WEBVTT - Let’s Agree to Disagree More

0:00:14.956 --> 0:00:15.396
<v Speaker 1>Pushkin.

0:00:30.836 --> 0:00:35.276
<v Speaker 2>I experience disagreement as a kind of closeness, and that

0:00:35.436 --> 0:00:39.316
<v Speaker 2>means sometimes being in touch with yourself, being in touch

0:00:39.396 --> 0:00:43.276
<v Speaker 2>with others, with the world around you, at such proximity

0:00:43.636 --> 0:00:48.836
<v Speaker 2>that it could hurt. And it's in that that I

0:00:48.876 --> 0:00:53.596
<v Speaker 2>think you allow yourself to live more fully, that you

0:00:53.676 --> 0:00:57.796
<v Speaker 2>allow relationships to develop more richly. And it's that vision

0:00:57.836 --> 0:00:59.076
<v Speaker 2>of life that I'm attracted to.

0:00:59.996 --> 0:01:03.756
<v Speaker 1>Boso is a two time World Debate champion and the

0:01:03.796 --> 0:01:07.596
<v Speaker 1>author of the book Good Arguments, How Debate teaches us

0:01:07.636 --> 0:01:11.556
<v Speaker 1>to listen and be heard in everyday life. Many of

0:01:11.636 --> 0:01:15.036
<v Speaker 1>us try to avoid conflict, but bo makes a strong

0:01:15.116 --> 0:01:19.636
<v Speaker 1>case for how disagreements can actually enrich our lives. The key,

0:01:19.676 --> 0:01:22.916
<v Speaker 1>he says, is to learn how to disagree, and Bo

0:01:23.116 --> 0:01:26.116
<v Speaker 1>says it actually starts with learning how to listen.

0:01:27.076 --> 0:01:30.756
<v Speaker 2>Listening is not just a virtuous thing to do. It

0:01:30.836 --> 0:01:34.516
<v Speaker 2>has a competitive purpose, which is you're never going to

0:01:34.636 --> 0:01:38.996
<v Speaker 2>change someone's mind unless they feel like your arguments connected

0:01:39.036 --> 0:01:43.436
<v Speaker 2>with their concerns. So listening is the collaborative process of

0:01:44.156 --> 0:01:49.276
<v Speaker 2>bringing the other person's ideas into full view, so you

0:01:49.396 --> 0:01:51.556
<v Speaker 2>know what they are, you know what you're working with.

0:01:54.716 --> 0:01:58.836
<v Speaker 1>On today's episode, a World champion debator teaches us how

0:01:58.876 --> 0:02:03.436
<v Speaker 1>to disagree better. I'm maya Shunker and this is a

0:02:03.476 --> 0:02:06.396
<v Speaker 1>slight change of plans. I show about who we are

0:02:06.556 --> 0:02:28.836
<v Speaker 1>and who we become in the face of a big change.

0:02:29.556 --> 0:02:31.996
<v Speaker 1>One reason I was drawn to both story is that

0:02:32.036 --> 0:02:36.316
<v Speaker 1>he actually spent much of his childhood trying to avoid disagreements,

0:02:36.556 --> 0:02:38.596
<v Speaker 1>which is not what I would have expected to hear

0:02:38.796 --> 0:02:40.436
<v Speaker 1>from a world champion debater.

0:02:41.636 --> 0:02:46.316
<v Speaker 2>So I moved from South Korea to Australia when I

0:02:46.436 --> 0:02:51.996
<v Speaker 2>was eight without speaking English, and I quickly learned that

0:02:52.156 --> 0:02:56.996
<v Speaker 2>the hardest part of crossing language lines was adjusting to

0:02:57.676 --> 0:03:02.276
<v Speaker 2>real life conversation, and that the hardest conversations to adjust

0:03:02.316 --> 0:03:07.196
<v Speaker 2>to were disagreements. That was when the rhythms of ordinary

0:03:07.276 --> 0:03:13.316
<v Speaker 2>speech broke down, when passions ran, People's facial expressions stopped

0:03:13.356 --> 0:03:17.476
<v Speaker 2>matching what was coming out of their mouths, and everyone interrupted.

0:03:18.276 --> 0:03:22.636
<v Speaker 2>And so there was that difficulty. But there was also

0:03:23.316 --> 0:03:26.836
<v Speaker 2>the sense that I had, as a newcomer to a place,

0:03:27.116 --> 0:03:33.476
<v Speaker 2>that my belonging there was conditional. It was conditional on

0:03:33.636 --> 0:03:37.956
<v Speaker 2>not raising my voice too loud or rocking the boat,

0:03:39.316 --> 0:03:44.476
<v Speaker 2>and I felt that in disagreement, in revealing myself to

0:03:44.516 --> 0:03:49.196
<v Speaker 2>the other I could unsettle any belonging I'd been able

0:03:49.236 --> 0:03:52.116
<v Speaker 2>to achieve up to that point. And the combination of

0:03:52.156 --> 0:03:56.236
<v Speaker 2>those two things made me resolved to be very agreeable.

0:03:57.036 --> 0:03:59.996
<v Speaker 2>And that's to nod, to smile, and to get along.

0:04:01.156 --> 0:04:03.636
<v Speaker 1>And how did it feel for you, as a young

0:04:03.756 --> 0:04:07.396
<v Speaker 1>child to have to be so agreeable all the time,

0:04:07.636 --> 0:04:08.996
<v Speaker 1>to agree with everyone all the time?

0:04:09.916 --> 0:04:13.156
<v Speaker 2>You know, when you don't give voice to a thought

0:04:13.196 --> 0:04:17.236
<v Speaker 2>that you have, it sometimes dies, which is a terrifying

0:04:17.316 --> 0:04:21.476
<v Speaker 2>thing that when you have a reaction and you question

0:04:21.636 --> 0:04:25.036
<v Speaker 2>it enough or you tuck it away enough that part

0:04:25.076 --> 0:04:29.036
<v Speaker 2>of your personality becomes harder to access, really a kind

0:04:29.076 --> 0:04:33.556
<v Speaker 2>of self denial, a self betrayal. The thing that made

0:04:33.596 --> 0:04:37.516
<v Speaker 2>that okay was that it felt like progress, and it

0:04:37.556 --> 0:04:42.476
<v Speaker 2>was progressed towards assimilation, and it was progressed towards fitting in,

0:04:43.436 --> 0:04:52.396
<v Speaker 2>gaining friends, accumulating sleepovers yea, and people to do snack

0:04:52.556 --> 0:04:57.236
<v Speaker 2>swaps with during lunchtime. And I might have even felt that.

0:04:57.756 --> 0:05:00.356
<v Speaker 2>You know, it's a huge sacrifice for the family to

0:05:00.476 --> 0:05:04.836
<v Speaker 2>move countries, and some of it on account of my education.

0:05:06.156 --> 0:05:10.076
<v Speaker 2>I wonder whether when my parents, perfectly innocent asked things

0:05:10.156 --> 0:05:13.276
<v Speaker 2>like how are things at school, are you making friends?

0:05:14.036 --> 0:05:16.956
<v Speaker 2>That made it feel like an achievement. And so even

0:05:16.996 --> 0:05:20.476
<v Speaker 2>as I was getting further away from myself and losing

0:05:20.556 --> 0:05:24.916
<v Speaker 2>parts of myself, it felt like I was gaining something else,

0:05:25.116 --> 0:05:27.756
<v Speaker 2>and perhaps at that moment that that something else was

0:05:27.796 --> 0:05:32.356
<v Speaker 2>more important than speaking up for myself. And the thing

0:05:32.436 --> 0:05:35.836
<v Speaker 2>that broke me out of that was a promise that

0:05:35.956 --> 0:05:41.156
<v Speaker 2>my fifth grade teacher made me, which was that in debate,

0:05:41.276 --> 0:05:45.316
<v Speaker 2>when one person speaks, no one else does. And that

0:05:45.396 --> 0:05:49.956
<v Speaker 2>promise of time of attention it made me feel as

0:05:50.036 --> 0:05:55.396
<v Speaker 2>though I might be heard, not just in agreement or assent,

0:05:55.636 --> 0:05:59.396
<v Speaker 2>but in disagreement to So that's how I got started.

0:06:00.196 --> 0:06:04.276
<v Speaker 1>Bring me back to that first moment where you found

0:06:04.636 --> 0:06:10.076
<v Speaker 1>yourself articulating opinions and arguing for a point. I mean,

0:06:10.516 --> 0:06:13.196
<v Speaker 1>what did that feel like for you, Because that's another

0:06:13.316 --> 0:06:16.556
<v Speaker 1>form of progress, that's another kind of achievement, and it

0:06:16.596 --> 0:06:19.076
<v Speaker 1>was one that you had buried for so long. But

0:06:19.116 --> 0:06:20.476
<v Speaker 1>I wonder if you can set the scene for me

0:06:20.596 --> 0:06:23.116
<v Speaker 1>when you realized how empowering it was to hear your

0:06:23.196 --> 0:06:23.796
<v Speaker 1>voice heard.

