Seeking Out Disagreement, Buster Benson

Summary

这段采访主要探讨了理解和管理分歧的重要性。嘉宾认为,生产性地处理分歧不仅是一项关键技能,更是一种心理技术,能帮助我们更好地获取新技能,解决问题。他提出了一些建议,比如邀请不同群体进行对话、共享美食等,来增进相互理解。此外,他还反思了硅谷科技行业在这一过程中的作用,呼吁通过自省和开放态度来缓解分化。总的来说,这段对话为我们提供了富有洞见的视角,帮助我们以更积极、有建设性的方式看待分歧。

Takeaways

• 😄 我们正处于一个难以解决分歧的时代,因为沟通方式往往无法让双方真正理解对方的观点和价值观。
• 🤝 生产性分歧是一项元技能,可以帮助我们更好地获取新技能和看待问题。
• 🧠 焦虑是我们内心价值观受到挑战的信号,可以成为建立共同理解的出发点。
• 🔍 培养好奇心有助于我们打开心胸,更加理解他人的观点,是解决分歧的关键。
• 🍽 共同用餐可以缓解紧张气氛,让人更容易建立友好关系,从而促进生产性交流。
• 👨‍💻 科技行业在一定程度上加剧了人们之间的分歧和对立,应当反思并采取改正措施。
• 🗺 尝试加入不同的在线论坛或社群,主动与持有不同观点的人进行对话交流。
• 🌐 通过长期的对话实践,我们可以培养跨越分歧的能力,为社会带来正面影响。
• 👥 需要更多无所属"部落"的中立者,在不同阵营之间进行沟通和调解。
• 📖 阅读相关书籍和研究成果,有助于我们更全面地理解分歧的本质和解决之道。

Q & A

为什么会出现吵架的情况?

人们会感到沮丧和束手无策,觉得之前所采取的方式都失败了,因而选择吵架的方式来表达自己。

什么是"生产性分歧"作为一种元技能?

生产性分歧是一种能提高我们获取其他技能能力的元技能,就像语言和阅读一样,掌握了这种技能后,我们可以更快地获取新知识和技能。

特朗普当选对作者产生了什么影响?

作者意识到,尽管他自认为擅长与持不同观点的人进行理性对话,但在特朗普当选后,他发现自己无法与亲密朋友进行有效沟通,这促使他反思并致力于提高这方面的技能。

作者提出了哪些具体建议来促进生产性分歧?

作者建议主动加入不同的社交平台和群组,与持有不同观点的人进行对话;与亲朋好友就争议话题展开对话并记录分析;邀请他人就分歧问题进行对话等。

作者认为在分歧对话中面对焦虑时,我们应该怎么做?

焦虑往往源于我们内心的某种价值观或信念受到威胁。我们应该审视自己的焦虑,并由此作为切入点与他人展开对话,了解对方的想法和价值观。

作者认为科技行业在加剧分歧方面扮演了什么角色?

科技行业以为能够通过连接世界和赋予每个人发言权来造福世界,但忽视了可能带来的负面影响。现在,行业内部也存在严重的意识形态分歧。

《Letter》社交平台对促进跨界对话有何贡献?

Letter提供了一个长篇对话的平台,让持有不同观点的人能够耐心地进行深入交流,相互了解对方的立场,并努力达成某种共识。

关于罗宾迪安吉洛的《白人脆弱》一书,作者有何看法?

作者认为,人们可能对迪安吉洛的观点存在误解,她的论点是复杂而有细微差别的,我们应该耐心细读她的原著,而不是武断地对其工作进行评判。

共同用餐对促进分歧对话有何益处?

共同用餐能让人放松,降低对立情绪;需要当事人亲自出席;饮食文化也能增进人与人之间的亲和力,让人把对方当作朋友或家人看待。

作者希望这本书能带来什么影响?

作者希望人们将分歧对话视为一种可以不断实践和提高的技能,并且通过个人的体验和实践,来改变人们对于生产性分歧的期待。

Outlines

00:00

📚 对话与争议的艺术

本段介绍了Buster新书《为什么我们在喊叫》的主题，探讨了人们在面对分歧和争议时感到困惑和沮丧的原因。书中提出了一系列理论框架和概念，旨在帮助人们理解和应对分歧。Buster强调，生产性的争议是一种元技能，能够提升我们其他技能的发展，促进个人成长。此外，他探讨了如何将争议转化为增长和连接的机会，提出了有效沟通和解决问题的策略。

05:00

🌐 拥抱分歧的价值

这一段落讨论了Buster如何在个人生活中实践并欣赏分歧。他加入了多个社交媒体群组，包括与他观点不同的群组，目的是为了理解不同的世界观并建立对话。他分享了这一过程中的挑战和收获，包括如何通过分歧来促进个人观点的发展和成熟。Buster鼓励人们以艺术的形式看待分歧，而不仅仅是用作争吵的工具。

