The Science of Disagreeing Well

Summary

Podcast Summary: "The Science of Disagreeing Well" | Up First from NPR

NPR's Up First delves into the intricacies of managing disagreements in its episode titled "The Science of Disagreeing Well," released on November 24, 2024. Hosted by Aisha Rascoe, this episode explores the psychological and neuroscientific underpinnings of conflict resolution, offering listeners both relatable anecdotes and expert insights to navigate divisive conversations effectively.

---

Introduction: The Prevalence of Disagreement

Aisha Rascoe opens the episode by addressing the widespread discord in the United States, highlighting the contentious atmosphere following the election of Donald Trump as the 47th president. She shares personal experiences of familial disagreements, emphasizing the emotional toll that unresolved conflicts can impose, such as "all out emotional fights and tears" (00:02). Rascoe introduces the central question of the episode: Why is persuading others so challenging, and how can we approach disagreements more constructively?

---

Case Study: Jeannie and Richard's Long-Term Relationship

To illustrate effective disagreement management, Rascoe references an episode from NPR's Science Podcast Short Wave, featuring Jeannie Safer, a liberal psychoanalyst, and her husband, Richard Brookhiser, a conservative Republican and contributor to the National Review (02:32). Married for nearly 45 years, Jeannie and Richard exemplify how couples with stark political differences can maintain a harmonious relationship.

Meeting Through Shared Interests: Jeannie and Richard met in a Renaissance religious music group—a non-political shared interest that fostered their initial connection (03:18). They spent extensive time together, dedicating six hours each week to practice, eventually leading to marriage. This common ground served as a foundation for mutual respect despite their divergent political views.

Establishing Boundaries: Early in their marriage, they recognized that certain topics, such as abortion, were irreconcilably opposed and opted to avoid them altogether (04:08). This acknowledgment helped prevent unnecessary conflicts and maintained harmony within their relationship.

Mutual Respect and Understanding: Jeannie reflects, "It really opens your mind to think that somebody that you disagree with, takes care of you, helps you, is there for you" (04:35). Richard adds humorously, "We met in a singing group, so that was good because we shared an interest that was not political" (03:17). Their enduring relationship underscores the importance of respecting each other's beliefs and focusing on commonalities rather than differences.

---

Neuroscience of Disagreement: Insights from Experts

Rascoe transitions to the scientific exploration of disagreement, featuring insights from Rudy Mendoza Denton, a psychology professor at UC Berkeley, and Joy Hirsch, a neuroscience professor at Yale School of Medicine.

Physiological Responses to Disagreement: When entering a disagreement, our bodies undergo significant physiological changes. Rascoe explains, "Our pupils might dilate, our heart might start racing, and we might start to sweat a little more" (07:42). These reactions trigger the amygdala—the brain's threat detector—heightening feelings of mistrust (08:51).

Brain Synchronization During Agreement: Joy Hirsch's study utilized innovative brain-monitoring technology to observe participants engaged in conversations. During agreements, participants' brain activities were more synchronized, particularly in the visual and social areas, indicating a harmonious exchange of information (09:46). This synchronization suggests that agreement fosters a unified understanding between individuals.

Cognitive Load of Disagreement: In contrast, disagreements lead to disparate brain activities, described metaphorically as a "cacophony" rather than a "harmonious duet" (11:07). Hirsch posits that disagreements are cognitively taxing, requiring more emotional and cognitive resources (12:32). This heightened mental effort underscores why conflicts can be exhausting and challenging to navigate.

---

Strategies for Effective Disagreement Management

Drawing from the scientific insights, Rascoe presents actionable strategies to handle disagreements more constructively:

1. Assessing the Conversation:

   • Before engaging, determine if the conversation is worth having and if the other party is receptive (13:01).
   • Allison Briscoe Smith, a clinical psychologist, advises against engaging with individuals who are violent or dehumanizing (13:08).

2. Focus on Breathing:

   • During a disagreement, grounding oneself by focusing on breath can help regain composure and align with conversation goals (13:18).

3. Set Clear Intentions:

   • Define the purpose of the conversation—aim to learn rather than to win (14:10).
   • Emphasize understanding the other person's perspective to find common ground (14:35).

4. Cultivate Empathy:

   • Engage by asking questions that reveal the other person's experiences and feelings (15:35).
   • Humanize the counterpart by learning about their personal life, which can soften perceptions and reduce bias (15:49).

5. Promote Humility:

   • Acknowledge the limits of one's own knowledge and remain open to learning (17:09).