0:06:24.756 --> 0:06:28.476
<v Speaker 2>So the first debate was on the topic that we

0:06:28.516 --> 0:06:32.756
<v Speaker 2>should ban all zoos, and I was the first affirmative speaker.

0:06:33.076 --> 0:06:35.636
<v Speaker 1>And so by affirmative, you mean you have to agree

0:06:35.716 --> 0:06:36.876
<v Speaker 1>with banning all the zoos.

0:06:37.236 --> 0:06:40.076
<v Speaker 2>That's right. Okay, that's right. So you're proposing that we

0:06:40.196 --> 0:06:44.316
<v Speaker 2>do this, and so there's a period of preparation. You

0:06:44.396 --> 0:06:46.796
<v Speaker 2>get about a week, so you're sitting with this topic

0:06:46.876 --> 0:06:51.636
<v Speaker 2>and you have time to look up stories of leopards

0:06:51.676 --> 0:06:55.756
<v Speaker 2>and captivity and developing strong feelings about that, and you

0:06:55.836 --> 0:06:58.796
<v Speaker 2>write out your speech. And all of that was pretty

0:06:58.796 --> 0:07:03.756
<v Speaker 2>familiar because you do essay writing and you do schoolwork,

0:07:05.036 --> 0:07:10.196
<v Speaker 2>and I had almost put off the knowledge that I'm

0:07:10.196 --> 0:07:12.196
<v Speaker 2>going to have to own this in a different way.

0:07:13.356 --> 0:07:17.556
<v Speaker 2>But that day comes and it's the school hall. It's

0:07:17.636 --> 0:07:21.236
<v Speaker 2>old fashioned, almost a kind of a large shed type

0:07:21.636 --> 0:07:26.116
<v Speaker 2>corrugated iron roof. There's rainfalling overhead. It's a kind of

0:07:26.196 --> 0:07:29.996
<v Speaker 2>a dramatic setting in my mind still, and I remember

0:07:30.036 --> 0:07:34.836
<v Speaker 2>going up on stage and looking at this audience of

0:07:34.876 --> 0:07:39.396
<v Speaker 2>about fifty kids seated in these snaking rows on the floor,

0:07:40.756 --> 0:07:44.796
<v Speaker 2>and I remember starting to speak and noticing all of

0:07:44.836 --> 0:07:49.956
<v Speaker 2>these small changes in the audience. So you saw a

0:07:49.996 --> 0:07:53.356
<v Speaker 2>WinCE of recognition in the corner of someone's eye, or

0:07:54.236 --> 0:07:58.436
<v Speaker 2>you saw one person unfold their arms, or another person

0:07:58.476 --> 0:08:00.356
<v Speaker 2>turned to the person next to them and say, are

0:08:00.356 --> 0:08:05.636
<v Speaker 2>you hearing this? And that moment carried the realization. It

0:08:05.716 --> 0:08:09.716
<v Speaker 2>made me think that I could change something about the

0:08:09.756 --> 0:08:15.476
<v Speaker 2>world through the power of speech and language. And it was,

0:08:15.516 --> 0:08:18.596
<v Speaker 2>in some ways the opposite of the achievement I had

0:08:18.876 --> 0:08:22.076
<v Speaker 2>been working towards on the other end, which is how

0:08:22.076 --> 0:08:25.996
<v Speaker 2>do I change myself around the expectation of others? How

0:08:26.036 --> 0:08:31.316
<v Speaker 2>do I change myself to fit in these surfaces that

0:08:31.476 --> 0:08:38.596
<v Speaker 2>felt so fixed in place, And it felt like asking

0:08:38.676 --> 0:08:45.676
<v Speaker 2>the world to see me in my entirety as someone

0:08:45.756 --> 0:08:51.836
<v Speaker 2>with opinions, someone capable of asking, presuming to ask that

0:08:51.916 --> 0:08:55.836
<v Speaker 2>people change their mind for me, and to have some

0:08:56.036 --> 0:08:59.316
<v Speaker 2>reaction to that. Yeah, that was an amazing thing.

0:09:00.556 --> 0:09:03.196
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's so interesting to hear about your childhood

0:09:03.196 --> 0:09:06.636
<v Speaker 1>experience because in many ways I've actually had the opposite

0:09:06.676 --> 0:09:10.476
<v Speaker 1>evolution as you. So as a kid, I relished a

0:09:10.476 --> 0:09:13.316
<v Speaker 1>good debate. I mean, I argued so much that my

0:09:13.436 --> 0:09:16.476
<v Speaker 1>parents would tell me, Maya, you should try and become

0:09:16.516 --> 0:09:18.996
<v Speaker 1>a lawyer and you grow up, because at least then

0:09:19.036 --> 0:09:21.836
<v Speaker 1>you'll make a living off of this incredibly annoying feature

0:09:21.996 --> 0:09:25.356
<v Speaker 1>of your personality. So I'm the youngest of four kids,

0:09:25.396 --> 0:09:28.236
<v Speaker 1>maybe arguing was my way of being heard in this large,

0:09:28.236 --> 0:09:32.876
<v Speaker 1>boisterous family. But interestingly, Bo, what's happened is, over time,

0:09:32.956 --> 0:09:34.876
<v Speaker 1>I feel like I've lost a lot of my will

0:09:34.916 --> 0:09:39.036
<v Speaker 1>to argue, Like I find myself giving up more easily,

0:09:39.156 --> 0:09:44.516
<v Speaker 1>conceding easily because it just feels exhausting. I guess like

0:09:44.596 --> 0:09:47.756
<v Speaker 1>it often at times just feels like maybe it's not

0:09:47.796 --> 0:09:51.116
<v Speaker 1>worth it. And so in this moment, I would love

0:09:51.116 --> 0:09:54.796
<v Speaker 1>for you to convince me, Bo, why is arguing important

0:09:55.036 --> 0:09:58.996
<v Speaker 1>and what are the costs of not arguing? Because I

0:09:58.996 --> 0:10:01.116
<v Speaker 1>need you to light that fire that I had under

0:10:01.156 --> 0:10:04.476
<v Speaker 1>me and childhood, reignite the flames so that I can,

0:10:04.596 --> 0:10:07.316
<v Speaker 1>you know, still bring that same kind of passion to

0:10:07.436 --> 0:10:08.676
<v Speaker 1>day to day discourse.

0:10:09.236 --> 0:10:11.916
<v Speaker 2>You know, I feel that so acutely. I think there

0:10:11.916 --> 0:10:16.356
<v Speaker 2>are so many reasons and different kinds of pressures to

0:10:16.716 --> 0:10:20.596
<v Speaker 2>give up on disagreement. There are personal pressures if you're

0:10:20.596 --> 0:10:23.796
<v Speaker 2>a shy person like I am. There are periods of

0:10:23.876 --> 0:10:26.356
<v Speaker 2>life where you want to be with like minded people

0:10:26.716 --> 0:10:28.716
<v Speaker 2>because you want to make progress and you want to

0:10:28.716 --> 0:10:32.436
<v Speaker 2>work on something together rather than just talk and disagree.

0:10:32.596 --> 0:10:36.316
<v Speaker 2>And then there's of course the political context, where nowadays

0:10:36.356 --> 0:10:40.116
<v Speaker 2>it's very hard to imagine disagreement as anything other than

0:10:40.156 --> 0:10:43.556
<v Speaker 2>a source of pain and division and maybe even an

0:10:43.596 --> 0:10:47.476
<v Speaker 2>existential threat to the fabric that holds our society together.

0:10:48.196 --> 0:10:51.796
<v Speaker 2>And the best argument I can give you for why

0:10:51.876 --> 0:10:55.996
<v Speaker 2>we should give good disagreement a chance is that it's

0:10:56.036 --> 0:11:01.316
<v Speaker 2>the key to a bigger life, one in which we

0:11:01.436 --> 0:11:07.436
<v Speaker 2>don't hold at bay the opinions, the impulses we have

0:11:07.476 --> 0:11:13.836
<v Speaker 2>that are inconvenient, where we don't hold other people at

0:11:14.236 --> 0:11:18.316
<v Speaker 2>enough of a distance that they can't hurt us. I

0:11:18.476 --> 0:11:23.156
<v Speaker 2>experience disagreement as a kind of closeness, and that means

0:11:23.156 --> 0:11:27.676
<v Speaker 2>sometimes being in touch with yourself, being in touch with others,

0:11:27.716 --> 0:11:31.756
<v Speaker 2>with the world around you, at such proximity that it

0:11:31.836 --> 0:11:38.076
<v Speaker 2>could hurt. And it's in that that I think you

0:11:38.196 --> 0:11:43.396
<v Speaker 2>allow yourself to live more fully, that you allow relationships

0:11:43.396 --> 0:11:48.996
<v Speaker 2>to develop more richly. And it's that vision of life

0:11:49.076 --> 0:11:49.916
<v Speaker 2>that I'm attracted to.

