Julia Minson: Disagree Better: Hold Your Ground Without Lighting a Match

Summary

Podcast Summary: Self-Conscious with Chrissy Teigen

Episode: Julia Minson: Disagree Better: Hold Your Ground Without Lighting a Match
Host: Chrissy Teigen
Guest: Dr. Julia Minson, Harvard Professor, author of "How to Disagree Better"
Date: March 19, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Chrissy Teigen sits down with Dr. Julia Minson, a Harvard professor whose research and new Audible Original book illuminate the skills required to turn conflict into constructive disagreement. The conversation centers around how to disagree without triggering lasting resentment, how to challenge ideas while preserving relationships, and how to express your true perspectives without resorting to unhelpful argumentation. Listeners are given practical tools and frameworks—culminating in the H.E.A.R. method—to help navigate disagreements in every arena of their lives.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Difference Between Disagreement and Conflict

• Disagreement is simply a difference of perspectives; conflict arises when we judge or devalue someone for their perspective.
• Dr. Minson:

  "We can disagree all day long... Conflict is when we start judging the other person for having the view that they have, judging them negatively." (01:46)

2. The Skills We're Missing in Disagreement

• People often view disagreement as a contest to be won or lost, not as an opportunity to learn.
• Most lack the skills to show genuine interest in others' viewpoints.
• Example of unhelpful "snarky" questions:

  “Why would you think that?” Or “Don’t you want to know the truth?” (03:59)

• Healthier approach: Express authentic curiosity without condescension.

3. The Challenge of Vocalizing Receptiveness

• Good intentions are invisible—what matters is how you behave.
• Minson notes the disconnect:

  “People try to be receptive in their brains and don’t do it with their words. A lot of the time... you are working hard to be empathetic, and they think that you’re just staring at the wall.” (06:42)

4. Why Disagreement Lingers

• Disagreements stick because they're emotionally charged and often replayed in our minds.
• Chrissy shares:

  “I live every hour like that of my life.” (10:02)

5. Naive Realism: The Trap of “Seeing Things As They Are”

• The concept: We all believe our perception is the objective truth, and those who disagree are simply wrong or misguided.
• Minson explains:

  “When two people... are both confident that they see the world as it is, [and] disagree about it, they need to explain the disagreement... I am objective and this other person sees it differently, so what is wrong with them?” (11:10)

• This fuels misunderstandings, polarization, and the sense that our opponents are irrational or immoral.

6. The Perception of Extremism

• People inflate the differences and extremity of those they disagree with, leading to “bubble thinking.”
• Reference:

  “That drives the perceptions of extremism. And so it's sort of this cycle that feeds on itself.” (14:57)

7. Irritation vs. Fear in Disagreement

• People are more irritated than scared when someone resists changing their mind in a disagreement.
• Minson asks audiences:

  “How many of you feel threatened that this other person will change your mind... Nobody's hands go up.” (16:54)

8. What Makes a Disagreement “Successful”

• Not about “winning” but creating pathways for ongoing, constructive conversation.
• Success is measured by whether both parties feel heard and willing to talk again:

  “A conversation is successful if it constructs a path to the next conversation.” (17:33)

9. Adapting Skills Across Relationships

• The underlying skills are transferable between personal, professional, and casual relationships.
• Importance of “receptiveness” for those with less power in work dynamics.

10. Knowing When to Walk Away

• Differentiating between postponing a conversation and ending a relationship.
• Minson advises naming a specific time and place for tough conversations to avoid escalation (20:00–21:13).

11. Handling Hurtful Comments and Defensive Triggers

• Confronting people with “What do you mean by that?” can escalate rather than diffuse.
• Instead: Assume good intent, pause for emotion, and clarify later in private.

12. The Power and Pitfalls of Apologizing

• Research shows no one wants to apologize first, even though apologies break tension (23:23–25:55).

13. The Garden Hose Model of Good Intentions

• Between intent and impact, much gets “lost”—others only see behavior, not internal effort (26:23).

14. Storytelling in Disagreement

• Personal stories, especially vulnerable ones, are more effective at building trust and understanding than facts or data alone.
• Caveat: Stories should invite, not shut down, conversation (31:30–34:26).

15. Dealing with Chronic Contrarians

• Sometimes, letting people “talk themselves out” is effective.
• Naming the challenging dynamic and setting conversation boundaries helps too (36:11–38:03).

16. The Most Important Skill: Listening With Your Words

• Use explicit verbal acknowledgments over just body language or intention.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It’s a win-lose mindset. It would be very different if I said, I am here to learn about your perspective, and you’re here to learn about my perspective, because then there’s no winners or losers.” – Julia Minson (02:55)
• “People try to be receptive in their brains and don’t do it with their words.” – Julia Minson (06:42)
• “Naive realism is hard to get around because it serves us well most of our life—until we encounter disagreement and forget that this feeling of being objective is actually an illusion.” – Julia Minson (12:45)
• “A conversation is successful if it constructs a path to the next conversation.” – Julia Minson (17:33)
• “Show you’re listening with your words. Convince your counterpart that you’re actually listening to them with your words, not with your body language or your brain.” – Julia Minson (38:10)
• “I sometimes joke that we should be listening with our mouth.” – Julia Minson (38:41)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Disagreement vs. Conflict: 01:46–02:48
• Missing Skills and “Snarky” Questions: 02:55–04:18
• Receptiveness and Invisible Effort: 06:42–08:15
• Why Disagreement Lingers: 09:45–10:10
• Naive Realism Explained: 10:18–12:45
• Perceptions of Extremism / More in Common Research: 13:55–14:49
• Irritation, Not Fear: 15:40–16:54
• Constructive Disagreement: 17:33–18:39
• Walking Away and Naming a Time: 19:50–21:13
• Handling Hurtful Offhand Comments: 22:40–23:26
• Apologizing First: 25:55
• The H.E.A.R. Framework: 42:47–46:53

