters our path.
Life feels like a choice, but it seems we’re behind the wheel of a self-driving car. While interpretations are debated, neurobiologists have established that subconscious brain activity occurs before we are conscious of our intention to perform simple tasks.
Even when we consciously deliberate on a decision, we have no control over the thoughts that bubble up from the dark cauldron of our subconscious. Furthermore, the judgment we cast upon each of those thoughts is anchored by a causal chain of prior events.
As it is now generally agreed that biological and environmental forces greatly constrain beliefs and behavior, admonishing someone for being willfully ignorant feels like a hypocritical copout. Instead, we should embrace our lack of agency to engender more fruitful interactions with people who believe and do things that bewilder us.
Rejecting agency resets your relationship
Imagine you’re having an uncomfortable encounter with someone who doesn’t see things your way. You can marshal evidence and masterfully rebut every dubious claim, but these approaches are shockingly ineffective because we view reality through different lenses. A lifetime of unique experiences dictates who we trust and what we perceive as factual.
The 2015 dress meme demonstrates how people can view the same image differently. Whether someone sees the dress as blue and black or white and gold depends on how their visual system unconsciously perceives the lighting, a physiological property beyond our command. If you could see the dress through another person’s eyes, you would agree with the colors they see.
It’s the same for worldviews. What we believe to be reality has been filtered through a lens we had no hand in grinding. When confronted with opposition, remember that if you had their genes and life experiences, you would see the world as they do. They cannot help who they are any more than you can help who you are.
This does not mean that it’s pointless to try to change someone’s beliefs. You can become a voice in their mind’s choir. Your words may season their subconscious soup, nudging them towards rethinking their position.
Acknowledging that people have little to no free will can help affect change in another person. When we accept that someone has no control over who they are, we can shift our focus from persuasion to understanding. Stop being the arbiter of truth and become a curious interviewer.
What led this person to feel what they feel, trust who they trust, and believe what they believe? The answers will steer the dialogue from an angry sea to deeper, calmer waters. You’ll learn what this person values, which can help reframe your position to break through their resistance more than charts and graphs ever will.
Change the objective of the conversation
When you ask nonjudgmental questions with a genuine desire to learn rather than contest, you gain an appreciation of other perspectives. You’re also prompting them to inspect their own lens, potentially leading them to see the smudges and cracks in their vision of the world without being confrontational. When asked to provide detailed explanations of our beliefs, it often exposes information gaps or inconsistencies with our values.
Sharing your different life stories makes for a more interesting conversation than the predictable exchange of dogmatic talking points that defend our respective positions. An individual’s personal history is fascinating, and the story underlying their worldview may surprise you. It’s not always a knowledge deficit or misinformation, but a difference in values, what we fear, and who we trust, often stemming from an emotive experience.
This is why it is crucial to have a congenial conversation that uncovers things you have in common. Seize upon those similarities. They lighten the weight of the differences. They are planks that build a bridge connecting your worlds. Dr. Daryl Davis illustrates the power of this approach, which he employs to get Ku Klux Klan members to renounce their racism.
Recognizing that those unlike you reached their position because life steered them down a different path fosters a more compassionate encounter that mends trust and provides opportunities to learn from one another. The first step to opening the door to someone’s mind is to convince them that you can be trusted with the key.
Winning an argument is a marathon, and you’ll never win minds without winning hearts.