Support for NPR and the following message come from Freshworks, who believes complexity is the enemy of efficiency.
Stop wrestling with bloated, expensive software.
Uncomplicate with fresh service for IT and fresh desk for customer support.
Learn more at freshworks.com.
You're listening to Shortwave from NPR.
Hey, short wafers, Emily Kwong here with producer Rachel Carlson for an episode on disagreement.
Hey, Emily.
Hey.
So it is no surprise that there is a lot of disagreement and division out there in the world right now.
That's the understatement of the century, Rachel.
And a lot of people are gearing up for the holidays, where you might not always see eye to eye with the people you love in your life.
Yeah, this is true for many people.
I know it is feeling tense and data supports this.
Polling data from SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University shows that almost half of the US electorate thinks members of the opposing party are downright evil.
In a 2022 Pew study, growing numbers of Americans said members of the other party are dishonest, immoral and close-minded.
So it's not just in our imaginations.
We really are becoming more divided.
So Emily, I wanted to know what does science have to say about how to manage conflict well, political or otherwise?
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 he's like 92 feet tall.
I asked them how they met.
We met in a singing group, so that was good because we shared an interest that It was not political.
It was very important, actually.
It was also an unusual singing group because it was Renaissance religious music, not for religious purposes, but for singing purposes.
When did we meet?
1977.
Yeah.
You know, they say singing like syncopates your heartbeats.
So maybe that worked out in bringing them together.
It's the Renaissance music.
Absolutely.
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.
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 didn't.
We won't.
Then you also figure out ways that you can talk about other stuff.
This was interesting. so striking to me, Emily.
Like they're really reflective about each other's opinions and about each other as people in general.
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.
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.
He was a wonderful boss.
Wonderful.
But we also were able to join each other's worlds.
And this joining of worlds was proof that these kinds of conversations can happen.
Yeah.
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.
Absolutely.
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?
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?
I'm Rachel Carlson.
And I'm Emily Kwong.
And you're listening to Shortwave, the science podcast from NPR.
This message comes from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
With nearly 2000 clinical trials underway at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the next breakthrough in cancer research is just around the corner.
Like a recent clinical trial where 100 of participants achieved complete remission from rectal cancer.
That outcome is now inspiring new trials that could change the standard of care for other types of cancer.
Give the gift of hope this holiday season at mskorg slash holidaymatch, and your gift will be tripled.
This message comes from NPR sponsor, Zoom.
Work isn't just meetings.
It's calls, chats, docs, emails, calendar invites, events, and more.
And Zoom brings it all together on one platform.
Everything flows together so that you can finally focus on what matters.
With Zoom, ideas happen faster, projects move forward, and your workday finally works for you.
Zoom is more than meetings.
It's a unified platform powering how people get work done.
Learn more at zoom.com slash podcast and Zoom ahead.
Okay Rachel, you have ventured into the world of disagreement, like the neuroscience of disagreement, 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?
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.
And that, of course, just breeds, guess what?
Mistrust.
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.
There's lots of research showing that there's 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.
Who's that?
That's Oriole 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 us, our amygdala starts to respond.
Yeah, our amygdala.
That is like our brain's threat detector.
It's like a smoke alarm.
Exactly.
Activity there increases.
So if we're disagreeing and our amygdala is going off...
What else is happening on our brain?
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.
Right.
You're just like slid under an MRI machine.
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.
Little thingies.
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.
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 caps.
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.
Wow.
Joy told me, these people were not pretending.
They were not like debaters that take, you know, a negative side and a positive side.
No, they're just people out here living their lives.
And she's looking at their brain activity.
What did she find?
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, their brains were more synchronous.
What does that mean?
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 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.
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.
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.
Huh.
Others might have other interpretations.
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.
Okay.
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?
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.
You can always walk away.
Yeah.
I hear often, If I talk to that person, am I subject to violence?
That's clinical psychologist 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.
So that's kind of like step zero.
Decide, do I want to have a conversation with this person?
Yeah.
But if we do decide to engage with that person...
The first step in a potential disagreement is simple.
Focus on your breathing.
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?
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.
Right, like she described it as an intention?
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, 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.
I'm not talking about persuasion, debate.
I'm not even talking about having my mind changed.
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.
This absolutely reminds me of Jeannie and Richard.
They are not trying to change each other's minds.
They're trying to create space for each other to talk about what they feel.
Yeah.
And they're ultimately putting the good of their relationship first.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That's Juliana Tafour, the director of the Bridging Differences program at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science 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.
Yeah, humility seems like an important way forward.
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 going to help us all agree.
Yeah.
And that doesn't seem like the goal.
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.
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 also if you really care for somebody and admire them if they have certain opinions, it slightly changes how you feel about it.
Rachel Carlson, thank you for giving us a toolkit for moving forward in these divisive times.
Of course.
Thanks for having me, Emily.
This episode was reported by Rachel Carlson and it was produced by Hannah Chin.
It was edited by our showrunner, Rebecca Ramirez.
Tyler Jones and Rachel checked the facts.
Special thanks to Kenneth Barish.
He wrote a whole book about some of this stuff, called Bridging Our Political Divide, which is going to come out in the next few weeks.
I'm Emily Kwong.
And I'm Rachel Carlson.
Thanks for listening to Shortwave from NPR.
Take care of yourselves.
This message comes from Capital One.
With the Spark Cash Plus card, you earn unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase for your business.
Find out more at CapitalOne.com slash Spark Cash Plus.
Terms apply.
This is Ira Glass of This American Life.
Do you know our show?
Okay, well, either way, I'm going to tell you about it.
We make stories that hopefully...
We've been living in an age of cruelty for a while.
We are now in an age of corruption.
New York Times columnist David French urges us to create unity through resistance.
In an age of cruelty, kindness is rebellious.
In an age of corruption, virtue is rebellious.
I'm Scott Carter.
Listen to David French on Ye Gods wherever you get your podcasts.