---

Practical Toolkit: The H.E.A.R. Framework (42:47–46:53)

H – Hedge Your Claims:

• Use softer language: “sometimes,” “maybe,” “it seems,” “most people.”

E – Emphasize Agreement:

• Name common ground: “We both want our kids to thrive,” “I agree with some of what you’re saying.”

A – Acknowledge:

• Show you listened: “I hear that you’re concerned about the budget and wanting more staff, but…”

R – Reframe to the Positive:

• Replace negatives with positives: Rather than “I can’t support X,” say “I’d love to find a way we can both support.”

---

Final Takeaways

• The act of disagreement should be reimagined as an opportunity for connection, understanding, and lifelong learning.
• Being a good listener is “showing with your words”—not just what you intend or how you feel.
• Simple frameworks like H.E.A.R., storytelling, and timing difficult conversations can turn even charged debates into relationship-building moments.
• “Listening with your mouth” is a skill that can be learned, practiced, and brought into every important conversation.

---

“A good conversation makes us want to keep talking to each other.”
— Julia Minson (29:12)

---

This summary brings together all essential and actionable insights from the episode, serving as a practical guide for listeners and non-listeners alike.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to Self Conscious with Chrissy Teigen, an Audible original podcast. Join me as we explore the cutting edge of health, wellness, and personal growth with the world's leading experts and thinkers. From inspiring stories to actionable insights, our conversations aim to help you lead a healthier, happier, and more productive life. Most disagreements don't end when the conversation does. They follow us through through the rest of the day, and you wonder why something so ordinary feels so heavy. We are taught how to argue, but we are rarely taught how to disagree. That's the tension we're talking about today. How to say what you actually think, how to listen without disappearing, and how to protect relationships you still have to live inside. My guest is Harvard professor Julia Minson. She's the author of how to Disagree Better. Her research looks at what actually happens in real disagreements at home, at work, in families, and in politics. What she finds is surprising. Most conflict isn't driven by bad intentions. It's driven by missing skills. Today we'll talk about how to disagree without dreading the aftermath. How to challenge ideas while lowering the temperature, and how to hold your ground without losing the long game because most arguments aren't worth the damage. Julia Minson, welcome to Self Conscious. Hi Julia. Welcome to Self Conscious.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Let's jump right in. You say disagreement isn't the problem, it's how we are disagreeing. What are most of us doing wrong without even realizing it?

[B]

One of the things you just brought up, right, is the fact that people don't like conflict and that's reasonable. I don't think any of us should like conflict and I don't think disagreement and conflict are the same thing. So I think that's a really important idea. So we can disagree all day long. We can have interesting conversations about different perspectives we have and different things we've learned and the different way we see things. Conflict is when we start judging the other person for having the view that they have, judging them negatively. You know, if I say like, oh, you disagree with me because you're well informed, that's okay. It's when I say you disagree with me, it means that you don't get it or you don't care or. Or it is sort of against your self interest to take me seriously and you're a bad person for disagreeing with me. That's when we get into conflict. And so I think thinking about how do we stay in disagreement realm and stay out of conflict realm is a really useful question to ask ourselves.

[A]

You talk about this idea of missing skills what skills do people think they have, but they actually do not?

[B]

There's a handful. Right. 1. How do you demonstrate that you're interested in learning about your counterpart's perspective? So one of the things that happens in disagreements is people treat it like a contest. Am I winning the argument or am I losing the argument? And it's a win lose mindset. It would be very different if I said I am here to learn about your perspective and you're here to learn about my perspective because then there's no winners or losers. Right. We can both learn all day long and both gain information, gain insights, but people are very unskilled and demonstrating a willingness to learn. We've done a lot of studies where we say, okay, we're going to pay you extra money if you can convince your counterpart you want to learn their point of view. And what people do is they throw one really snarky question into their argument and then they think they've done it. Yeah, right.

[A]

What is the snarky question? Give me some examples.

[B]

Why would you think that? Or don't you want to know the truth? Or what kind of person would believe. Yeah, right. It's a question, but it certainly doesn't show the other person that you want to learn about their point of view.

[A]

So what's a healthy question to start with?

[B]

It doesn't have to be a question. The question mark is not the important part. The important part is conveying that you want to learn. So it could be something like, I understand this is a hard topic. I would like to know where you're coming from.

[A]

I couldn't say that without sounding condescending. I've tried it before and I didn't mean to be, but it comes off so bad out of me. I gotta practice more.