Juliana Tafour, director of the Bridging Differences Program at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Sciences Center, elaborates, "It's about seeing the person and not the label" (16:12). By focusing on individual stories rather than political or ideological labels, people can foster warmth and reduce the tendency to dehumanize others.

---

Conclusion: Respect and Understanding Over Winning Arguments

The episode concludes by reinforcing the idea that effective disagreement is less about changing minds and more about building mutual respect and understanding. Jeannie and Richard’s enduring marriage exemplifies how maintaining respect for differing beliefs and focusing on shared values can sustain relationships despite deep-seated disagreements.

Jeannie reflects, "When you live with somebody, you learn that some of the things that you thought were wrong, maybe weren't" (17:50), highlighting the transformative power of long-term relationships in bridging differences.

Rascoe encapsulates the toolkit provided by the episode: focusing on breathing, setting intentions, cultivating empathy, and embracing humility can significantly enhance the quality of our disagreements, making them opportunities for connection rather than conflict.

---

Key Quotes

• Aisha Rascoe (00:02): "Sometimes when you get that last word in, that's what ends up tipping just a disagreement into an all out emotional fight and tears are flowing."

• Jeannie Safer (04:35): "It really opens your mind to think that somebody that you disagree with, takes care of you, helps you, is there for you."

• Rudy Mendoza Denton (08:19): "There's lots of research showing that there is this discordant perceptions of trust and how trustworthy people actually are."

• Allison Briscoe Smith (13:15): "I am not inviting people to have a conversation with people that are violent towards you or dehumanizing towards you."

• Juliana Tafour (16:12): "It's about seeing the person and not the label."

---

Final Thoughts

"The Science of Disagreeing Well" offers a compelling blend of personal narratives and scientific research to equip listeners with the tools necessary for healthier, more empathetic conversations. By understanding the biological responses to disagreement and implementing strategies grounded in psychology and neuroscience, individuals can navigate conflicts with greater ease and maintain meaningful connections amidst differing opinions.

Transcript

[Aisha Roscoe]

I'm Aisha Roscoe and this is a Sunday STORY from Up First. Every Sunday we do something special. We go beyond the news of the day to bring you one big story. Now, I don't need to tell you that there is a lot of disagreement in this country at the moment Donald Trump has been elected as the 47th president. A lot of people are elated, a lot of people are upset. And soon a lot of people who disagree will be sitting across from each other at the holiday dinner table. We've dealt with a fair share of disagreements in my own family. I won't go into all, you know, the bloody details, but generally someone will start talking and then I will realize that they're wrong and I start delivering the facts. My brother likes to argue. So whether he really believes it or not, he'll start being contrarian. And, you know, other members of the family, aunts and uncles, they'll jump in and they'll have their opinions and it all be going well. We'll be all loud and stuff and then it'll go too far. And I don't know if anybody else has this. I should stop, you know, arguing the point. But there's a part of me that goes, keep going, keep talking because I'm right. Sometimes when you get that last word in, that's what ends up tipping just a disagreement into an all out emotional fight and tears are flowing and things like that. And that's what you don't want. But one thing I've always felt in all my kind of arguing my points and trying to get the last word is I have never really been able to convince anyone of my rightness. And I do wonder, like, why is it so hard to convince people of things, to persuade people? And is there maybe another way that I should be approaching these conversations, which is why I wanted to share this episode from NPR's Science Podcast short Wave. Turns out they've been asking basically the same thing.

[Rachel Carlson]

I wanted to know what does science have to say about how to manage conflict well, political or otherwise?

[Aisha Roscoe]

That's producer Rachel Carlson in an episode hosted by Emily Kwong. This week, NPR is exploring America's divisions and sharing stories about people who are trying to bridge their divides. So today we're following Rachel on her scientific pursuit of this question.

[Rachel Carlson]

And that's how I ended up talking to two people who've been disagreeing with each other for almost 45 years. Jeannie Safer is a psychoanalyst. She's liberal, and she's married to Richard Brookhiser, a conservative Republican who works for the National Review, and he's adorable, so.

[Jeannie Safer]

And he's, like, 92ft tall.

[Rachel Carlson]

I asked them how they met.

[Richard Brookhiser]

We met in a singing group, so that was good because we shared an interest that was not political.

[Jeannie Safer]

It's very important, actually. It was also an unusual singing group.

[Richard Brookhiser]

Right.

[Jeannie Safer]

Because it was Renaissance religious music. Not for religious purposes, but for singing purposes. When did we meet him?

[Richard Brookhiser]

1977.

[Unknown]

Yeah.

[Emily Kwong]

You know, they say singing, like, syncopates your heartbeats, so maybe that worked out in bringing them together.