0:11:52.076 --> 0:11:54.436
<v Speaker 1>You also give us a handy framework in your book

0:11:55.156 --> 0:11:59.116
<v Speaker 1>for deciding what's even worth arguing over, and I really

0:11:59.156 --> 0:12:02.196
<v Speaker 1>appreciate this because you're saving us a lot of unnecessary

0:12:02.276 --> 0:12:06.156
<v Speaker 1>grief and frustration by at least living the spaces in

0:12:06.196 --> 0:12:10.236
<v Speaker 1>which we disagree. And so do you mind just walking

0:12:10.316 --> 0:12:12.196
<v Speaker 1>us through this checklist.

0:12:12.596 --> 0:12:16.476
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, for sure. And you can believe everything I've said

0:12:16.716 --> 0:12:19.556
<v Speaker 2>up to now a bit too much. And I think

0:12:19.596 --> 0:12:22.556
<v Speaker 2>that's what happened to me, right, So you learn to

0:12:22.676 --> 0:12:27.476
<v Speaker 2>overcome your silence, and you know, people kind of point

0:12:27.516 --> 0:12:30.316
<v Speaker 2>you out as the debater who doesn't know how to stop.

0:12:30.396 --> 0:12:32.676
<v Speaker 2>And so it was born out of necessity for me,

0:12:33.076 --> 0:12:38.876
<v Speaker 2>this realization that it takes cleverness to know how to

0:12:38.996 --> 0:12:43.076
<v Speaker 2>argue any proposition, but it takes wisdom to know which

0:12:43.076 --> 0:12:44.836
<v Speaker 2>ones to argue and which to let go.

0:12:45.876 --> 0:12:49.916
<v Speaker 1>I love that complexity. I mean, these are the moments

0:12:49.956 --> 0:12:51.956
<v Speaker 1>that I relish on a slight change of plans where

0:12:52.316 --> 0:12:57.196
<v Speaker 1>the world champion debator comes on and shares that they

0:12:57.236 --> 0:12:59.676
<v Speaker 1>too have to be cautious because they're actually in one extreme.

0:13:00.076 --> 0:13:01.836
<v Speaker 1>And so there's this dance that we each play in

0:13:01.836 --> 0:13:05.116
<v Speaker 1>our own lives when it comes to disagreement and we

0:13:05.196 --> 0:13:08.236
<v Speaker 1>have to figure out where that happy equilibrium exists.

0:13:08.436 --> 0:13:08.916
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:13:09.156 --> 0:13:12.836
<v Speaker 1>I just love when again, that kind of complexity is captured.

0:13:13.116 --> 0:13:15.516
<v Speaker 2>Complexity is a nice word for it. It's just you know,

0:13:15.596 --> 0:13:19.356
<v Speaker 2>you have to recover totally from these things sometimes.

0:13:19.476 --> 0:13:19.796
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:13:19.996 --> 0:13:23.076
<v Speaker 2>One framework that I came up with is called the

0:13:23.156 --> 0:13:28.396
<v Speaker 2>Rissa framework, and it's a checklist to consult before going

0:13:28.436 --> 0:13:31.876
<v Speaker 2>into an argument, and so the components of risks are

0:13:31.876 --> 0:13:38.836
<v Speaker 2>are real, important, specific, and aligned. So the first question

0:13:38.916 --> 0:13:42.916
<v Speaker 2>you ask is is the disagreement between you and the

0:13:42.956 --> 0:13:47.916
<v Speaker 2>other side real or is it a misunderstanding or an

0:13:47.916 --> 0:13:50.916
<v Speaker 2>imagined slide So you thought they said something when in

0:13:50.956 --> 0:13:55.036
<v Speaker 2>fact they actually said something else, And launching into a

0:13:55.076 --> 0:13:59.396
<v Speaker 2>critique can actually generate its own argument, right when they

0:13:59.476 --> 0:14:03.276
<v Speaker 2>say you're being unreasonable or you're assuming bad intentions. So

0:14:03.476 --> 0:14:06.516
<v Speaker 2>you have to check whether it's a real disagreement, and

0:14:06.556 --> 0:14:10.236
<v Speaker 2>then you ask is it important enough to you to

0:14:10.356 --> 0:14:13.396
<v Speaker 2>have the disagreement? And the way in which this one

0:14:13.476 --> 0:14:16.276
<v Speaker 2>goes wrong, I think is at the end of a

0:14:16.276 --> 0:14:20.596
<v Speaker 2>long day, we're feeling a little cranky, and so we

0:14:20.716 --> 0:14:25.036
<v Speaker 2>latch onto something, and the something becomes like a little

0:14:25.076 --> 0:14:30.196
<v Speaker 2>proxy battle for this emotional welfare that you want to

0:14:30.236 --> 0:14:32.876
<v Speaker 2>engage in at that time, And so there's a question

0:14:32.956 --> 0:14:36.356
<v Speaker 2>about whether the thing you're disagreeing about is really important

0:14:36.476 --> 0:14:38.996
<v Speaker 2>enough to justify that disagreement.

0:14:39.876 --> 0:14:42.916
<v Speaker 1>I feel like the colloquial version of that is looking

0:14:42.956 --> 0:14:45.596
<v Speaker 1>to pick a fight. I want to also say one thing,

0:14:45.596 --> 0:14:48.116
<v Speaker 1>which is I think in deciding whether the topic is important.

0:14:48.156 --> 0:14:51.076
<v Speaker 1>It's important that we don't confuse the importance of the

0:14:51.116 --> 0:14:54.156
<v Speaker 1>topic with the importance of the person to us. So

0:14:54.636 --> 0:14:57.116
<v Speaker 1>you might be talking to a loved one whose opinion

0:14:57.236 --> 0:14:59.836
<v Speaker 1>you really value, that really matters to you, or a

0:14:59.836 --> 0:15:05.796
<v Speaker 1>trusted colleague, but you still might deem the topic unimportant

0:15:05.876 --> 0:15:07.836
<v Speaker 1>enough that it's not worthy of debate.

0:15:08.636 --> 0:15:11.516
<v Speaker 2>I like that. I like that, you know. I think

0:15:11.596 --> 0:15:18.436
<v Speaker 2>disagreeing is one language of communication. It's one way of

0:15:18.596 --> 0:15:22.116
<v Speaker 2>talking about the things that matter in our relationships, and

0:15:23.036 --> 0:15:25.956
<v Speaker 2>it's the one that we sometimes reach for when the

0:15:26.036 --> 0:15:30.916
<v Speaker 2>emotions are running. And in that scenario where you pick

0:15:30.956 --> 0:15:34.916
<v Speaker 2>a fight because the other person's opinion matters to us

0:15:35.076 --> 0:15:39.156
<v Speaker 2>or we're feeling insecure about where our relationship is at,

0:15:39.676 --> 0:15:43.876
<v Speaker 2>the better thing there probably is to admit to those fears,

0:15:43.916 --> 0:15:46.956
<v Speaker 2>for example, just say to them, you know, just hear

0:15:47.036 --> 0:15:51.556
<v Speaker 2>me out here, rather than defaulting to disagreement as the

0:15:51.596 --> 0:15:56.796
<v Speaker 2>way in which we try and have that conversation. So, yeah,

0:15:56.796 --> 0:16:01.316
<v Speaker 2>I think that's a really interesting point and something that

0:16:01.356 --> 0:16:04.076
<v Speaker 2>I see all the time. And it's one reason why

0:16:05.156 --> 0:16:08.996
<v Speaker 2>disagreements with those whom we're closest to tend to go

0:16:10.196 --> 0:16:11.156
<v Speaker 2>the worst.

0:16:11.956 --> 0:16:15.436
<v Speaker 1>Because the receiver confuses the two as well. Exactly, It's like,

0:16:15.636 --> 0:16:17.596
<v Speaker 1>why aren't you willing to have this disagreement with me?

0:16:17.756 --> 0:16:18.796
<v Speaker 1>Do you not care about me?

0:16:18.996 --> 0:16:19.916
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? Absolutely?