[B]

Are you saying it in a way that sounds like I am studying you because you're so weird?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[B]

Or are you saying in a way of, I understand this is complicated and we disagree. So I'd like to know how you came to your point of view. Right. I'd like to know what you've read, what you've heard. Why is this important to you? How did you grow up? Anything that gives you more information and then you gotta actually shut up and listen. That's the second hard part.

[A]

Wow. Even you just saying that. I feel it. I can feel it in my bones how tough it would be to say that. I could have the script fully written down and I don't know if I'd be able to do it, but it's a good lesson.

[B]

And doesn't it feel like you're asking this person who you disagree with to teach you something? And so it feels weirdly submissive, like you're not winning the argument anymore?

[A]

No, not. It's really not that. I think I, like, come from a place of curiosity with, like, everything I do. And I genuinely do want to know why they think the way they do or why they believe what they believe. I think I'm most fearful of. I don't want to come off as a bitch or I never want to give somebody the wrong look or say something to my kids where they think they hurt somebody or did something wrong. My greatest fear is hurting them or hurting a friend. And in my mind it's going to challenge them. And they might feel really bad about it, and that would make me sad for them. I have friends of all different personality types, and there are some people you can be completely honest and blunt with, and there are some that, you know, you have to, like, tiptoe around because you know they're gonna leave this conversation and sit up at night thinking about it. And I think I'm that person for a lot of my friends because they know I am gonna lose sleep over this. So I actually never thought about it that way before, but I'm that person. That's why we figured it out. What do you think is the most common mistake people make when they try to be more receptive?

[B]

The most common mistake is people try to be receptive in their brains and don't do it with their words. A lot of the time when we think about these difficult conversations, we plan how we're going to fe. So I am going to try to be more empathetic. I'm going to try to take their perspective. I'm going to try to be more patient. And all of those are feelings. The other person can't read your mind. You are working hard to be empathetic and they think that you're just staring at the wall. It is taking everything you've got to not blow up in their face.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

They're like, why are you staring at me? So that's one piece of it is that the other person can't tell. The other piece is you can't hold yourself to account. So I walk in and I say to myself, on a 1 to 10 scale, I'm going to be at 10 on empathy. But you really don't know what's a 10 or what's an 8 or what's a 7. And so your good Intentions because they sort of can't be measured and can't be audited by anyone. Slip because the other person says something and it makes you crazy. And then you don't want to be empathetic anymore because you're angry. And so you just can't live up to those good intentions. So I think we should be spending a lot more time on how we behave in conversations rather than how we feel or what we think in conversations. Because behavior is something that other people can see, and it's something that we can hold ourselves to account for.

[A]

It really is one of those things that you just learn as life goes on. Like, there's no class for it. I mean, unless you're, like, in therapy and asking these questions of how to do this or what do you think is best for me, there are no, like, real tools out there to help you do this. It's just the way, I guess we grow up and whatever environment we're in. And what's fascinating to me is that there are people good at it and there are people that are bad at it, and then those people that are bad at it are just never going to be able to learn how to do it.

[B]

So this is why I wrote the book, because I've been doing research on this for 20 years. And, you know, the research is in academic journals that, you know, like, 10 people read. So that's not terribly helpful.

[A]

I know. I'm like, those people out there that are getting the lessons on this. What's the point if the people that they're arguing with aren't having the same lessons? You know, it's so. It must be maddening, right? Yeah.

[B]

Yes. Yes, absolutely. And I think there was a big push. I don't know when it started, but I definitely remember, like, when I was a kid in school, socio emotional learning was just sort of like the new thing. Like, oh, we're gonna teach kids to respond to bullying and give each other compliments. I really think this is the next frontier. We need to teach kids to handle conflict more effectively and use real research to teach them.

[A]

I learned teaching them explodes into every other realm of their life. If they have confidence, they'll be better with conflict. If they have empathy, they'll be better with conflict. Why does disagreement stay in our bodies after the conversation is over?

[B]

I mean, I think, you know.

[A]

Oh, yeah, you said earlier, I guess. Yeah. It's just so hurtful.

[B]

Well, right. It's hurtful. And it's like you said, you keep thinking about it. Right. I have an important call On Friday. And I Woke up at 66 today thinking about it, staring at the ceiling, planning this conversation. It's not going to happen for three days.

[A]

I live every hour like that of my life.

[B]

You're not alone. You are not alone.

[A]

In the book, you introduce naive realism. Explain to us what that means, what is happening in our heads.