10:01

🤖 技术背景与分歧处理

Buster介绍了他在科技行业的背景，包括在亚马逊、Twitter和Slack的工作经验，以及如何将这些经验转化为处理个人和职业生活中分歧的技能。他讨论了技术行业如何间接促成了分歧的产生，以及他个人如何通过书写和社区建设来寻找解决方案。此外，Buster强调了不公开表达分歧可能比直接面对分歧更糟糕的观点。

15:02

💡 科技产业的责任与自我反思

Buster批评了科技行业在推动社会分化中的角色，并分享了他个人对于这一问题的觉醒和行动。他讨论了科技行业内部的分歧和许多人转向更有意义工作的趋势。此外，他还探讨了焦虑如何触发我们进入争议的状态，以及如何通过识别和理解这些焦虑背后的价值观来促进更富有成效的对话。

20:03

🧠 激发好奇心与心理安全

在这一段中，Buster强调了好奇心的重要性以及它如何帮助我们在面对分歧时保持开放和探索的态度。他讨论了心理安全与团队多样性之间的关系，以及如何在保持对话安全的同时，也鼓励观点的多样性。Buster提到，理解和应对自己的防御性反应对于促进生产性对话至关重要。

25:04

🌍 探索政治立场与观点多样性

Buster分享了他在政治立场和个人观点上的旅程，特别是在特朗普选举之后的反思和成长。他讨论了如何通过与不同观点的人对话来扩展自己的世界观，并强调了理解和尊重不同价值观的重要性。Buster还提出了“跨越部落”进行对话和理解的想法，鼓励那些愿意作为中介的人参与其中。

30:05

📝 使用长篇对话进行深入交流

本段讨论了Buster在Letter平台上的体验，他通过长篇对话与持不同政见者进行深入交流。他分享了一个具体的对话案例，即与一位枪权倡导者的讨论，展示了通过耐心和开放的对话，双方如何达成共识。这一经历强调了长篇对话在促进理解和找到共同解决方案方面的价值。

35:06

🍽️ 通过共享用餐促进对话

在最后一段中，Buster强调了共同用餐作为促进对话和理解的简单而有效的方法。他解释了共享用餐如何通过化解紧张气氛、促进亲密感和增强社交连接来帮助解决分歧。Buster提醒我们，有时最古老的方法——如一起进餐——可能是克服分歧和促进沟通的最有效方式。

Keywords

💡生产性分歧

生产性分歧指的是在不同观点之间有建设性、富有成效的讨论和交流。这个概念强调通过分歧达成相互理解与成长,而不是单纯争论或对抗。在视频中,制片人鼓励人们主动运用这种生产性分歧的技能,将分歧视为实践机会,并给出了几个亲身参与不同群体讨论的例子。

💡元技能

元技能是指可以帮助人们更好地掌握和运用其他技能的基础能力。视频中,制片人将生产性分歧视为一种元技能,因为它能帮助我们更好地与他人沟通、理解不同观点,从而提高其他领域的表达和学习能力。他将其比作读写、语言等为人类进步做出巨大贡献的技能。

💡心理技术

心理技术指的是能够改变或提升我们思维方式、解决问题能力的工具或方法。视频中,制片人认为生产性分歧就是一种心理技术,能够帮助我们进入不同视角、吸收新观点,从而变得更有智慧、更亲密。他鼓励人们主动去实践这种技术。

💡部落主义

部落主义描述了当今社会存在的意识形态分裂,人们分属不同的群体或部落,彼此观点存在巨大鸿沟。视频中提到,我们需要能够在不同部落之间进行调停的人,去理解每个群体的观点,建立沟通桥梁。这种调停者应该具有特权背景,愿意付出努力去体会不同群体的处境。

💡承认差异

承认差异指的是承认不同观点、背景、价值观之间确实存在分歧,而不是企图达成完全一致。视频中,制片人提到我们关于很多问题的争论实际上源于价值观分歧,而不只是证据问题。所以首先要承认我们有不同的价值观,然后在此基础上互相理解,再去解决手头的实际问题。

💡身心统一

身心统一是指身体和心理是相互影响、密不可分的。视频引用了"多迴理论"的观点,认为我们在对话时,身体能否进入放松、探索的状态,对于保持开放好奇很关键。制片人认为,培养对自身防御性和好奇心的觉察力,是进行生产性对话的重要技能。

💡反思

反思是指反省自身的想法、行为和认知过程。在视频中,制片人分享了自己经历特朗普大选后对于理解他人的觉醒,意识到需要主动探索不同观点背后的原因。他坦言之前以为自己擅长沟通,但事实并非如此,需要重新思考如何真正进行生产性分歧。这一切都源于对自我的反思。

💡信任缺失

信任缺失指的是当今社会,不同群体之间缺乏基本的互信,这是造成无法展开有效沟通和理解的关键原因之一。视频提到,由于各自信任的权威渠道不同,大家很难在事实问题上达成共识。所以我们需要建立新的技能和方式,重建彼此之间的信任基础。

💡理解动机

理解动机是指去探索他人观点背后的内在动力和价值观,而不只停留在表面的争论层面。视频中提到,当我们感到焦虑时,实际上是因为对方的言行触及了自身的某些重要价值观。所以我们应该先把注意力放在理解对方的动机上,而不是直接叫嚷对错。

💡同理心

同理心是指设身处地为他人着想,去感同身受地理解对方的处境和想法。同理心是打破部落主义、缓解分歧的重要素质。视频中,制片人分享了他主动加入不同社交媒体群组、努力了解不同阵营观点的经历,并将之视为培养同理心和沟通能力的实践机会。

Highlights

Productive disagreement is a meta-skill, a psycho-technology that can make all our other skills better and help us acquire new skills more rapidly.