0:16:20.036 --> 0:16:22.196
<v Speaker 1>And so like you said, I think it could be

0:16:22.276 --> 0:16:24.396
<v Speaker 1>very helpful in those moments to tell the person, Look,

0:16:24.796 --> 0:16:27.636
<v Speaker 1>I really care about you. I really care about your

0:16:27.636 --> 0:16:31.036
<v Speaker 1>point of view. The reason I'm not engaging with this

0:16:31.116 --> 0:16:34.876
<v Speaker 1>particular disagreement is because I don't think it's important enough.

0:16:34.996 --> 0:16:37.036
<v Speaker 1>But that does not mean that I don't think you're

0:16:37.156 --> 0:16:38.716
<v Speaker 1>important enough. I really do.

0:16:38.916 --> 0:16:41.956
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. I think that's really helpful to name the difference

0:16:41.996 --> 0:16:45.836
<v Speaker 2>between importance of the topic versus importance of the people.

0:16:45.916 --> 0:16:47.676
<v Speaker 2>I don't think I had thought about it so clearly,

0:16:48.076 --> 0:16:49.036
<v Speaker 2>but I think it's helpful.

0:16:49.436 --> 0:16:52.316
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so far we've gone through R and I. So

0:16:52.636 --> 0:16:57.156
<v Speaker 1>is the disagreement real? And is the topic important enough?

0:16:57.516 --> 0:17:01.996
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? And then the third question is is the topic

0:17:02.116 --> 0:17:06.116
<v Speaker 2>is the subject of the disagreement specific enough? And here

0:17:06.316 --> 0:17:09.556
<v Speaker 2>you want to think about how much time you have

0:17:09.796 --> 0:17:13.356
<v Speaker 2>to have the dispute, how much bandwidth you have. So

0:17:13.516 --> 0:17:17.556
<v Speaker 2>if you're dropping off the kids for soccer practice and

0:17:17.636 --> 0:17:20.236
<v Speaker 2>you have five minutes before they have to leave, that's

0:17:20.276 --> 0:17:24.396
<v Speaker 2>not the time to talk about really fundamental disagreements you

0:17:24.476 --> 0:17:28.636
<v Speaker 2>might have about their education, right, and so are you

0:17:28.756 --> 0:17:32.556
<v Speaker 2>going to be able to resolve or to make progress

0:17:32.596 --> 0:17:35.796
<v Speaker 2>within the time and the constraints that you have, And

0:17:35.956 --> 0:17:38.276
<v Speaker 2>a lot of that I think comes to the specificity

0:17:38.276 --> 0:17:41.676
<v Speaker 2>of the question. And then the fourth on the list

0:17:42.036 --> 0:17:46.036
<v Speaker 2>is about the reasons why the parties are engaging in

0:17:46.076 --> 0:17:51.036
<v Speaker 2>the disagreement. And here you want to check that not

0:17:51.076 --> 0:17:54.556
<v Speaker 2>necessarily you and the other person have the same reasons

0:17:54.556 --> 0:17:57.276
<v Speaker 2>for wanting to engage in the disagreement, but that your

0:17:57.356 --> 0:18:01.956
<v Speaker 2>reasons for wanting to engage are okay by one another. Right,

0:18:02.036 --> 0:18:07.236
<v Speaker 2>So imagine another person is just coming in to hurt

0:18:07.276 --> 0:18:12.156
<v Speaker 2>your feelings or to vent or to pick a fight,

0:18:12.196 --> 0:18:15.876
<v Speaker 2>as we've been saying, that's a moment to say, hey,

0:18:15.996 --> 0:18:19.356
<v Speaker 2>I'm not engaging in this disagreement with you. If that's

0:18:19.436 --> 0:18:22.116
<v Speaker 2>the reason why you're coming into it. There may be

0:18:22.196 --> 0:18:25.036
<v Speaker 2>other ways to talk about the issue. It may be

0:18:25.156 --> 0:18:27.076
<v Speaker 2>that I just hear you out if what you have

0:18:27.156 --> 0:18:29.076
<v Speaker 2>to do is vent, but we're not going to have

0:18:29.116 --> 0:18:30.316
<v Speaker 2>a disagreement about this.

0:18:31.156 --> 0:18:34.596
<v Speaker 1>All that said, sometimes there are good reasons to put

0:18:34.596 --> 0:18:38.796
<v Speaker 1>on our debating cats. After the break, Bo offers advice

0:18:39.036 --> 0:18:45.756
<v Speaker 1>for how we can disagree better. We'll be right back

0:18:45.956 --> 0:18:57.516
<v Speaker 1>with a slight change of plans. But one of the

0:18:57.556 --> 0:19:00.076
<v Speaker 1>reasons I loved reading your book and I loved digging

0:19:00.116 --> 0:19:02.356
<v Speaker 1>into your work is that you know, we disagree all

0:19:02.396 --> 0:19:04.956
<v Speaker 1>the time, but we also talk past each other all

0:19:04.996 --> 0:19:08.316
<v Speaker 1>the time. And I feel like what your work argues

0:19:08.876 --> 0:19:11.716
<v Speaker 1>is that we don't have to be satisfied with the

0:19:11.796 --> 0:19:14.796
<v Speaker 1>quality of disagreements that we often have. We can in

0:19:14.836 --> 0:19:19.396
<v Speaker 1>fact do better. There is actually a method to disagree well,

0:19:19.476 --> 0:19:21.716
<v Speaker 1>a method to the madness, if you will. Let's get

0:19:21.756 --> 0:19:23.876
<v Speaker 1>into some of the tactics for how it is that

0:19:23.916 --> 0:19:26.236
<v Speaker 1>we can disagree better. What does a good argument have

0:19:26.316 --> 0:19:28.156
<v Speaker 1>to do in order for it to be effective.

0:19:28.876 --> 0:19:31.836
<v Speaker 2>It's two things. It's to show that the claim that

0:19:31.876 --> 0:19:34.916
<v Speaker 2>it's making is true and that it's important. So let's

0:19:34.956 --> 0:19:40.036
<v Speaker 2>imagine you're arguing that we as human beings should be

0:19:40.116 --> 0:19:44.076
<v Speaker 2>vegetarian because it's good for the environment. You have to

0:19:44.116 --> 0:19:48.356
<v Speaker 2>show first of all, that being vegetarian is in fact

0:19:48.436 --> 0:19:52.196
<v Speaker 2>good for the environment, because otherwise the argument is untrue.

0:19:52.236 --> 0:19:56.556
<v Speaker 2>You have no legs to stand on, and that the

0:19:56.716 --> 0:19:59.636
<v Speaker 2>fact that it's good for the environment means you should

0:19:59.636 --> 0:20:03.876
<v Speaker 2>be vegetarian. That's the importance part that's saying the fact

0:20:03.876 --> 0:20:07.236
<v Speaker 2>that this is true gives us enough of a reason

0:20:07.396 --> 0:20:11.356
<v Speaker 2>to change our mind or our behavior. And it's usually

0:20:11.396 --> 0:20:14.956
<v Speaker 2>in that second prong, the importance prong, that people tend

0:20:15.036 --> 0:20:20.596
<v Speaker 2>to fall behind, because after we've demonstrated the truth of something,

0:20:21.236 --> 0:20:23.756
<v Speaker 2>it can seem kind of self evident because it is

0:20:23.836 --> 0:20:28.356
<v Speaker 2>for us that justifies the conclusion, but for other people

0:20:28.996 --> 0:20:32.356
<v Speaker 2>you might have to give additional reasons for that argument

0:20:32.476 --> 0:20:34.636
<v Speaker 2>having the kind of effect that you want it to.

0:20:35.676 --> 0:20:39.716
<v Speaker 1>So I'm vegetarian, so clearly I win. So when it

0:20:39.756 --> 0:20:42.556
<v Speaker 1>comes to importance, I think what I hear is that

0:20:42.636 --> 0:20:47.036
<v Speaker 1>it needs to have relative importance, because I can think

0:20:47.196 --> 0:20:50.836
<v Speaker 1>that it's important to care about the environment, but I

0:20:50.916 --> 0:20:54.316
<v Speaker 1>might think that other things are more important than that

0:20:54.476 --> 0:20:57.756
<v Speaker 1>our protein intake, whatever it is. And so would you

0:20:57.756 --> 0:21:00.156
<v Speaker 1>call it? The reason I hesitant to just use the

0:21:00.196 --> 0:21:01.956
<v Speaker 1>word important is I feel like a lot of people

0:21:01.956 --> 0:21:04.116
<v Speaker 1>can agree a lot of things are important, but actually

0:21:04.116 --> 0:21:06.836
<v Speaker 1>it's about how we rank them in a hierarchy of

0:21:06.876 --> 0:21:10.916
<v Speaker 1>relative importance that determines what the ultimate recommendation.