[B]

Yeah. So it's my favorite theory. And I'm, you know, it's not my theory. It was my PhD advisor's theory. And I'm thrilled to have the privilege of bringing it into popular culture. It's an idea out of philosophy that people believe what they see is what there is. We trust the evidence of our senses. You know, if something seems tiny, we assume it's far away because that's how human eyesight works. And if something seems solid, we think it's okay to step on it. And we don't question those judgments because we would be completely immobilized if every time, you know, I thought, like, huh, is that really hot? Is that really solid? Am I okay walking through that door? We trust the evidence of our senses readily. Problem is, when we apply that same certainty to controversial interpersonal situations. Right? I look at a situation and I'm like, oh, she's mad. And I just assume that it is how I see it. Like she actually is mad. Right. Or I look at a situation, I say, oh, that's really unfair. And I expect other people to agree with me that this thing that I think is unfair is unfair because I don't question my observation. It works most of the time, right? You see your kids crying, you don't need to stop and say, well, are they playing a joke on me or are they really sad? You just assume they're sad and take care of them. But when two people who are both confident that they see the world as it is disagree about it, they need to explain the disagreement. They need to say, I am objective and I'm reasonable and I get it. And this other person sees it differently. So what is wrong with them? And that's where we get into that mindset of, well, probably what's wrong with them is nobody told them how it really is. So I'm going to take this opportunity to explain it to them, and then they're going to be really grateful and really appreciative because I have enlightened them. And of course, that just doesn't work because they have their own reasons and their beliefs and their entire sort of history of their life to lead them to the conclusions that they have already reached. So naive realism is hard to get around because it serves us well most of our life until we encounter disagreement and forget that this feeling of being objective is actually an illusion.

[A]

So is it naive realism when people from completely opposite sides of the spectrum, very far left, very far right, people that disagree politically, are they experiencing that?

[B]

That is exactly right. That is exactly what they're experiencing. And in that context, naive realism is exacerbated by the fact that everything on my side confirms my beliefs. Obviously, I get it, and obviously I'm rational. And here's all my friends and all the newspapers I read and all my social media telling me that I'm right. So when you are telling me that that's not how it is, it's gotta be that you're crazy.

[A]

It makes sense because you would assume that my view, I'm a good person. If they believe the opposite, they must be the opposite of a good person, then it probably spirals into, they're a bad person, their morals are wrong, their values are wrong, and you can't even look at them with any kind of. I guess, like, the nuance is gone. Like, it's just interesting to me that now when we disagree on, like, one life topic, it overshadows everything about that person.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And they just must not be good.

[B]

There's sort of this cycle that happens in politics. There's a lot of research about how if I am whatever political persuasion, right? So let's say I am a liberal, and somebody asks me what percentage of conservatives support the death penalty. What tends to happen is that conservatives are a very, very large group of very diverse people who have all kinds of views about all kinds of things. But a typical liberal will overestimate how much they agree with each other and how extreme their views are. A typical conservative will do the same thing to liberals. Right. So this is research by a think tank called More in Common.

[A]

I love that.

[B]

Yeah, they do really amazing work. And they do these big surveys that show how we misperceive each other.

[A]

Wow. Wait, what's it?

[B]

Moreincommon.org I've never heard of that.

[A]

Oh, that's amazing. That is right up my alley right now. I'm working hard to understand everybody's views, or else I'll just drive myself insane.

[B]

And so then think about it. If you think they're extremists, why would you talk to them? Because you know how that conversation is gonna go. And so you don't talk to them. You stay in your bubble and you talk to your own people about how crazy the other side is. And that drives the perceptions of extremism. And so it's sort of this cycle that feeds on itself.

[A]

Yeah, they think we're just a bunch of blue haired nose ring lesbians. And then we think they're all like gun toting, maga hat wearing. Yeah, I mean, it is extreme. Your research shows that we feel irritated more than scared in disagreements. Why do you think irritation is such a problem?

[B]

So it's back to naive realism thing. If I explain it and you don't change your mind, it's pretty annoying. I've given you charts and graphs and I've given you articles. Why are you not changing your mind? Why are you not being a reasonable person? And, and we sort of then again make a series of assumptions about how. Well, maybe it's because you're not smart enough to understand all the important evidence and data. Or maybe you're a bad person. Right? You are. You know, you have all your hang ups and all your biases and all your prejudices and you just can't look beyond that. And that's different than saying you won't change your mind because you're threatened by my good ideas. And I do this. This is like a fun thing to do. When you have a large room of people. You say, imagine a disagreement. How many of you feel angry, annoyed, and maybe even disgusted with the person on the other side of the disagreement, you know, and a bunch of hands go up. And then you say, imagine this disagreement again. How many of you feel threatened that this other person will change your mind and replace your ideas? Nobody's hands go off.

[A]

No, absolutely not. That's never crossed my mind. Exactly.

[B]

But we think that other people are threatened. She's threatened by this conversation. She always changes the topic.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

How can both be true?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so I think being realistic about what's going on in other people's heads gives us a better chance at having a good conversation with them.

[A]

Two people coming at each other thinking they can change each other's minds when it's not even on their radar to do that. That's so insane.

[B]

It is insanity.

[A]

Oh my go.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

That's put very well, thank you. What does success with a good disagreement look like?

[B]

So, you know, there's all these terms that float around the space of productive conflict. And I was like, okay, well what are we going after? And I really landed on the term constructive disagreement. Because I think that a conversation is successful if it constructs a path to the next conversation. If I want to change your Mind. And you want to change my mind. Only one of us will win. And so maybe the person who won is going to be like, oh, yeah, that was super fun. But the person who lost certainly is not going to feel that way. So what is a conversation that makes both people want to come back and talk some more? And usually it's got nothing to do with changing people's opinions. It has to do with, did you make me feel heard? It's much more about meeting that universal need of making people feel heard rather than imparting some truth on them. So I think of a constructive disagreement as any disagreement that increases our desire to talk to each other.