The Trump election was an awakening moment that made the author realize he failed to relate to and understand his friends with differing political views, despite priding himself as someone who could disagree civilly.

Hidden disagreements are worse than surfaced ones, as 85% of people know something is wrong in their job or relationship but are afraid to talk about it.

The author advocates running towards disagreement and finding people with different perspectives to have conversations with, joining groups like flat earth, pro-life, and libertarian forums.

The author's views have become more nuanced rather than drastically changed, gaining appreciation for perspectives he previously dismissed, like believing in ghosts.

To improve at productive disagreement, the author intentionally invited more conversations, created online communities, and analyzed recordings of disagreements.

The book aims for people to see disagreement as a practice, like meditation or going to the gym, to physically experience productive disagreement.

The tech industry is complicit in creating societal divides by not considering potential negative side effects when connecting the world.

Recognizing anxiety sparks can point to the common values driving disagreements and serve as a platform for more productive conversation.

Developing curiosity and noticing physiological shifts, as described in polyvagal theory, can help rewire defensive states during disagreements.

Political beliefs are often rooted in fundamental moral values and temperaments rather than just facts and evidence.

The letter platform allows long-form conversations across disagreements, like discussing gun policy proposals over 14,000 words.

Sharing a meal can create a calming environment and tap into cultural roots that foster viewing the other person as friends or family.

People from more privileged positions could serve as mediators between different tribes to understand multiple perspectives.

The author advocates open and nuanced engagement with works like 'White Fragility' before dismissing them as unproductive or wrong.

Transcripts

[Music]