[Rachel Carlson]

It's the Renaissance music.

[Emily Kwong]

Absolutely.

[Rachel Carlson]

And they told me they sang with this group for, like, six hours every single week. So they were spending so much time together, they eventually got married. And when they first got married, they talked through and ultimately disagreed on a lot of things they said. There have only been a few times where they voted for the same people. And over time, they've set some boundaries with each other.

[Richard Brookhiser]

The thing we could not talk about, really, was abortion. We both had strong opinions that were opposite, and so we realized we can't talk about this, so we won't.

[Jeannie Safer]

So we didn't.

[Richard Brookhiser]

We won't. Then you also figure out ways that you can talk about other stuff.

[Rachel Carlson]

This was so striking to me, Emily. Like, they're really reflective about each other's opinions and about each other as people in general.

[Jeannie Safer]

It really opens your mind to think that somebody that you disagree with, takes care of you, helps you, is there for you. It was really a revelation to me, actually, how much that means.

[Richard Brookhiser]

Well, and not just me. I mean, you met colleagues of mine that you like, and I met your mentor, who was a communist, but he was a good boss. He treated you very well.

[Jeannie Safer]

He was a wonderful boss.

[Richard Brookhiser]

Wonderful.

[Jeannie Safer]

But we also were able to join.

[Rachel Carlson]

Each other's worlds, and this joining of worlds was proof that these kinds of conversations can happen.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah.

[Rachel Carlson]

Jeannie and Richard have been married for a really long time, and they have so much mutual respect for one another. That's a really key baseline component of these conversations. And it's not a given for everyone you meet.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Absolutely.

[Emily Kwong]

These conversations aren't always possible because there isn't that baseline of respect or even safety. But presuming both, presuming the person you're talking to has those qualities towards you and you towards them, how do you have a conversation?

[Rachel Carlson]

It's not easy, but we're going to try to work through it. So today on the show, the Neuroscience of Disagreement. When we have the opportunity to engage with someone who thinks differently than we do, what's going on in our brains and how can we make the most of those conversations?

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Saatva Saatva luxury mattresses are every bit as elegant as the most expensive brands, but because they're sold online, they're about half the price. Visit S A T V A.com NPR and save up to $600. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Ford Senior Director Becca Anderson shares one way that Ford is serving their EV drivers. The Ford Power Promise is designed to inspire confidence for electric vehicle owners around charging at home on the road, confidence in their Battery with the 8 year 100,000 mile warranty, and that they have access to electric vehicle expertise. To learn how ford is supporting EV drivers, go to FordPowerpromise.com or your local Ford dealer. See Dealer and the Battery Electric Vehicle Warranty Guide for limited warranty details.

[Unknown]

This message comes from our sponsor Grainger. This is the story of the one As a maintenance engineer, he hears things differently. To the untrained ear, everything on his shop floor might sound fine, but he can hear gears grinding or a belt slipping. So he steps in to fix the problem at hand before it gets out of hand. And he knows Granger's got the right product he needs to get the job done, which is music to his ears. Call click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay Rachel, you have ventured into the world of disagreement, like the neuroscience of and retrieved some info to help us have better conversations. Let's start with what happens in our bodies when we disagree. What goes down?

[Rachel Carlson]

Okay Emily, imagine that you and I are about to have a disagreement. So our pupils might dilate, our heart might start racing, and we might start to sweat a little more.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

And that of course just breeds, guess what?

[Richard Brookhiser]

Mistrust.

[Rachel Carlson]

That's Rudy Mendoza Denton. He's a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley. Rudy Co teaches a class from Berkeley's Greater Good Science center on bridging differences. He says we might not even notice these things while they're happening to us, but on top of all of them, we start making these split second decisions about whether or not we trust someone just by looking at their faces. Those decisions, though, aren't always accurate.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

There's lots of research showing that there is this discordant perceptions of trust and how trustworthy people actually are. And so it takes getting to know someone and assessing them again and again through different types of interactions and becoming close with them to understand whether people are indeed trustworthy.

[Rachel Carlson]

Who's that That's Orielle Feldman Hall, a researcher and social neuroscientist at Brown University. And she says when we interact with someone we've decided is untrustworthy or even someone who just belongs to another group than usual, our amygdala starts to respond.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah, our amygdala. That is like our brain's threat detector. It's like a smoke alarm.

[Rachel Carlson]

Exactly. Activity there increases.

[Emily Kwong]

So if we're disagreeing and our amygdala is going off, what else is happening on our brain?