[A]

Would these skills look different talking to your partner, spouse, or your boss?

[B]

One of the reasons I love this work so much is because I think it's portable. So talking to your kids, talking to your spouse, talking to your boss, talking to the person in your neighborhood. Because the psychology is consistent, if you learn the skills, you can apply them across different spaces. The boss thing is unique because there's a power imbalance. If you're in a friendship or if you're in a romantic relationship, you're equals. You can walk away from the conversation. Are you going to walk away from the relationship? And that's the end of it. But if you and your boss disagree, the boss ultimately gets to make a decision about how things are going to go. Being good at receptiveness and constructive disagreement is more important for people in positions of lower power, because you can't just shove your decision through, how do I talk in a way that makes the other person hear me and makes the conversation go in a productive direction?

[A]

At what point would you say it's good to just disengage and walk away before it gets completely explosive?

[B]

There's a big difference between walking away from a conversation and walking away from a relationship. The vast majority of relationships don't require, I think, anything that dramatic. And people who break up close relationships to preserve peace of mind usually don't end up with a lot of peace of mind because you feel guilty about it and you miss the person and you have to tell everybody else that you don't talk to them anymore. So the question is, like, how do we not get to that point? In many conversations, when it feels uncomfortable, it's perfectly okay to say, I would love to understand how you think about this and I would love to talk to you about it. But not right now, you know, not right here, not at Christmas dinner or like, not at 11 o' clock at night, not in the middle of my workday. What I advise in the book is, name a time and a place to have the conversation. I would love to talk to you about this. Let's get coffee next Saturday. Right? Because then you're mentally prepared and you don't have an audience and you haven't had, like, two drinks, and you can think through the questions you'd like to ask.

[A]

That's terrifying to me. Again, I guess I would probably get to the point where I would be so defensive. So we want to stop before we get defensive.

[B]

Say more about what you mean by defensive.

[A]

Well, I would be like, you think I'm stupid or that I'm a bad parent. That's what you're making me feel like. And I could see how that comes off as challenging and too much. Because in therapy, you're taught to, like, share your feelings all the time. You should not get into that with a disagreement.

[B]

Well, no, you can if you want to, but again, it sort of depends on the time and the place. Right? So imagine you're at dinner with your extended family, and somebody says, I'm really concerned that little Timmy isn't reading yet. Are you gonna do something about that? Right. Like, we've all had those conversations, right? And you might feel like a bad parent, and you're making me look bad in front of the rest of the family, and you're challenging my parenting decisions. And so then the conversation becomes about the relationship. Don't have this conversation in front of the whole family, but follow up and say, you know, mom, you said that thing about Timmy. Do you think we should be concerned? Do you know other kids that weren't reading at this age? When did I start reading, Mom? What made you bring it up? Chances are that person is not trying to shame you. They're truly concerned about Timmy. And it came out the wrong way at the wrong time.

[A]

I was actually at one point told that when people say out of pocket shit, basically you're supposed to confront them with it and say, what do you mean by that? And then they kind of have to say it again, and it makes them realize the impact that it had. Do you think that's a good idea?

[B]

That seems to me like a escalation technique. Right. Because now they are embarrassed and they have to defend what they just said and double down on it. Yeah, I think it goes into, like, the assumptions you have about this person. Is the goal to make them feel stupid or is the assumption that they mean well and they're trying to say something? And maybe there's Some value in there somewhere. So let's find it.

[A]

Is there a way to rein it back in?

[B]

Breaks help. Yeah, people's emotions. You know, we were talking about feeling disagreement in your body. Emotions run their course. You can't stay all like adrenaline dubbed forever. So if you feel that feeling, you know, you feel yourself getting red in the face, you feel your heart racing. There are many elegant ways to say, you know what? I'd like to think about some of the things you said. I need some time to consider all of this. Let's talk tomorrow. Start with a calmer place. Showing that you want to learn is a really amazing way to offer an olive branch without outright apologizing. In the past, you've said this. Now you're saying this other thing. So I am just confused about how all of those things go together. Can you help me understand? So I haven't said, I'm sorry, you're right, I'm wrong. But I've brought it back to a place of we are in this mutual project of trying to understand each other. One thing that I think on one hand is totally obvious, but on the other hand, we never think about it, is that people talk because they want us to hear them. The only reason people say things is because they want to be heard. And so quite often, when you restate what the person said and demonstrate that you have actually understood them and heard them, they're going to stop saying it because the job is done. So sometimes you can go back to a difficult conversation and say, I understand that you are really angry with me right now. I can explain to you why I did what I did, but I just want you to know that I understand you are really angry. And that's again, one of those therapy things. But it's a really valuable thing that we find a lot of support for in our research because you've given an olive branch by saying, I heard you. And then there's actual apologies. There's a researcher at the University of Chicago, Shereen Chaudhry, who studies apologies. And one of the things that I find interesting from her research is that nobody wants to be the first apologizer. Everybody thinks apologizing is a good idea. They just don't want to go first. And so then the problem is if nobody wants to go first, then nobody will ever do it. So you kind of have to bite the bullet and say, somebody's gotta go first.