Buster it's really great to speak to you

we've made kind of impossible

conversations and difficult

conversations a real topic on the

channel recently we had a film with film

called impossible conversations and also

a series on the science and psychology

of polarization and you've just brought

out a new book called why are we yelling

and it's really good I've read it it's

really good really interesting lots of

interesting tips frameworks concepts for

understanding disagreement and I guess

the first question should be why are we

yelling that's a great question to start

with let me thank you for inviting me

this show I'm so glad to be here why are

we yelling it's because we're we feel

stuck we feel frustrated about being

stuck we feel like everything we've

tried has failed

and we feel like we put out our good

will and we've tried to do the right

thing multiple times and I've been

stomped on like all of these things have

made us resentful about trying to reach

out again and have productive

disagreements so you know what can we do

if we feel like we have no other option

you know we can yell into our pillows we

can yell into Twitter we can do whatever

we could do all that kind of stuff and

that's why we're yelling right now

I really enjoyed some of the

distinctions that you draw in the book

between different kinds of disagreements

and different strategies and want to

tease those out but I want to start with

one that you talked about productive

disagreement as being a meta skill and

we never miss a a chance to go meta on

this channel so what do you mean by that

and what is productive disagreement as a

meta skill yes so a better skill is a

skill that makes all of your other

skills better or more likely to progress

and grow faster and you know you can

also think of as psycho technology you

can think of it as a superpower it's

really you know similar to you know

learning how to read learning how to

talk you're learning a new language all

of these things once you learn them you

can now acquire new skills much more

rapidly and we know what can make us

even acquire skills even faster

obviously working through our

disagreements working through our

problems and seeing what's on the other

side of a lot of these

duck conversations like we desperately

need some of that the word and the

concept of psycho technology seems to be

like it seems incredibly useful John Bob

a key I think is kind of given it to us

as a concept and it's like language as a

psycho technology many of our habits of

thought are psycho technology their ways

of dealing with problems and what are

the key psycho technologies that you

think we need for difficult

conversations or productive disagreement

as you called it yeah I think the art of

productive disagreement is a technology

a psycho technology in this sense right

this disagreement is when two worldviews

or perspectives are differ and it's

unacceptable

so the psycho technology I would like to

advance is the one where we can move

into that space of differences different

worldviews and come out of it smarter

more connected you know having enjoyed

the time if we can such that you know

the problems that we have

don't you know I often say that we're

stuck arguing at the gate of many of

these problems we're talking about

whether or not the problem exists not

how to solve it and we have to get

through that gate which productive

disagreement can help us do so that we

can solve the problems and can you talk

about your personal background with this

because you do describe in the book how

the Trump election was a real kind of

awakening moment as it was for a lot of

people certainly on the more liberal

side of the spectrum so can you talk

about that that kind of it was that

connected with the origin of the book

100% yeah that was I've always prided

myself on being a civil disagree or you

know someone that can talk to people I

disagree with without resorting to anger

it turns out though that that's not

enough right I have these group of

friends and we discussed the election

politics situation happening all the way

up through illiac election and after it

happened I was unable to talk to them

anymore and so I felt like I had failed

to relate to them to understand them to

actually have a conversation and I ended

up just being feeling lost and you know

if if we feel lost in our closest

relationships because we can't connect

with them and can't talk about our

disagreements like what are the chances

that I'll ever be able to do

with you know a co-worker or a family

member or someone that I work with or

you know someone I run into on the

street so it was an eye-opening moment

for me to realize that I was I thought I

was good at this it turns out I wasn't

and I had a lot of work to do to figure

it out and I like in the in the book

that you talk about running towards

disagreement or using disagreement

productively where are you

how would you recommend people do that

and where are you doing that at the

moment in your life yeah it's so I mean

this is this is the most surprising

thing to me is that I now my eyes light

up when someone is like I disagree with

you but that's gonna be fun you know and

that could seem facetious I guess if you

know you don't know me but it's true and

I think that we do need to find that

right level of disagreement to help us

grow like we have to develop each

other's skill in this but once you do

you know things that I've done I know

I'm in several Facebook groups for

example where I'm the only liberal

person the only progressive person and

my goal is to really just see the world

from somebody else's perspective get

into a build some relationships and then

have these conversations you know I'm in

a couple of those I'm in like a you know

I'm in a flat earth group you know

that's really interesting and fun I'm

gonna in a pro-life group that was

really interesting a fun and maybe not

fun but you know interesting I mean some

libertarian groups I'm in you know some

that are about you know the culture wars

and you know I'm oftentimes the token

you know progressive in the group and

I'd love that and there's so many places

once you start looking on discord on

letter on medium on you know forums on

Eve on Twitter you can find people to

have these conversations with as soon as

you see it as the art you know and not

the the tool for ranting right you have

to just shift your your goal in terms of

right why you're there and what you're

looking for and how is that vein how is

your experience being doing doing these

explorations

at first it was rocky honestly no it's

you know that when you're when I was

first stumbling into this idea and you

know opening up every disagreement you

know I could find I you know you step in

poop every once in a while and you know

I had to do some

sort of backing up in terms of you know

what I went too far this was out of my

skill zone I've lost you know some some

of my friendships are probably no harmed

by this so it's it can definitely go

both ways that's why I definitely

advocate developing the skill and steps

but yeah I think it has changed a lot of

things and once you start seeing this

Agreement as an opportunity you know my

job you change you know I'm going to

counseling for my marriage like we're

considering different career choices

different you know moving to another

different piece of the world all these

things that we were avoiding become

places to you know explore and hopefully