[Rachel Carlson]

I found a study from 2021 looking at exactly that. So I called up the lead researcher, Joy Hirsch, to talk about it. She's a neuroscience professor at Yale School of Medicine. And the beauty of this study is that Joy and her team monitored the brains of multiple people at once while they talked to each other, which is so, so cool because it's pretty new in the neuroscience world. Usually you're just looking at one person's brain at a time.

[Emily Kwong]

Right. You're just, like, slid under an MRI machine.

[Rachel Carlson]

Exactly. And in this case, people wore these things that looked like swim caps on their head, and they have these little thingies all around the caps.

[Emily Kwong]

What are those little thingies?

[Rachel Carlson]

What's that for? It's literally the term that Joy used when we were talking about it. She told me they're technically called optodes. So some of these are like little lasers that emit light into the brain, and then some detect that light. So researchers like Joy can then use these measurements to look at neural activity.

[Emily Kwong]

So in Joy's study, she just had people sitting around having a conversation like one might at family dinner, except her research participants are wearing these swim cap things.

[Rachel Carlson]

Yeah, it's a really interesting family dinner. They surveyed a bunch of people on Yale's campus and the New Haven area on statements that people tend to have strong opinions about, like, for example, marijuana should be legalized or same sex marriage is a civil right. And then they specifically paired people up. So the partners were strangers, they didn't know each other before. And also so that they agreed with their partner on two topics and disagreed on two other topics.

[Unknown]

Joy told me these people were not pretending. They were not like debaters that take, you know, a negative side and a positive side.

[Emily Kwong]

No, there are just people out here living their lives.

[Aisha Roscoe]

Yeah.

[Emily Kwong]

And she's looking at their brain activity. What did she find?

[Rachel Carlson]

During agreement, Joy says they saw activity related to the visual system and also in the social areas of the brain. But, Emily, it wasn't just activity in these places. These areas were Also more synchronous. When people agreed on the topic, okay.

[Emily Kwong]

Their brains were more synchronous. What does that mean?

[Rachel Carlson]

So Joy says that when two people agreed, their brain activity looked pretty similar. So certain areas lit up in similar ways while they talked. And her working hypothesis for what this.

[Unknown]

Means is the sharing of information involves higher levels of communication that people are learning so that there's a consensus of what is being shared, what's going on.

[Rachel Carlson]

Versus when participants disagreed with each other. In those cases, people's brain activity wasn't as synced up. It was kind of like a cacophony instead of a harmonious duet. And as they disagreed, Joy says, it seemed like each brain was engaging a lot more emotional and cognitive resources.

[Unknown]

The amount of territory that the brain has devoted to disagreement was astonishing to me. And this is beyond the data. The observation that so much neural energy is consumed by disagreement and there are so many areas that are coordinated during disagreement, that tells me that this is a very important behavior.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Huh.

[Unknown]

Others might have other interpretations.

[Rachel Carlson]

So Joy is hypothesizing that disagreement might be really taxing on us. Like, you're expending more energy when you disagree with someone than when you agree with them.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay. So clearly, disagreement sets off a waterfall of reactions and behaviors that lights up all these parts of the brain. When that is happening to us, which seems fairly inevitable, how can we approach disagreement better? What does the science say on that?

[Rachel Carlson]

First, kind of like we said before, we decide if we want to have a conversation with someone, and also if that person is going to be receptive.

[Emily Kwong]

You can always walk away.

[Rachel Carlson]

Yeah.

[Allison Briscoe Smith]

I hear often, if I talk to that person, am I subject to violence?

[Rachel Carlson]

That's clinical psychologist Allison Briscoe Smith.

[Allison Briscoe Smith]

I am not inviting people to have a conversation with people that are violent towards you or dehumanizing towards you. That's not a requirement. Like, actually, your humanness is there. We can all kind of discern. And bridging differences actually doesn't require or ask us to do that.

[Rachel Carlson]

So that's kind of like step zero. Decide. Do I want to have a conversation with this person?

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Yeah.

[Rachel Carlson]

But if we do decide to engage with that person, the first step in a potential disagreement is simple. Focus on your breathing.

[Allison Briscoe Smith]

Can you take a breath? Can you slow this down just a little bit so you can kind of come back into yourself, your body? Can you take a breath and then align with the intention?

[Rachel Carlson]

Allison co teaches that bridging differences class with Rudy. I mentioned earlier. She told me that this moment, slowing down breathing can help us move into step two, which is coming back to our goals for the conversation.

[Emily Kwong]

Right. Like, she described it as an intention.