[A]

And then it finally breaks that wall. I've had that happen so many times in my life.

[B]

Right, right. Because the second person is Perfectly happy to apologize. Right? That's easy. Yeah. So if you do the hard job, the other person will apologize.

[A]

Yeah. The release after that happens, then the relief, all of it. Ugh. One thing that surprised me is that you say, good intentions don't matter. Why can't people feel our good intentions?

[B]

There's a bunch of steps between having good intentions and having an effect on the other person. I have this idea in my mind of, like, a leaky. Like a leaky garden hose. You know, they're like, there's a garden hose and your dog has chewed it. And so there's stuff, like, leaking out at every step. So the amount of water that gets to the end is a very different amount of water than, you know, what's being pushed out of the house in the first place. I come into a conversation, and I have really good intentions. I'm going to be really kind, and I'm going to be really patient. And then the other person says something, right? And they're like, julia, what is this $20Amazon charge again? This is a repeated, repeated conversation in my household. I'm telling myself to be patient, but I'm feeling less patient than how patient I intended to be. And so now I already have, like, a little less than what the good intentions were to start with. And then I have to express those intentions. How am I going to express my patience? I am not going to interrupt my husband, who is going through the bills and asking me about all these, you know, charges and what is this and what is that? And so I am counting to a million in my head, and he can't tell what I'm doing in my head. Right. So he's interpreting it through some lens. And the lens is probably like, well, the last time we were talking about the bill, she flew off the handle, so she's probably about to do it again. Because he can't read my mind. He has to interpret based on his own knowledge and his own expectations. And so now we've gotten far from, like, me having good intentions to him, bracing for the fallout because he can't read my mind. And in the past, I haven't handled conversations about expenses very well.

[A]

Wait, that's really good. Because I react in such a different way now after being with my husband for so long that it keeps him on his toes. I will say he never knows if I'm going to be psychotic or totally. Like, that's all good. So how can you tell if a disagreement went well, even if nobody changed their mind?

[B]

Economists have this term revealed preferences Meaning you show with your behavior what you like. Right. Like I can answer some questionnaire and give something five out of five stars, but, you know, if I like it, if I went back and bought some more. And so I think that's the same thing with conversations. If I had a good time with you, I am going to reach out to you and talk to you again. I'm going to bring up the topic again. I'm going to refer back to this conversation in the future.

[A]

Yeah. If you can joke about it for me, that's healing. That's how I know it went well.

[B]

Yes. And you know, when it didn't go well, I mean, there's the obvious signs when it didn't go well, when people sort of walk out and slam the door and yell at you. But even if they walk out quietly and civilly and just disappear from your orbit or never talk about that thing, that's not great. A good conversation makes us want to keep talking to each other.

[A]

I like to hug it out, too. I'm at the point where I'm like, that little hug will solve everything, at least for a little bit. You show that saying you want to understand someone can change the whole tone of a conversation. What does that actually sound like in real life?

[B]

We have spent a lot of time trying to figure out, how can people show with words that they want to understand the other person? Folks struggle because sometimes they just don't want to understand the other person. They want to talk over them. And when we tell them, like, hey, you know, write a message to this other person who is of the other political party or who disagrees with you about this thing that expresses that you're really willing to learn. Either they sort of don't do anything or they completely abandon their perspective. So it becomes like, oh, help me understand. And I'm so curious. And I'd like to learn which feels great to the other person, but it's very hard to execute in your own normal life because you want to say the thing you want to say. So what we recommend is kind of a sandwich. Start out by saying, I get that we disagree about this, and I'd really like to understand your point of view. Here's how I think about it. And then you explain your perspective. And then you say, that's what I think. Tell me what you think. I started with expressing my desire to understand. Then I explained where I'm coming from. And then I finished with, I really would like to understand. And so there is two different statements to make sure that the other Person doesn't miss it. And there's a place in the middle for me to say what I really believe. So I'm not just sacrificing my opinion. I'm not playing their therapist. I actually get to be a person and explain my beliefs, but also at the same time, signal that I'm interested in theirs.

[A]

A sandwich. Give our listeners a good tool when it comes to dealing with disagreements.

[B]

Another great tool that I love is using storytelling. What we're taught in school is to use data and evidence. So every time you're in a disagreement, you're like, oh, well, let's Google it. Let me tell you that I'm right.

[A]

Oh, yes.

[B]

That's my whole day. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah, huh?

[B]

And you can win the argument. But again, the goal is not to win the argument. The goal is to improve the relationship. The goal is to talk to each other again. And quite often, the disagreement isn't sort of like about the facts of the thing. Right. The disagreement is about why it really matters to you. Why are you offended by this idea or why are you passionate about this? Cause telling a story from your own life about why this matters to you is just a really powerful way to make people take you seriously and at the same time, make them understand this is real for you. There's caveats to this. So there's a lot of people who talk about storytelling. We've studied it, and there are some versions that work and some that don't. To work, a story needs to be vulnerable. If I say I support immigration because as a first generation immigrant, I received a lot of support from the United States and contributed to this country, and so I want people like me to have a chance, it's a vulnerable story. Right. It's talking about my own experience. If I say I support immigration because my small business relies on immigrant workers and I want to keep making money, that's no longer a vulnerable story because I run a successful business and I want people to work for me. And it's. It's a logical argument, but it's not a vulnerable one. So if you want to use storytelling to build trust, it needs to show some vulnerability. The thing that gets tricky is that sometimes people use their own story to shut down the conversation. As a woman, I've been through these experiences, and let me tell you, you can't, you know.