find something better out of it and have

you a views change through any of these

interactions I think so

I think they've become more nebulous in

a lot of ways you know in this sense of

like you know simplistic opinions became

more complicated

I have also in some cases like there's a

chapter about ghosts where I think my

belief about ghosts has radically

shifted and I'm now like really into the

idea of ghosts you know it's not just

necessarily truth or like do they exist

or not but I appreciate the idea of

ghosts more than I did before gun

control immigration whether or not it's

okay not to vote these are all issues

that my perspective is shifted on over

time and I I you know some of them have

been 90-degree turns some of them

hundred degree turn some of them just

three degree turns but always now I

could see why somebody would have the

other perspective and what have you done

since then to to make yourself better at

that yeah I mean I really just had to

face it head-on with a beginner's mind

in the sense of not feeling like I knew

how to do it which meant inviting a lot

of people to have conversations with me

and I opened up a lot of different I

called a lot of my friends and said like

okay you know how we always argue about

this let's have that argument and I'm

gonna record it and I'm gonna like

reanalyze it afterwards and invited

people into my home I created Facebook

groups I created a discourse community

all focused on different angles into

this and some of them work some of them

didn't work and it was through that

process that you know I I've discovered

a lot of people that I've thought about

this a lot and I

helped translate that into practical

tips that can be used in everyday

conversations because we have a lot of

tips that can be used in a courtroom or

in a sales you know pitch but we don't

have the ones that work at the dinner

table and online and you know in on the

street and what do you hope the book

will achieve I hope people will look at

a disagreement as a practice you know in

the same way that meditation or going to

the gym is and find their skill level

and start practicing because before

until we can physically feel what it's

like to have a productive disagreement

and physically feel both our own

stretching and sort of seeing something

differently and sort of seeing how it

brings you together with other people

we're not going to be able to expect

that of other people and I think that's

one of the you know the crucial elements

that's missing in our debates right now

is we don't expect our politicians and

our leaders to have productive debates

the way that we change our expectation

is by first experiencing ourselves

seeing why it's useful and then hoping

that others also have it and that's the

bottoms up sort of change in the world

that I hope happens and can you talk a

bit about your background why you wrote

the book and where what the origins of

it were yeah so my background is from

the tech world I was an Amazon Twitter

slack hitting a bunch of startups and my

job as a product leader has always been

to facilitate you know diverse

collections of people and get them to

coordinate and produce something on time

and actually achieve the results that

you want and so inadvertently I found

that a lot of these skills could

translate to all kinds of other aspects

of our lives from the relationships to

our work to politics to you know

everything else the friendships and even

at our own self-talk you know can can

benefit from this kind of stuff so that

was the impetus and when I took stock of

you know what I could do to have a

positive impact after the election this

was an area where I thought there was a

big enough gap in knowledge and I was

sort of you know I felt like I was the

right person to be doing this that this

is a better use of my time than almost

anything else I could be doing and also

in the book you mentioned the hidden

disagreements are worse than surfaced

ones which i think is a really important

realization and it reminded me of a

saying my good friend raffia talks about

everything registers in the field and

this is sort of more from a kind of

personal growth perspective that

everything on some level everything

that's going on is registered and is is

aware and playing out in the dynamic

somewhere so from a maybe sort of less

sort of personal growth orientated

perspective how would you frame that

what why do you think that's an

important framework yeah I think that

you know the there is as I was writing

this book I was assuming that we would

just I would be practicing having

unproductive disagreement and making

them productive what actually turned out

to be the case was that people had

already given up with disagreements we

are we are okay with ranting and we're

okay with doing zingers and sort of

making lists I'd feel bad but we're not

actually in dialogue with the people we

disagree with across many different sort

of dimensions and that was the most

surprising thing and I also read um and

willful blindness by Margaret Heffron

and I believe her surname and she found

that like 85% of people in a job

situation or in a relationship situation

know that something is wrong that

they're afraid to talk about and that's

really just putting things below the

surface under the rug and they don't go

away and they're in the field and

they're gonna come back in some way

they're gonna grow they're gonna

accumulate and soon that small problems

again turn into a big problem and be

harder to resolve at that point yeah

just you you said that we weren't having

disagreements people were just sitting

on them do you think that that's some

kind of exhaustion or maybe sort of post

post trump election kind of we've had

enough disagreements and now we're just

sitting on it what what do you make of

that

absolutely yeah I think lot of it is

exhaustion the lack of energy the fact

that we're all feeling really anxious we

don't want to add more to that to that

pile but also I think it's there's

there's a positive spin to it as well

which is historically you know how if we

do resolve disagreements we've used

force you know my might is right to

resolve disagreements and you know the

fact that we're not doing that

is as good except for some extremists

we've always thought that reason was the

way that we're going to resolve our

disagreements but it turns out that only

works when you're both appealing

to the same source of truth and the sort

of state authority and when you're going

across tribes you don't have the same

authority and trust in that authority of

different sources for information and so

that's not working either and so you're

like well this doesn't work that doesn't

work I got nothing I'm gonna stop doing

anything and plus I'm tired and the

question I think it's it's good to admit

that the two things aren't working but

the thing I would you know I would

encourage us to go one step further and

have curiosity about you know what are

the what are we missing like why is this

so hard to resolve what is it about our

culture right now that is or our

relationship right now that's preventing

us from communicating and we got to

build new skills to do that

and I think that opens up a whole new

Vista of possibilities in terms of how

we relate to each other that are worth

exploring do you have any theories about

that why it is now that things are so

much more seem to be so much more