[Rachel Carlson]

Yeah. Why we're having it, what we're looking to get out of it. Because research shows it's not super easy to change someone's mind. And it can be pretty ineffective to spout facts at someone to try to do this. Yeah, but Allison and Rudy both told me we can find more common ground with someone when we try to understand their perspective instead of trying to convince them that they're wrong.

[Allison Briscoe Smith]

I'm not talking about persuasion debate. I'm not even talking about having my mind change. When I talk about bridging differences. I mean about the mere connection with another person and the space around seeing that person as a human.

[Emily Kwong]

This absolutely reminds me of Jeannie and Richard. They are not trying to change each other's minds. They're trying to create space, space for each other to talk about what they feel. And they're ultimately putting the good of their relationship first.

[Rachel Carlson]

And it kind of seems like they have the right idea, at least from a scientific perspective. Research shows that people who engage in dialogues or conversations to learn rather than to win come away from those conversations with a more open perspective.

[Emily Kwong]

Okay, so arguing to learn helps us keep an open mind about the topic at hand. But you mentioned earlier, Rachel, how we're often making judgments about other people, not just their opinions. So how do you navigate those feelings that can kind of obscure your ability to fully listen to someone?

[Rachel Carlson]

Yeah, that's a great question, Emily. And it's our third step, empathy. So that includes asking the person you're talking to questions about themselves, trying to humanize them, to learn more than just their opinion on whatever topic it is that's bringing up these feelings.

[Emily Kwong]

I think this is why things devolve on social media so much, because people are not asking questions of each other. They're just, like, leaving these pronouncements in the comments, you know?

[Rachel Carlson]

Totally. No, I think so, too. I mean, it's a whole other rabbit hole. But it is kind of like how Jeannie and Richard met in their singing group. Like, they got to know each other's hobbies. They learned about their families, their careers. And knowing these details about a person can help us be more open to them.

[Juliana Tafour]

In other words, it's about seeing the person and not the label. So when we learn personal details about others, details about their job and their family, and even what they'd like to have for breakfast, what science showed was that immediately people were able to view them with more Warmth. Just knowing those details made them change their perception and made them see the other person less, not like them.

[Rachel Carlson]

That's Juliana Tafour, the director of the Bridging Differences Program at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Sciences Center. That's where Rudy and Allison teach their class. And these tactics can help us be more charitable towards others. Like by looking at the strongest parts of their arguments instead of the weakest and more humble. Just understanding where we might need more information or circumstances where our own beliefs might be limited.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Yeah.

[Emily Kwong]

Humility seems like an important way forward.

[Rachel Carlson]

Yeah. Like, I know I don't know everything. And even the things that I think I know well, like, there's always more to learn. So it's not really that any one of these things or even all of them together is a magic wand that's suddenly gonna help us all. Agree.

[Emily Kwong]

Yeah. And that doesn't seem like the goal.

[Rachel Carlson]

No. Like, for Jeannie and Richard, they both told me neither of them have really changed any of their opinions in the last 44 years of marriage. But it was clear to me, just by talking to them, they really admire each other. They respect each other's beliefs. And I think what's most important here is they try to understand why they each hold the opinions they do.

[Jeannie Safer]

When you live with somebody for how many thousands of years that we have, you learn that some of the things that you thought were wrong, maybe weren't. And you know, if also, if you really care for somebody and admire them, if they have certain opinions, it slightly changes how you feel about it.

[Emily Kwong]

Rachel Carlson, thank you for giving us a toolkit for moving forward in these divisive times.

[Rachel Carlson]

Of course. Thanks for having me, Emily.

[Aisha Roscoe]

That was Rachel Carlson for Short Wave. This episode was produced by Hannah Chin and Kim Nader Fame Petersa. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and fact checked by Tyler Jones and Rachel Carlson. The audio engineer was Patrick Murray. I'm Aisha Rascoe and this is this is Sunday Story from Up First. We'll be back tomorrow with all the news you need to start your week. Until then, have a great rest of your weekend.

[Rudy Mendoza Denton]

Support for NPR and the following message come from Rosetta Stone. The perfect app to achieve your language learning goals. No matter how busy your schedule gets. It's designed to maximize study time with immersive 10 minute lessons and audio practice for your commute. Plus tailor your learning plan for specific objectives like travel. Get Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership for 50% off and unlimited access to 25 language courses. Learn [e-mail] NPR this message comes from PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company. The average water damage claim costs over $13,000. Don't let a small leak turn into a big expense. Learn prevention [e-mail] water this message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify, the global commerce platform that helps you sell and show up exact you want to customize your online store to your style? Sign up for a $1 per month trial [e-mail] NPR.