[A]

Yeah, you don't get to have an opinion.

[B]

Yeah, you don't get to have an opinion. Right. So maybe you won the argument. Right. Maybe you made the other person feel stupid, but they're not going to want to talk to you about it again. You've lost the opportunity you could have had to influence them because they're done talking to you. So you could imagine saying, I feel very strongly about this as a woman because here is something that happened to me. But I am curious about how you came to your views because you've had different life experiences. So tell me about yours.

[A]

I know. Then what do you do if they're like, well, I had a bad experience with an immigrant when I was younger and like, you know, it's like tennis, just back and forth. Like their experience, your experience, their experience, your experience. What do you do then?

[B]

You listen to their experience and you understand why it matters to them. You understand why they're upset about, you know, this thing that happened and why is it meaningful. And chances are it's not because they're like a horrible human being that hates, you know, immigrants. Something happened that matters to them in some way that they can hopefully explain.

[A]

In the very few times it ever felt like it was getting out of hand with me in a disagreement with somebody, I like to disarm them a little bit by saying, I had that view, too. I felt that way in the beginning, but the more I learned and then kind of spiral into it, they don't feel stupid because you believed the same thing at one point. And for me, that's always worked. So do you think that's a good way to approach things or is it a lie?

[B]

Well, it helps if it's true. Yeah. Right. You know, and often, if it's. If it's a topic that you care about, chances are you've read or heard both sides of it. And so you could say, I heard this podcast or I read this article supporting what you're talking about, or if

[A]

I listen to this, I would think the same way, too.

[B]

Right. It sounded really compelling to me at the time. And then I read some more about it, and here's where I am now. Right. So it's actually giving people a leg to stand on.

[A]

I feel like that might be my favorite way. It just feels like it neutralizes a lot and softens everything. I have somebody in my life that is a contrarian. How do you deal with conflict when it seems to be their personality trait?

[B]

There's a few things you can do. I mean, one thing that I think most people don't get, it's how long it takes to get a person, like, all talked out.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right. So, like, if you've ever watched mediators or diplomats work, they Will just sit there for hours, like, letting this other person, like, rant and rail, right? And they have endless patience because by the time the person is all done ranting, then they're actually ready to listen, right? And so, like, this is back to our good intentions thing, right? Like, most of the time, when people have good intentions in a conversation, it lasts for 30 seconds, maybe two minutes. Only people who do this professionally have the amount of patience to let a person who is argumentative get through their whole rant. So if it's a really important relationship and a really important topic, then you might want to invest that kind of time and that kind of effort. I have a friend who's incredibly argumentative, and he's another Ivy League professor, right? So he talks fast and he is smart. And at one point I said, I was like, this is not enjoyable for me because every single thing I say, you argue with me. And he was like, but that's how I understand things. That's how I learn. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be sort of disrespectful. It's just arguing about ideas and kind of like butting them up against each other.

[A]

He's like, this is my love language.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And, you know, and that made it better for me. And I was like, okay. Oh, this is not disrespect. This is his way of processing information. Sometimes you can name the behavior that's annoying you and try to understand where it's coming from. And sometimes you can set boundaries and say, I would like to hear your perspective, but let me finish my sentence.

[A]

If somebody remembers one thing about how to talk in a disagreement, what do you think it should be?

[B]

It should be, show you're listening with your words. Convince your counterpart that you're actually listening to them with your words, not with your body language or with your brain. Restating what they said, asking thoughtful questions, making claims that are not that strong. Right? Not that dogmatic. So you allow for the possibility that. That they have something to offer. You know, I sometimes joke that we should be listening with our mouth.

[A]

What constitutes bad listening?

[B]

There's so much bad listening in the world. Listening is a funny thing because, like, we all do it all the time, and we all kind of think we get it. And then if you start taking it apart, it's actually very, very hard to define. There's the physical experience of hearing, right? There's sound waves, and they hit your eardrums, and then things happen in your brain, and sound waves get translated into words and concepts. But that doesn't feel like listening. If I talk into a computer, right, it's picking up sound, and now it can transcribe the sound and feed it to, like, ChatGPT. And ChatGPT can answer my questions. So it's interpreting meaning in some way that makes sense. But again, that doesn't feel like human listening. When we talk about listening and conflict, we. We mean feeling understood. We mean I conveyed not just facts to you, but also why it matters. You know, why I care, how much I care. Am I tired? Am I cranky? Am I in a hurry? Like, all of those things came across. You asked me for directions to the grocery store, and in giving you directions to the grocery store, I also told you a whole lot of other information. And so I think for people to feel heard, they need to feel like the listener got all of that. Not just I heard noises and I understood how to get to the grocery store. I heard that Julia is super pissed off at having to explain the directions for the seventh time and that I'm too lazy to use Google. Good listening is showing that you've picked up on all those signals. Like, okay, here's how I get to the grocery store. And also, thank you for explaining it to me. I realized that you're in a hurry to get to work. So it's like, I got the meaning and I got the other stuff around it, and I showed to you that I got it.