0:21:10.516 --> 0:21:15.156
<v Speaker 2>Is that's terrific. So it's certainly not absolute importance. And

0:21:15.236 --> 0:21:19.476
<v Speaker 2>so here I think it often comes down to asking, right,

0:21:19.556 --> 0:21:22.796
<v Speaker 2>what matters to you? What do you care about? Yeah,

0:21:22.836 --> 0:21:27.436
<v Speaker 2>and trying to give reasons tailored to them to change

0:21:27.476 --> 0:21:28.316
<v Speaker 2>their mind.

0:21:29.476 --> 0:21:32.036
<v Speaker 1>I kind of want to introduce into this conversation a

0:21:32.076 --> 0:21:35.716
<v Speaker 1>debate that my three older siblings and I lost over

0:21:35.836 --> 0:21:37.876
<v Speaker 1>and over again with my parents in childhood. If you

0:21:37.876 --> 0:21:40.356
<v Speaker 1>don't mind, okay, because I'm clearly over this bow. You know,

0:21:40.396 --> 0:21:42.636
<v Speaker 1>it's not like I'm bringing it up, you know, thirty

0:21:42.716 --> 0:21:48.316
<v Speaker 1>years later anything. Okay. So we always wanted a pet

0:21:48.316 --> 0:21:51.036
<v Speaker 1>growing up, ideally a puppy. What do I need to

0:21:51.076 --> 0:21:54.836
<v Speaker 1>do to convince parents that every set of parents should

0:21:54.876 --> 0:21:57.596
<v Speaker 1>get a family pet because it is good for their

0:21:57.676 --> 0:22:00.636
<v Speaker 1>child's development. Let's let's have you tell me how do

0:22:00.676 --> 0:22:02.676
<v Speaker 1>I How do I achieve those two burdens? I have

0:22:02.716 --> 0:22:04.556
<v Speaker 1>to show that the main claim is true, and I

0:22:04.556 --> 0:22:06.236
<v Speaker 1>need to show it's important. What would I do in

0:22:06.276 --> 0:22:06.676
<v Speaker 1>that case?

0:22:07.076 --> 0:22:09.956
<v Speaker 2>The first thing you have to show is getting pets

0:22:10.036 --> 0:22:13.516
<v Speaker 2>is in fact good for the kid's development. That's the

0:22:13.596 --> 0:22:17.276
<v Speaker 2>truth claim. And then you have to say the fact

0:22:17.276 --> 0:22:20.676
<v Speaker 2>that it's good for the kid's development gives us enough

0:22:20.716 --> 0:22:24.556
<v Speaker 2>of a reason to get the pets. So that's exactly

0:22:24.596 --> 0:22:28.596
<v Speaker 2>the kind of relative subjective importance, So it being good

0:22:28.676 --> 0:22:32.396
<v Speaker 2>for the kid's development might not do any good if

0:22:32.756 --> 0:22:35.956
<v Speaker 2>one of the parents is deathly allergic, for example, In

0:22:35.996 --> 0:22:39.636
<v Speaker 2>that instance, that would just override this other interest that

0:22:39.676 --> 0:22:42.516
<v Speaker 2>they have in their kid's well being. But in more

0:22:42.596 --> 0:22:47.236
<v Speaker 2>moderate cases, where it's the competing demands are maybe it's

0:22:47.276 --> 0:22:52.436
<v Speaker 2>expensive or it's costly on time, you might by explaining

0:22:52.556 --> 0:22:56.476
<v Speaker 2>why it's the kid's development through the pets that we

0:22:56.516 --> 0:22:59.596
<v Speaker 2>should privilege, you might be able to change their minds.

0:23:00.516 --> 0:23:03.596
<v Speaker 1>So I can easily see people following the set of rules.

0:23:03.636 --> 0:23:06.836
<v Speaker 1>When they know they're about to enter an argument, they

0:23:06.916 --> 0:23:08.996
<v Speaker 1>have the ability to prepare for it. As a little kid,

0:23:09.116 --> 0:23:12.676
<v Speaker 1>I'm creating my little puppy line of argumentation. But I'm

0:23:12.716 --> 0:23:17.156
<v Speaker 1>thinking about daily life, in which often times normal conversations

0:23:17.236 --> 0:23:20.276
<v Speaker 1>and of escalating into arguments almost without our own awareness.

0:23:20.316 --> 0:23:24.076
<v Speaker 1>So they escalate so quickly, and it can feel very

0:23:24.156 --> 0:23:28.276
<v Speaker 1>odd bo to interrupt and declare before we continue in

0:23:28.316 --> 0:23:32.356
<v Speaker 1>this heated exchange, maybe please establish some ground rules, like yes,

0:23:32.396 --> 0:23:33.836
<v Speaker 1>I can just imagine my friends and being like, get

0:23:33.876 --> 0:23:35.876
<v Speaker 1>the hell out of here, maya, what are you doing

0:23:35.916 --> 0:23:40.556
<v Speaker 1>with this formal nonsense? And so, when emotions are running high,

0:23:41.476 --> 0:23:43.836
<v Speaker 1>how do we take the temperature down and like take

0:23:43.836 --> 0:23:47.076
<v Speaker 1>that moment to breathe and try to integrate these kinds

0:23:47.076 --> 0:23:50.596
<v Speaker 1>of frameworks and discipline is what I'm hearing, this disagreement

0:23:50.676 --> 0:23:52.716
<v Speaker 1>discipline into our lives.

0:23:52.956 --> 0:23:57.636
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's a great question and a hard question. I

0:23:57.676 --> 0:24:01.596
<v Speaker 2>think the first thing is you want to come to

0:24:01.676 --> 0:24:05.756
<v Speaker 2>this kind of agreement ahead of time, So when things

0:24:05.796 --> 0:24:08.556
<v Speaker 2>are kind of good, especially when you're in a relationship,

0:24:08.596 --> 0:24:12.516
<v Speaker 2>having a conversation about how you want to resolve disputes,

0:24:12.836 --> 0:24:17.316
<v Speaker 2>and once you have some agreement, it can often be

0:24:17.476 --> 0:24:20.516
<v Speaker 2>easier to refer back to it say hey, we've deviated

0:24:21.436 --> 0:24:24.956
<v Speaker 2>from the thing that we promised each other. I think

0:24:24.956 --> 0:24:27.876
<v Speaker 2>that can be useful. And I think the second thing

0:24:28.276 --> 0:24:33.836
<v Speaker 2>is I wonder whether our aversion to awkwardness must be

0:24:33.916 --> 0:24:38.116
<v Speaker 2>really great, you know, because we would rather put up

0:24:38.156 --> 0:24:43.676
<v Speaker 2>with kind of a painful exchange sometimes. Then to recognize

0:24:43.716 --> 0:24:48.316
<v Speaker 2>that a conversation is artificial in the best way. It's

0:24:48.356 --> 0:24:52.036
<v Speaker 2>something we are building together and saying, hey, are we

0:24:52.076 --> 0:24:55.316
<v Speaker 2>building this the right way? And so I think it

0:24:55.356 --> 0:24:58.996
<v Speaker 2>can be subtle. It can be are we talking about

0:24:58.996 --> 0:25:02.956
<v Speaker 2>the same thing right now? Let's check is this really

0:25:03.036 --> 0:25:06.956
<v Speaker 2>a disagreement about the dishes? Or are we now talking

0:25:06.996 --> 0:25:11.116
<v Speaker 2>about something else? You're even a topic in your day

0:25:11.156 --> 0:25:14.596
<v Speaker 2>to day disagreements. In your day to day disagreements, it's

0:25:15.436 --> 0:25:20.356
<v Speaker 2>a dispute in search of a topic often and one

0:25:20.476 --> 0:25:23.116
<v Speaker 2>thing that you know, I had a big blowout with

0:25:23.156 --> 0:25:25.956
<v Speaker 2>my father when we first moved to Australia about not

0:25:26.076 --> 0:25:32.036
<v Speaker 2>calling our relatives enough. And even that took some work

0:25:32.116 --> 0:25:36.396
<v Speaker 2>to get to because initially it was just ill feeling.

0:25:36.796 --> 0:25:38.996
<v Speaker 2>You know, you get that sense when someone's upset at

0:25:38.996 --> 0:25:42.316
<v Speaker 2>you and they're kind of commenting on you left your

0:25:42.316 --> 0:25:45.716
<v Speaker 2>shoes over there, and what are we talking about at

0:25:45.756 --> 0:25:50.036
<v Speaker 2>the moment? You know, then there's an official kind of

0:25:50.676 --> 0:25:53.836
<v Speaker 2>maybe accusation is too strong a word, but there's a

0:25:54.036 --> 0:25:58.076
<v Speaker 2>stronger claim about something that you've done wrong. And then

0:25:58.116 --> 0:26:00.516
<v Speaker 2>you start to see the shoe thing was just leading

0:26:00.596 --> 0:26:03.756
<v Speaker 2>up to this moment, so then you recognize the claim.