difficult part of it is we don't have

the skills we're in an arena where the

the difficulty of the conversations is

way beyond our skill level and so we're

sort of like being thrown you know

you've never done any public speaking

you're thrown on stage at the Rose Bowl

or something and it's really

intimidating and so you resort to you

know defensive sort of things that will

save your dignity a little bit and

oftentimes getting angry isn't as a way

to do that and being negative as a way

to do that

and so we have to be able to get onto

that stage you know maybe it starts with

a smaller stage and you know not freeze

and not lash out but actually continue

being up there and be like okay well

this is what's happening let's talk

about this I wonder what we can learn

from each other and and then do that

until you're really good at it and then

move to the next arrow sort of

difficulty level and you're you're kind

of in the center of Silicon Valley and

have worked in the tech industry do you

think the tech industry is at least

partially to blame for this absolutely

yeah I mean it's it's we're so complicit

and I had this real awakening when I you

know I've always been an idealist and

growing up and that's part of what

brought me to tech was this possibility

of you know connecting the world and

sort of giving everyone a voice and we

didn't think about the side effects as

much and that is something we definitely

have to reckon with and I feel complicit

in

in you know the various roles I've had

directly and just indirectly by being

you know a participant in that ecosystem

so I think there's a lot of people here

I'm not the only one by far that has

come to this realization that

yeah there's we thought what we thought

was wrong and we have to figure out what

to do now house mmm and you sort of

hinted at it there but you think that

feeling is quite widespread and what

what are the conversations are going on

in in Silicon Valley now around this

yeah I mean a lot of people are leaving

tech I think you know just state you

know I could clean myself you know

writing a book is just so much more

fulfilling to me than continuing to

build these platforms that I feel you

know are potentially making things worse

so a lot of people are leaving a lot of

people are seeking smaller you know less

ambitious goals you know just let's

let's let's step away from the thing

that is potentially a great good and a

great bad at the same time and find

something like you know let's just start

a yoga studio or something and just

finding this you know again like trying

to find the arena that we can actually

feel more confident in and just

generally there's a lot of infighting

you know any of these companies that you

go inside the walls you're gonna find

vastly polarized communities of

employees there that are fighting about

this you can go anywhere and see that

and I don't think that's as visible from

outside the tech world but it's

certainly there and you we saw it with

Google you know obviously in Facebook is

starting to have that I know Twitter has

it and so they're not uniformly bad

necessarily they're they've done some

you know damage to the world but there's

also people in there that care about

maintaining that and fixing it so it's

it's an interesting situation and

everyone has to decide where they want

to be in that ecosystem if they can

handle it or not you also talked about

in the book look how anxiety sparks in

you can you explain what you mean by

that and what what that looks like

yeah so that I think that beginning the

first step we can take is to try to

think about why we get angry why we feel

anxious why we leap into disagreements

you know the whole joke about someone on

the Internet is wrong I have to go you

know tell them why they're wrong

why why have to do that what is and I

know what I found through just the

research and consulting with experts and

sort of reading a lot is and having

conversations is that almost always you

can tie that anxiety back to a value in

a belief that you personally have and I

believe that that's a much better

platform to then reach out and have a

conversation about you know you can say

like hey I feel threatened you know I

feel like maybe you don't respect the

same people that I do or you don't you

know value the you know the humanity and

these people as much as I do is that

true and you can find out like maybe

they had that that was not on their mind

at all maybe they were thinking about

something completely else and that's one

way to identify that because we're

always like you know fightin shared

common ground but how do you do that

well anxiety is the signpost that can

sort of point you to the potential

common ground to address so yeah you

mentioned the word curiosity before and

I think that that sort of come up again

and again is a really important meta

skill to develop we did a series of

films and called the science and

psychology of polarization which could

have been called the science and

psychology of difficult conversations

that used polyvagal theory and a lot of

somatic experiencing work that comes

from trauma work and showing how we're

either in an exploratory frame of mind

were open to new information or

defensive frame of mind and how we flip

between the two and the the key for get

it potentially getting out of that was

if we can become curious about our own

defensive nurse that literally can

rewire our experience we can we can

start changing our own internal state

and that can start changing it's like I

think it's a kind of physiological hack

that if if we were taught this more

widely could really change our

conversations what will you what firstly

what you make of that work were you

aware of like polyvagal theory and those

frameworks before you wrote the book

I've learned about it from your channel

a little bit that's played the extent

that I know it but I there are a lot of

conversations about psychological safety

and curiosity and the especially in the

tech world where you know and there's an

acknowledgement that that is crucial to

having high-performing teams and yet on

the other side you want diverse

city so diversity and sort of having

multiple perspectives to sort of broaden

your your view of a problem is directly

in tension with psychological safety

because that's what makes you

potentially have challenges of

communication misunderstanding and that

can spiral out of control so again it's

like this two sides of the coin you need

to like make it a little bit safer make

it little more diverse and vice versa

you can't be curious unless you feel

safe and you can't force yourself to

feel safe and so that that's what I

think about like it's not just about you

and me talking it's also about what is

the environment that we're in what is

our power dynamic what is the the

expectation about you know bringing

ideas to the table inviting new people

into the room that kind of stuff and all

that kind of stuff can then trigger our

psychology about you know are we safe

can we be curious perhaps you can you

know if you're on the verge there you

can jump into curiosity but it's a fine

line mmm because I mean that we're

talking about diversity and I mean one

of the big things with diversity is is

ideological diversity which is a lot

harder to measure than some of the other

metrics and that maybe is where Silicon

Valley has been criticized in the past

of not having enough ideological or

political diversity yep I did yeah the