[A]

It really is such a learned skill set, though, because even when I read, I have to read every single page three times. And I consider myself a very fast reader. And then I realized, oh, I didn't read that, though. I'm not a fast reader. I'm a fast scanner, maybe. And you can't do that in conversation. You can't go back and have it again. You gotta really train your mind to be that way.

[B]

Life is busy. There's a reason you scan right? So you can't deeply listen to every single person you come across. So how do you give people the experience of being seen and respected but not get into all their personal business every time you see them on the street corner? Recognize situations that demand deep engagement and deploy it there.

[A]

It's funny because being a good listener is so rare that I could think of, like, the people I know and the good listeners I would know immediately. I would be able to say their names immediately that are just like that. Really take it in. Really absorb what you're saying and have great conversational skills. But it is not a skill set that many people have Right. I'm thinking of all my friends right now, and we talk all the time. But if I were to think of a good listener, that's a small handful of people, and I could say it such a special thing to have.

[B]

Think about the things we've learned, the things your kids are learning in school, probably. We're taught a lot to make arguments, right? Like, we're taught to write essays. We're taught to do public speaking. You know, people join debate teams. When was anybody ever given a lesson on listening? Unless you're in therapy, nobody teaches you to be a good listener.

[A]

And now for the toolkit. Each episode, our guests distill their expertise into practical and actionable insights. Today, Julia shares her framework for speaking your mind without escalation.

[B]

All right, so we are going to do the hear framework, which is one of my favorite tools for improving conversations. The idea is that everybody in a conversation, no matter how good of a listener they are, sooner or later wants to say what they came to say. Because, like, it's not your job to be your friend's therapist. You get to have your own opinions. The trick is, how do I show you that I'm still engaging with your perspective even when I am explaining my own point of view? And so we have this acronym here. H E, A, R. Like, I hear you. And every piece of here stands for a particular signal that you want to send in a conversation to show that you are really still listening even as you're talking. The H stands for hedging your claims. So it's things like sometimes, maybe, perhaps some people, right? So normally, we want to sound very certain in everything we're saying, but that doesn't help de escalate conflict. So I might want to say the flu vaccine is safe and effective, but I could say instead, most physicians tend to believe that the flu vaccine is largely safe and effective. So I just shoved, like, three different hedges in there, but I still said the same thing, which is, I'm pro vaccinating kids. The E stands for emphasizing agreement. So imagine we are in some big, important disagreement, and the natural instinct is to just jump into the disagreement and explain to the other person why I'm right and they're wrong. The E is there to remind us to just take a few seconds to find something in common. So it's phrases like I also, or we both want to, or I agree with some of what you're saying. We both want to live in a country where people feel safe and respected.

[A]

We both want the best for our kids. That's why we both want the best

[B]

for our kids, right? You know, and, you know, you want to find something that's obviously true, but, you know, fact of the matter is any two people have things that are true for both of them, and what happens in a conversation is we skip that part, right? We skip emphasizing the agreement and we just jump into the disagreement. The A stands for acknowledgment. Acknowledgement is using your words to show the other person that you really hurt them. I always like to make a distinction between lazy acknowledgement and a little bit more effortful acknowledgement. So lazy acknowledgement is I hear you, but here's why we don't have the budget. I said, I hear you, but did I show you that I heard you? No, I didn't do anything. Acknowledgement should be something like, I hear that you're concerned about the timeline on this project and you think it could be helped by bringing on more staff. But we don't have the budget, so the outcome is the same. But I showed you that I actually heard you. And then the R is reframing to the positive. Get rid as much as you can of the negative words and the contradictory words. So no, can't, won't, don't terrible, hate things like that and replace them with more positively valence words. So wonderful. Terrific. Appreciate. So you could say, I could never condone a policy that disrespects our most vulnerable workers. Instead, I could say, I would love it if we could come up with a policy that shows respect to all of our workers. Same sentiment. I want a different policy, please. But I am not going at it from such a confrontational place. So H E A R the Here Framework.

[A]

Thank you for being here today. I learned a lot. Thank you so much.

[B]

Thank you. This was really fun.

[A]

Julia, I want to thank you for joining me today on Self Conscious. Julia Minson's Disagree Better is available on Audible. Until then, tune in, turn on and feel better. This is Chrissy Teigen and you've been listening to Self Conscious, an Audible original podcast. This has been an Audible original produced by Audible, Q Code and Huntley Productions, hosted by Chrissy Teigen. Written and executive produced by Jimmy Jelinek Executive producers for Q Code Shen Yun Hu and Alexa Gabrielle Ramirez, executive producer for Huntley Productions Chrissy Teigen, executive producers for Audible Andy Beckerman Stacy Creamer Recorded and engineered by Ben Milchev Filmed by Bridger Clements Production coordinator Brian Coulter Edited, mixed and mastered by Ben Milchev, head of creative development at Audible Kate Navin Chief content Officer Rachel Giazza. Copyright 2024 by Audible Originals, LLC. Sound recording Copyright 2025 by Audible Originals LL.