0:26:04.236 --> 0:26:07.356
<v Speaker 2>And for us, it was not calling the relatives enough.

0:26:08.196 --> 0:26:10.596
<v Speaker 2>And we would have this discussion and I would say,

0:26:10.596 --> 0:26:12.636
<v Speaker 2>you know, I call them this many times in a week.

0:26:12.756 --> 0:26:15.236
<v Speaker 2>That doesn't seem crazy, and I know what's going on

0:26:15.276 --> 0:26:18.076
<v Speaker 2>in their lives, and he would have some responses to that,

0:26:18.156 --> 0:26:21.916
<v Speaker 2>but it didn't feel like we were assuaging anybody's concerns.

0:26:22.076 --> 0:26:25.636
<v Speaker 2>The ill feeling was still there, And it was only

0:26:25.676 --> 0:26:30.316
<v Speaker 2>when I stopped arguing and said, why does this matter

0:26:30.396 --> 0:26:33.796
<v Speaker 2>to you so much? What are we really disagreeing about,

0:26:34.396 --> 0:26:37.516
<v Speaker 2>that we realized that the calls were a kind of

0:26:37.676 --> 0:26:41.916
<v Speaker 2>stand in for broader concerns about losing connection to home,

0:26:42.596 --> 0:26:47.076
<v Speaker 2>right of seeing your kid lose his grasp on his

0:26:47.196 --> 0:26:50.796
<v Speaker 2>native language in the process of acquiring a new one.

0:26:51.316 --> 0:26:54.676
<v Speaker 2>That that was really what we needed to talk about.

0:26:54.996 --> 0:26:59.636
<v Speaker 2>And so the clarity in debate of starting always with

0:26:59.716 --> 0:27:04.396
<v Speaker 2>the topic and almost having this north star towards which

0:27:04.436 --> 0:27:08.276
<v Speaker 2>you aim all of your efforts, just understanding the importance

0:27:08.316 --> 0:27:11.676
<v Speaker 2>of that, the importance of naming the dispute. I think

0:27:11.676 --> 0:27:14.956
<v Speaker 2>that's come and use countless times. I think the more

0:27:15.796 --> 0:27:19.716
<v Speaker 2>fluency people have with those concepts and those skills, I'm hoping,

0:27:19.796 --> 0:27:23.716
<v Speaker 2>the more natural it can seem. But it may be

0:27:23.716 --> 0:27:27.596
<v Speaker 2>worth questioning whether this mode that we have of thinking

0:27:27.676 --> 0:27:34.596
<v Speaker 2>about conversation as free flowing and driven by just natural impulses.

0:27:35.396 --> 0:27:37.956
<v Speaker 2>It may be worth questioning whether that's the most productive

0:27:37.996 --> 0:27:38.996
<v Speaker 2>way of thinking about it.

0:27:39.236 --> 0:27:41.596
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and we have all kinds of social norms that

0:27:41.636 --> 0:27:44.196
<v Speaker 1>govern our behavior and steer us away from what feels

0:27:44.236 --> 0:27:46.956
<v Speaker 1>instinctive and natural. Those are working very nicely.

0:27:46.996 --> 0:27:47.436
<v Speaker 2>For sure.

0:27:47.596 --> 0:27:50.556
<v Speaker 1>For sure, No, I won't cut ahead of you in line,

0:27:50.636 --> 0:27:53.476
<v Speaker 1>even though I want to, for example. So yeah, I

0:27:53.476 --> 0:27:56.996
<v Speaker 1>think that's totally fair. So Bo, you are a two

0:27:57.036 --> 0:28:01.516
<v Speaker 1>time world champion debater, and I think intuitively, when I

0:28:01.556 --> 0:28:04.836
<v Speaker 1>think about the skills that a debater has, I sometimes

0:28:04.836 --> 0:28:07.196
<v Speaker 1>forget that listening is right at the top, right. I

0:28:07.196 --> 0:28:10.636
<v Speaker 1>think of charm, and I already have thought and great

0:28:10.636 --> 0:28:13.476
<v Speaker 1>oratory skills. But you talk in the book about just

0:28:13.516 --> 0:28:16.876
<v Speaker 1>how important it is to be a really thoughtful listener,

0:28:16.916 --> 0:28:19.356
<v Speaker 1>to really respond to what it is the person saying.

0:28:20.196 --> 0:28:23.516
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Absolutely, And this too is a lesson that I

0:28:23.556 --> 0:28:28.876
<v Speaker 2>had to learn on the fly. So the time that

0:28:28.916 --> 0:28:32.156
<v Speaker 2>you're given to speak when you're in middle school is

0:28:32.196 --> 0:28:35.596
<v Speaker 2>about five minutes, and when you're just starting out, the

0:28:35.716 --> 0:28:38.556
<v Speaker 2>challenge is filling up the time, so you usually end

0:28:38.636 --> 0:28:40.596
<v Speaker 2>up at like three minutes or four minutes, and then

0:28:40.636 --> 0:28:44.436
<v Speaker 2>you sit down and there's some time remaining. And so

0:28:45.156 --> 0:28:48.756
<v Speaker 2>the work initially in debating is can you get to

0:28:48.796 --> 0:28:51.076
<v Speaker 2>the five minutes? Can you come up with enough stuff

0:28:51.076 --> 0:28:55.276
<v Speaker 2>to say? And eventually, through research writing out your arguments.

0:28:55.596 --> 0:28:59.076
<v Speaker 2>Watching old debates, you can you can get there and

0:28:59.116 --> 0:29:02.636
<v Speaker 2>you have enough argument, and soon it becomes can you

0:29:02.676 --> 0:29:05.316
<v Speaker 2>talk a little faster so you can get more stuff in?

0:29:06.076 --> 0:29:08.556
<v Speaker 2>And this was where I was at when I came

0:29:08.596 --> 0:29:14.916
<v Speaker 2>across an adversary, Deborah, who would kick my behind weekly.

0:29:15.836 --> 0:29:20.156
<v Speaker 2>And it's a lesson I learned when I debated with her,

0:29:20.636 --> 0:29:24.636
<v Speaker 2>which was I noticed she actually did not fill up

0:29:24.636 --> 0:29:29.356
<v Speaker 2>her page with reams of argument. Instead, during the rounds,

0:29:29.716 --> 0:29:32.956
<v Speaker 2>she took copious notes of what the other person was saying,

0:29:33.076 --> 0:29:37.396
<v Speaker 2>So in that moment, she was almost a transcriber, faithfully

0:29:37.436 --> 0:29:41.156
<v Speaker 2>noting down what they had said, sometimes giving it order

0:29:41.836 --> 0:29:44.596
<v Speaker 2>where it was disorganized. So when you had been presented

0:29:44.636 --> 0:29:48.036
<v Speaker 2>a word cloud, you give it a kind of structure

0:29:48.156 --> 0:29:51.836
<v Speaker 2>that they were lacking. You maybe think about other points

0:29:51.876 --> 0:29:53.476
<v Speaker 2>that they could have made that would have made the

0:29:53.516 --> 0:29:57.676
<v Speaker 2>point even stronger. So there's this kind of amazing act

0:29:57.756 --> 0:30:03.596
<v Speaker 2>of listening as a creative, constructive act. And I could

0:30:03.636 --> 0:30:06.596
<v Speaker 2>also see her listening out from the perspective of the

0:30:06.716 --> 0:30:09.716
<v Speaker 2>audience to think what are they getting, what are the

0:30:09.796 --> 0:30:13.156
<v Speaker 2>questions that they might be having. So there's listening with

0:30:13.276 --> 0:30:16.156
<v Speaker 2>one ear faithfully to what the other side is saying

0:30:16.596 --> 0:30:19.996
<v Speaker 2>with the other ear, listening to how a third party

0:30:20.596 --> 0:30:24.876
<v Speaker 2>is hearing this, whether they're responding, whether they're persuaded, what

0:30:24.996 --> 0:30:28.676
<v Speaker 2>they're still not sure about. And it was only after

0:30:28.796 --> 0:30:31.836
<v Speaker 2>she had done that, after she had figured out the

0:30:31.916 --> 0:30:34.876
<v Speaker 2>lay of the land, that she started writing the final

0:30:34.916 --> 0:30:38.116
<v Speaker 2>script of what she was going to say. And you

0:30:38.156 --> 0:30:41.796
<v Speaker 2>know here again, listening is not just a virtuous thing

0:30:41.876 --> 0:30:46.556
<v Speaker 2>to do. It has a competitive purpose, which is you're

0:30:46.636 --> 0:30:50.196
<v Speaker 2>never going to change someone's mind unless they feel like

0:30:50.396 --> 0:30:53.756
<v Speaker 2>your arguments connected with their concerns and connected with the

0:30:53.796 --> 0:30:56.156
<v Speaker 2>points that they had made. So it was a way

0:30:56.236 --> 0:31:00.236
<v Speaker 2>a new way of thinking about listening, all through the

0:31:00.316 --> 0:31:04.276
<v Speaker 2>lens of still wanting to make the best possible argument

0:31:04.356 --> 0:31:04.836
<v Speaker 2>that you can.