past and the present I believe you know

that I think there's definitely it's

hard you know it does because it

challenges your safety and you we're

we're all at this sort of feeling of

feeling threatened all the time already

it's really hard to then extend that and

make it more the case so yeah I think

that there's that's another piece of

serious self-reflection that the tech

world is doing and yet you know it's not

that easy to solve so it's not like we

can just admit it and then fix it it's

more systemic than that yeah I don't

want to put you on the spot as the

representation of the whole tech

industry so that would be really unfair

thing to do yeah what did you make of

the the sort of polyvagal frame did you

find it useful I do and I think that

anyone that you know does meditation or

yoga or things like that and you're you

can sort of sense when you shift and I

think that becoming aware of that is

crucial especially when you are

ding from sort of safe conversation to

disagreement there's always this moment

where something flips and you turn into

your shield and your sword and you're

like ready to fight and that's probably

when the polyvagal you know I forget the

terms but like one flips to the the

threatened state and being able to

notice when that's happening and

potentially shift it back that's

probably the best time to do it rather

than further down the line when you're

feeling even more threatened or more

hurt as a result of the back-and-forth

so yeah I think being aware of that is

really important there's been a few

other books coming out recently around

this same topic like it feels like those

that there's a real well of interest in

it as an area or inquiry and one of them

was to how to have impossible

conversations by Peter Bogosian and

James Lindsay I wonder what you you made

of that I'd say I've read both books and

I'd say that theirs is probably more

conversational techniques tactics and

probably less goes less into the

psychological realm and your book goes a

little bit more into that sort of

psychological area I mean they do talk

about psychological safety but it but

I'd say that focus is more on strategies

yeah yeah yeah that's true and I think

that's that's great we need the

strategies to use in the moment but I

also think we need to respect the fact

that there's a lot more going in like we

can't we can't just unroll the strategy

list and do it right we have to also

consider our emotions consider the sort

of backdrop of the cultural divides that

are happening and that means also being

willing to self reflect and think about

your own place and that and you know I

always considered a blessing and curse

that I'm I I doubt everything that I

think or do all the time and yet that is

sort of what we have to do I think to

step back from you know I'm not just

here to convince people that I'm right

because we actually don't know the

answers to a lot of these questions yeah

I think there's a really big question

here a friend of mine and I think

someone you know as well peter lindbergh

who wrote a really interesting piece

about culture war too

in tow where he talked about the need

for mimetic mediation which i think is a

really great concept the idea that we're

sort of splitting off into mimetic

tribes and that what's required is

mediation between the tribes that for me

feels like a really important concept to

enter the the discourse at the moment

yeah absolutely

and I love that article that was written

in the document and I already even go

further so that we need people that are

tribe less you know in a certain sense

like we have we we acknowledge that

there are people out there that have

more privileged than others and I think

that the people that do have more

privilege that are willing to they want

to put it to good use

could be the tribal of people that go

around and try to hang out with the

tribes that you know most of their sort

of culture has not gotten along with to

understand them to also be a

representative of sanity of the other

side I think it works both ways to you

know but it's it's a huge amount of

effort and so it's not an obligation for

us to do but there is this opportunity

for people to travel between and

hopefully not get exiled from all of

them as a result and I'd love to hear a

little bit I'll ask you a couple of

questions about your particular kind of

political journey because you talked a

bit in the book about the Trump election

and some arguments that were had around

that and we've taught just before we

came on air about that that you feel

that you this is partly related to

writing the book can you tell me a bit

about kind of how your views have maybe

changed or you've tried to kind of get

more of a different perspectives into

your worldview yeah I would put myself I

think I took one of those tribe tests

and I got the you know far left

progressive liberal designation that you

know is is sort of unpopular right now

amongst some people so I think that was

my background and that was that is

continues to be my background I see a

lot of the the good that comes out of

that sort of line of thinking what

changed for me was this realization that

I was completely blind to a lot of

things that were happening a lot of

things people were thinking because I

had my own

you know worldview that I was filtering

everything through and this came through

like just having you know a long

conversation with a couple friends and

realizing that we've known each other

for twenty years and we can't connect

and that was heartbreaking and if I

can't connect with the people I know the

best how am I ever gonna have a

conversation with a stranger or a

co-worker or you know somebody else that

disagrees with me so I had to sort of

sit back and think you know I'm doing

something wrong what am I doing wrong

and you know that means having a lot of

these conversations and being willing to

examine hard things that I tended to

believe by default and and being willing

to not necessarily change my mind but

expand my belief to include other

possibilities as well the conversation

with those two friends was that a

political disagreement or it was

definitely the you know the the

conservative versus liberal argument you

know my friends are religious and have

you know they live in you know texas or

Florida or often or the Middle East and

often give me this perspective like oh

yeah this is how the other side is

seeing what's happening I'm interpreting

it this way and they're interpreting it

completely differently and yeah it was

it was definitely just a political

disagreement at the time but it does go

much deeper than that in terms of you

know values and of like you know what's

more important taking care of everyone

or having freedom and independence and

and so those those are the the big you

know disagreements that we're having as

a culture and I saw it reflected in my

friendships and you must be aware of

Jonathan Heights work I imagine and so

he talks about would you agree with his

framing that many of our political

beliefs are actually temperamental so

that a lot of the time we were arguing

with when we're arguing about political

things we're arguing with different

temperamental types rather than

fact-based or things that can be

reasoned through yeah that was hugely

influential in my book because I it was

the first time I realized that hey

there's several moral spectrum's to