0:31:06.476 --> 0:31:08.436
<v Speaker 1>Are there any tips you have for ways we can

0:31:08.476 --> 0:31:11.716
<v Speaker 1>become better listeners? And I think we're just told listen better,

0:31:11.756 --> 0:31:13.756
<v Speaker 1>and it might not be prescriptive enough. I might not

0:31:13.836 --> 0:31:15.996
<v Speaker 1>know how to actually implement that recommendation.

0:31:16.916 --> 0:31:21.396
<v Speaker 2>I think one way is by asking questions and drawing

0:31:21.556 --> 0:31:24.396
<v Speaker 2>out the argument from the other side. So listening, I

0:31:24.436 --> 0:31:27.996
<v Speaker 2>don't think is just the act of hearing. It is

0:31:28.596 --> 0:31:33.876
<v Speaker 2>the collaborative process of bringing the other person's ideas into

0:31:34.076 --> 0:31:36.956
<v Speaker 2>full view. So you know what they are, You know

0:31:37.036 --> 0:31:39.876
<v Speaker 2>what you're working with. So in the examples that we've

0:31:39.916 --> 0:31:42.756
<v Speaker 2>been talking about, asking so why do you believe that's true?

0:31:43.276 --> 0:31:46.716
<v Speaker 2>So is there some evidence? Did you read something that

0:31:46.796 --> 0:31:49.556
<v Speaker 2>made you think this way? And then once you get

0:31:49.596 --> 0:31:51.916
<v Speaker 2>a sense of why they believe the argument is true,

0:31:51.956 --> 0:31:54.076
<v Speaker 2>saying so why does this matter to you? Right, it

0:31:54.116 --> 0:31:57.156
<v Speaker 2>doesn't matter to you more than these other values that

0:31:57.196 --> 0:32:00.436
<v Speaker 2>you might be thinking about. And soon, whether it be

0:32:00.516 --> 0:32:03.356
<v Speaker 2>with a kid who's, you know, not used to articulating

0:32:03.436 --> 0:32:07.396
<v Speaker 2>themselves a certain way, or a staff member who's shyer,

0:32:07.636 --> 0:32:10.476
<v Speaker 2>or a friend who's a special conflict of verse, you

0:32:10.556 --> 0:32:14.196
<v Speaker 2>can collaboratively build up the arguments. So I don't think

0:32:14.276 --> 0:32:21.276
<v Speaker 2>listening is silent. It is a collaborative conversational process that

0:32:21.396 --> 0:32:24.316
<v Speaker 2>helps you better understand where the other side is coming from.

0:32:25.076 --> 0:32:28.996
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, okay, now let's talk. But another concept I read

0:32:29.036 --> 0:32:32.756
<v Speaker 1>about in your book is called side switching. So do

0:32:32.796 --> 0:32:35.476
<v Speaker 1>you mind telling us what side switching is in the

0:32:35.516 --> 0:32:38.516
<v Speaker 1>context of debate and why it's a valuable exercise.

0:32:39.196 --> 0:32:42.876
<v Speaker 2>So much of debate is obviously an exercise in certainty.

0:32:43.196 --> 0:32:48.876
<v Speaker 2>It's in preparing your arguments fully believing in their truth

0:32:49.036 --> 0:32:53.516
<v Speaker 2>and importance of using all the persuasive tools at your

0:32:53.516 --> 0:32:57.956
<v Speaker 2>disposal to project as someone who's credible and persuasive on

0:32:57.996 --> 0:33:01.196
<v Speaker 2>a topic. But one thing I learned is that the

0:33:01.236 --> 0:33:05.596
<v Speaker 2>best debate is before they go on stage. In the

0:33:05.636 --> 0:33:10.356
<v Speaker 2>last few minutes, they go through these exercises called side

0:33:10.356 --> 0:33:14.516
<v Speaker 2>switch exercises, which take a few different forms. So one

0:33:14.556 --> 0:33:18.156
<v Speaker 2>is to turn to a fresh sheet of paper and

0:33:18.196 --> 0:33:20.356
<v Speaker 2>to come up with the four best arguments for the

0:33:20.396 --> 0:33:24.516
<v Speaker 2>other side. Another is to go through the case that

0:33:24.596 --> 0:33:28.036
<v Speaker 2>you've prepared as if through the eyes of someone who

0:33:28.156 --> 0:33:31.556
<v Speaker 2>vehemently disagrees, and try to poke as many holes as

0:33:31.556 --> 0:33:36.396
<v Speaker 2>you possibly can. Or a third is you imagine that

0:33:36.436 --> 0:33:39.436
<v Speaker 2>you've just lost the debate, and you write down the

0:33:39.476 --> 0:33:44.116
<v Speaker 2>reason why you lost, and all of those unsettle things

0:33:44.476 --> 0:33:49.756
<v Speaker 2>a little bit, and they unsettle your certainty in particular.

0:33:49.596 --> 0:33:55.836
<v Speaker 1>Yes, and you help decouple ideas from self identity, which

0:33:55.836 --> 0:33:59.076
<v Speaker 1>is often what makes passions run so high in day

0:33:59.076 --> 0:34:03.116
<v Speaker 1>to day disagreements, right I sometimes well, no, I'm trying

0:34:03.116 --> 0:34:06.076
<v Speaker 1>to think it's that in the middle of a disagreement,

0:34:07.076 --> 0:34:10.876
<v Speaker 1>if you think that eating on a point is a

0:34:10.916 --> 0:34:13.596
<v Speaker 1>threat to self identity in some way, it's challenging who

0:34:13.636 --> 0:34:15.676
<v Speaker 1>you are to say, you know what, you're right, I

0:34:15.756 --> 0:34:18.436
<v Speaker 1>kind of agree with this. You're much less likely to

0:34:19.156 --> 0:34:21.436
<v Speaker 1>ever accept that you might even wrong about something, So

0:34:21.476 --> 0:34:23.996
<v Speaker 1>it feels like this is side switching, is a way

0:34:24.076 --> 0:34:27.196
<v Speaker 1>to give yourself that space to see, Oh, you know,

0:34:27.236 --> 0:34:29.796
<v Speaker 1>I could be a person who occupies both points of

0:34:29.876 --> 0:34:32.556
<v Speaker 1>view and yeah, I'm curious to know whether that just

0:34:32.556 --> 0:34:35.596
<v Speaker 1>affects the psychology with which you enter into a disagreement.

0:34:36.036 --> 0:34:40.236
<v Speaker 2>I think enormously it humbles you. It forces you to

0:34:40.356 --> 0:34:43.436
<v Speaker 2>think that maybe you're the person who needs to be

0:34:43.516 --> 0:34:47.916
<v Speaker 2>accommodated because you're being unreasonable, and it brings down the

0:34:47.956 --> 0:34:52.956
<v Speaker 2>temperature of the other side disagreeing, because that itself can

0:34:52.996 --> 0:34:55.436
<v Speaker 2>be kind of upsetting, like you're my partner, how can

0:34:55.476 --> 0:34:58.956
<v Speaker 2>you find this objectionable? Or you know, my best friend,

0:34:59.916 --> 0:35:03.276
<v Speaker 2>you should of course agree with me, and knowing there

0:35:03.276 --> 0:35:06.356
<v Speaker 2>are two sides, expecting there are going to be some

0:35:06.396 --> 0:35:10.036
<v Speaker 2>objections here, it's a tool to me make your arguments

0:35:10.156 --> 0:35:14.956
<v Speaker 2>better in advance, but also to anticipate that there will

0:35:14.956 --> 0:35:17.076
<v Speaker 2>be pushback and that you're going to have to work

0:35:17.356 --> 0:35:21.036
<v Speaker 2>through it. And I think that conditions you to a

0:35:21.076 --> 0:35:23.956
<v Speaker 2>certain kind of exchange that I think can be more

0:35:23.996 --> 0:35:26.236
<v Speaker 2>productive I'm just wondering.

0:35:26.236 --> 0:35:29.316
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you've been in all these positions where you've

0:35:29.436 --> 0:35:32.276
<v Speaker 1>argued for sides that you might not personally believe in

0:35:32.876 --> 0:35:35.636
<v Speaker 1>or agree with, and I just wonder, have you ever

0:35:35.716 --> 0:35:38.876
<v Speaker 1>fallen for your own message? If we hear ourselves saying things,

0:35:39.076 --> 0:35:42.396
<v Speaker 1>over time, we might start to believe those things are true.

0:35:42.556 --> 0:35:46.196
<v Speaker 1>And so have you ever found that because you were

0:35:46.236 --> 0:35:49.436
<v Speaker 1>asked to argue for a certain side of something, you

0:35:49.476 --> 0:35:52.956
<v Speaker 1>actually found yourself agreeing with that side on the other end,

0:35:52.996 --> 0:35:54.356
<v Speaker 1>and that was unexpected for you?

0:35:55.396 --> 0:35:59.556
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think in every debate you do undergo a

0:35:59.676 --> 0:36:02.596
<v Speaker 2>change from having argued for a position, And the way

0:36:02.596 --> 0:36:06.716
<v Speaker 2>in which I experienced it is very rarely that I

0:36:06.876 --> 0:36:09.876
<v Speaker 2>just end up adopting the view that I have, but

0:36:09.996 --> 0:36:14.996
<v Speaker 2>rather that it leaves a residue the next time you

0:36:15.116 --> 0:36:19.276
<v Speaker 2>make an argument for the position you actually believe. The

0:36:19.316 --> 0:36:24.076
<v Speaker 2>echoes of the opposing argument are always there. And I

0:36:24.196 --> 0:36:28.076
<v Speaker 2>used to think that that meant you don't have any

0:36:28.116 --> 0:36:32.956
<v Speaker 2>convictions anymore, or you're unsure, But in fact, I've found

0:36:33.036 --> 0:36:36.796
<v Speaker 2>that a lot of my convictions are stronger for having

0:36:36.876 --> 0:36:40.676
<v Speaker 2>considered the other side, for having those echoes. It doesn't

0:36:40.796 --> 0:36:46.516
<v Speaker 2>have the brittleness of something so fixed, it's more flexible,

0:36:46.636 --> 0:36:51.076
<v Speaker 2>it's more porous, you're more okay with its incompleteness.

0:36:51.956 --> 0:36:54.716
<v Speaker 1>I mean, what I'm reflecting on as I hear this

0:36:54.796 --> 0:36:58.516
<v Speaker 1>conversation unfold is that when you're in the world a debate,

0:36:59.196 --> 0:37:01.716
<v Speaker 1>you basically have to agree to live in the gray

0:37:01.796 --> 0:37:06.196
<v Speaker 1>space in life generally where you feel out of minimum

0:37:06.236 --> 0:37:08.556
<v Speaker 1>open to the other side of the debate. I mean,

0:37:08.636 --> 0:37:10.596
<v Speaker 1>you have to as part of your career. You have

0:37:10.636 --> 0:37:11.916
<v Speaker 1>to be open to the other side because you might

0:37:11.916 --> 0:37:15.276
<v Speaker 1>be asked to fight for it tomorrow. Right, And I

0:37:15.396 --> 0:37:19.596
<v Speaker 1>just wonder, like, when you've trained your brain to live

0:37:19.756 --> 0:37:22.236
<v Speaker 1>in the gray space of life, where we understand that

0:37:22.276 --> 0:37:25.676
<v Speaker 1>there is nuance and complexity and at least two sides

0:37:25.716 --> 0:37:29.836
<v Speaker 1>to every argument, I wonder how that affects the way

0:37:29.836 --> 0:37:31.156
<v Speaker 1>that you interact with the world.

0:37:31.636 --> 0:37:35.036
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, it's such a beautiful question. And I

0:37:35.076 --> 0:37:40.316
<v Speaker 2>think that grayness is the natural state, right, that it

0:37:40.436 --> 0:37:45.796
<v Speaker 2>takes a certain kind of willing blindness to aspects of

0:37:45.836 --> 0:37:50.276
<v Speaker 2>ourselves to say we are just like every other member

0:37:50.316 --> 0:37:53.316
<v Speaker 2>of this political party or this cultural group, or this

0:37:53.396 --> 0:37:57.396
<v Speaker 2>linguistic group or this country. There are ways in which

0:37:57.476 --> 0:38:02.996
<v Speaker 2>we feel other, all of us, and so I take

0:38:03.116 --> 0:38:07.436
<v Speaker 2>that kind of grayness, feeling slightly at odds with things

0:38:07.916 --> 0:38:13.236
<v Speaker 2>as the natural state, and I think it's changed my

0:38:13.476 --> 0:38:17.556
<v Speaker 2>view of what I can ask for from the world,

0:38:18.036 --> 0:38:23.836
<v Speaker 2>which is more than to be left alone, to be

0:38:23.956 --> 0:38:28.356
<v Speaker 2>kept safe, to let me get through the day, but

0:38:28.556 --> 0:38:32.756
<v Speaker 2>rather that I want to be in conversation with the world.

0:38:33.516 --> 0:38:38.596
<v Speaker 2>And I think it's given me that belief that it's possible.

0:38:38.916 --> 0:38:41.436
<v Speaker 2>It's given me some of the skills, not all of

0:38:41.476 --> 0:38:43.476
<v Speaker 2>the skills, that you need in order to be in

0:38:43.516 --> 0:38:49.116
<v Speaker 2>such a conversation. And once that conversation is ongoing, I

0:38:49.156 --> 0:38:52.556
<v Speaker 2>think so much as possible, you can learn about the world,

0:38:52.676 --> 0:38:57.396
<v Speaker 2>You can form relationships, you can discover parts of yourself,

0:38:58.196 --> 0:39:02.756
<v Speaker 2>try out new identities. Right, all of that relies on

0:39:02.876 --> 0:39:09.076
<v Speaker 2>there being that ongoing conversation, and I just feel grateful

0:39:09.276 --> 0:39:10.276
<v Speaker 2>to be a part of it.

0:39:41.356 --> 0:39:44.556
<v Speaker 1>Hey, thanks so much for listening. Join me next week

0:39:44.596 --> 0:39:47.836
<v Speaker 1>when we hear from doctor Lucy Kalanathi, who lost her

0:39:47.916 --> 0:39:51.636
<v Speaker 1>husband to cancer eight years ago. She reflects on how

0:39:51.676 --> 0:39:55.316
<v Speaker 1>her grief has changed over time. You may have read

0:39:55.356 --> 0:39:59.356
<v Speaker 1>her husband, Paul's best selling memoir, When Breath Becomes Heir.

0:40:00.876 --> 0:40:04.636
<v Speaker 1>If you enjoyed my conversation with world, debate champion Boso,

0:40:05.276 --> 0:40:08.236
<v Speaker 1>I recommend listening to our very first episode of A

0:40:08.236 --> 0:40:11.436
<v Speaker 1>Slight Change of Plan, which happens to be my favorite

0:40:11.476 --> 0:40:15.476
<v Speaker 1>episode of all time. It's called a Black Jazz Musician

0:40:15.596 --> 0:40:20.356
<v Speaker 1>takes on the KKK and features Darryl Davis. Darryl is

0:40:20.396 --> 0:40:24.076
<v Speaker 1>an expert on changing minds. Since the nineteen eighties, He's

0:40:24.116 --> 0:40:27.276
<v Speaker 1>inspired hundreds of people to leave the Ku Klux Klan

0:40:27.636 --> 0:40:31.476
<v Speaker 1>and other white supremacy groups. We'll link to the episode

0:40:31.516 --> 0:40:44.356
<v Speaker 1>in show notes. A Slight Change of Plans is created, written,

0:40:44.356 --> 0:40:48.036
<v Speaker 1>and executive produced by me Maya Schunker. The Slight Change

0:40:48.076 --> 0:40:52.116
<v Speaker 1>family includes our showrunner Tyler Green, our senior editor Kate

0:40:52.196 --> 0:40:56.916
<v Speaker 1>Parkinson Morgan, our producer Trisha Bovida, and our sound engineer

0:40:56.996 --> 0:41:01.636
<v Speaker 1>Andrew Vestola. Luis Scara wrote our delightful theme song and

0:41:01.756 --> 0:41:04.996
<v Speaker 1>Ginger Smith helped arrange the vocals. A Slight Change of

0:41:05.036 --> 0:41:08.356
<v Speaker 1>Plans is a production of Pushkin Industries, so big thanks

0:41:08.396 --> 0:41:12.236
<v Speaker 1>to everyone there, and of course a very special thanks

0:41:12.316 --> 0:41:14.956
<v Speaker 1>to Jimmy Late. You can follow A Slight Change of

0:41:14.996 --> 0:41:26.956
<v Speaker 1>Plans on Instagram at doctor Maya Schunker. See you next week.