judge something on and we don't talk

about them we talk about good and bad we

don't talk about you know freedom versus

you know

slavery nor harm versus care or disgust

versus cleanliness and all these other

things and yeah that but it's and you

know once you see that and you think

that all my arguments are about evidence

and yet all of this is about values we

are arguing over here about this and

that's why it's not working we have to

first move into the what I call like the

the realm of the heart right Bethel

talked about our values of our what we

care about what we prefer in order to

then connect and then we can move on to

what I call the realm of the hands like

doing something and seeing what works

and seeing how how it unfolds and just

leave the evidence behind because that's

not going to actually you know solve

anyone's question in the moment because

they were actually carrying about

something completely different than you

first we're talking about kind of

dialogue across divisions and I know

that you've been very involved in the

the letter platform which is a kind of

new social media site designed for

long-form conversation across divides

however you have you found that what

kind of conversations are you having

their great ones are so great I mean

it's just the ability to have a

long-form conversation with people you

disagree with you know where else can

you do that I mean you can technically

do it on your blog but you can do it on

podcast and stuff like that but for the

most part we don't have a way to do that

just as people and in using Twitter and

Facebook so I my first conversation on

there was with a fellow named BJ

Campbell who was a gun rights advocate

and had published some really amazing

articles and medium that were thoughtful

too data-driven evidence and we're like

let's talk about this on letter and we

had a fantastic conversation about it

where our goal was to agree on some kind

of policy proposal that we both felt

would have an impact on gun violence gun

death in the long term and after

something like 14 thousand words we got

there which is you know it's a lot of

words but it's also we got somewhere

that we've never gotten before and I

think we have to be willing to be

patient to have those conversations

individually before we can have them as

groups before we can have them as a

country or you know as a world so it's a

great place to start I was straw reading

your book you reference the work of

in D'Angelo and white fragility my

understanding of her work and is that

she talked about white fragility and she

talks about how white fragility you

display white fragility by did

essentially disagreeing with her or

being silent or leaving the room or

bursting into tears

pretty much what I understand pretty

much everything apart from agreeing with

her you demonstrate white fragility

which a lot of people have described as

a casket wrap and so I'm that that would

be an area that would be the one point

in the book where I was thinking I'm not

sure yet that there was sort of a few

red flags came up yeah that's it I mean

it's really interesting to explore

because I've read the book and I didn't

get those impressions at all I've

listened to her talks and workshops and

stuff and I'm a big fan of what she says

that's the step that I would encourage

us to do is like let's let's confirm

whether or not our belief about what

she's claiming is true but you know

let's let's does she claim to speak for

white people does she claim to sort of

have all the answers and tell people why

they're ron and know better than we do

what we're doing wrong I think we can

continue and those facts are about

asking her I guess or reading her book

and I think there is a lot of you know

the same way that like someone like

James d'amour has been you know

demonized by the left and you know Robin

has been demonized by the that group you

know the I don't know what they're

called but yeah so I think there's a

there's the there's a projection of

something and that if that was true I

would not necessarily try to defend it

but there's also the possibility that

we're misrepresenting her and her work

and I think that's definitely the case I

I encourage people to read the book

before thinking that they know what

she's saying

because this is a nuanced thing that is

hard to understand and it's complicated

it's easy to mischaracterize

which is stuff that we should be having

conversations about that kind of stuff

and putting up gates and saying that

they're doing it wrong is kind of

productive yeah and I'd like to - open

it out and maybe

it would be great to see her in dialogue

with someone maybe on the letter

platform or on this channel or or

wherever so maybe let's let's sort of

put some feelers out and see whether

that might be possible with someone who

is critical of her work and those a bit

more about it than I do yeah

I'd be great I would love that so yeah

my last question is there's one very

practical tip that I really liked that

you talked about in the book and that's

to eat together which I thought was a

really like it makes perfect sense if

we're sharing food with someone it's

probably tapping into some very

deep-rooted patterns of safety and

community that and that that sounds like

if you need to have a difficult

conversation maybe do it over dinner is

that is that something that that you

would advise absolutely it might seem

trite but you know I think we there's

several reasons where I think this is

good number one food you know is a

calming sort of satiating chemical that

can sort of prevent our blood pressure

from spiking suddenly and our heart rate

from jumping out and turning us into

sort of in the moving us through the

attack mode to the person has to be in

the room with you you know oftentimes we

think we're arguing with someone or a

group of people that a group of people

or that person isn't in the room so this

is this requires you to go out and

invite them into your house or it right

to doubt with you and they're gonna be

there so that they can surprise you with

a different perspective and three I

think there's just like some kind of

cultural deep-rooted cultural elements

that you tap into when you're breaking

the bread and you're sharing a meal and

all this stuff where you start to see

them emotionally subconsciously as

friends and family and you will ask some

different kinds of questions you look

more likely to behave in a productive

way than the unproductive way so you

know when it comes to solving something

really hard like disagreement it's a

great it's great to lean on these old

technologies that we've invented you

know thousands of years ago to help us

through them

rebel wisdom is a new sense making

platform bringing together the most

rebellious and inspiring thinkers from

around the world if you're enjoying our

content then you can help us make more

by becoming a subscriber which will give

you access to a load of exclusive films

also you can then join our group zoom

calls to discuss the ideas in the films

and you can send us ideas for questions

for upcoming interviews we're also

looking for talented people to help us

out with editing graphics music that

kind of thing and if you're a regular

viewer you'll know we talk a lot about

the value of embodying or actually

living out the ideas that we talk about

so that's why we run regular events in

London check out the links on the

website for more and hope to see you

soon

you