Learning to Talk to Each Other
Event with Braver Angels and League of Women Voters sparks hope in the hearts of a torn electorate.
Paul Norris and Maxim Schrogin discuss the topic of engaging in civil conversations.
On November 15, two members of Braver Angels visited Nevada County to participate in the well-attended event "Depolarizing Political Conversations". Presented by the Nevada County League of Women Voters and sponsored by the Associated Students of Sierra College, speakers Paul Norris and Maxim Schrogin gave an enlightened demonstration of what it means to engage in civil conversations with those who have different opinions. By a show of hands, the audience was overwhelmingly "blue", or liberal, with a handful of "reds" in attendance.
Getting Past the Soundbites
According to the speakers, Braver Angels was formed in 2016 as a grassroots organization that facilitates meetings and conversations between people with different opinions and beliefs, with the aim of building respect and kinship across the divide. While it sometimes seems an impossible task, Paul Norris, a conservative, explained the need to "get past the soundbites and rigid classification" and urged the audience to "get to know peoples' hearts." Maxim Schrogin, the liberal of the duo, agreed, adding: "People have different levels of reality. There are seven billion truths on the planet - respect everyone's way of dealing with what's going on."
Norris lauded the decentralized approach to managing the organization, pointing out that there are local "alliances that don't take marching orders from Manhattan." Also key to the organization's success is that at the leadership level, there are "equal number of 'Reds' and 'Blues'", a feature that attracts more conservatives to the table, relative to other similar organizations.
Tips for Success
The presenters shared that to help your conversation partners feel heard, resist the urge to develop counter arguments in your head while they are speaking. Instead, focus on what they are saying and prepare to summarize in a totally neutral way what they said. This approach leads to empathetic learning and listening. To demonstrate this approach, volunteers from the audience participated in an impromptu conversation over the topic "When is censorship appropriate for books in libraries?". The pair successfully applied the new techniques in a debate on this sensitive issue while demonstrating mutual respect. Some of their remarks are highlighted below:
"I appreciate that perspective. Would you like to hear my perspective?"
"I see you making a distinction between schools and libraries and I would agree with that."
"It's difficult to decide . . . "
"What would your opinion be about . . . ?"
"If I'm understanding your perspective . . . "
"We probably have the same concerns."
After the volunteers had finished their conversation, Norris and Schrogin emphasized that the process is the most important part of the interaction, and urged the audience to strive for "accurate disagreement". They suggested that a good conversationalist attempts to understand the process rather than proving the other person wrong.
Emotional Regulation is Key
As our hearts race when hearing different opinions, the speakers stressed that emotional regulation is a huge part of this process. Responding to a question from the audience about how to de-escalate or diffuse a conversation that becomes heated or hurtful, the speakers instructed not to participate in any escalation, and to be prepared to walk away. To deal with the emotional aspect of a difficult conversation, they suggested "be vulnerable and say, 'That's really painful for me to hear.'" Norris, a psychotherapist, recommended self reflection. Ask yourself: "How does this affect you?", "What happens to you?" He added that in his own life, he finds that "if something gets me angry then I need to look at that."
Advertisement
The LAPP Technique
Norris and Schrogin detailed the LAPP technique, characterized by the following elements:
LISTEN to hear what the other person has to say.
ACKNOWLEDGE that you heard what the other person said. Agreement is optional.
PIVOT by giving a "turn signal". Ask, "Would it be OK if I said what I have to say?"
PERSPECTIVE - give your own perspective.
They then demonstrated this technique in a debate about the 2nd Amendment. Below are highlights from their conversation:
"Are you open to hearing what I have to say?"
"Here's what I heard you say . . .Did I reflect what I heard you say accurately?"
"Let me see if I understand what you said."
"I can respect your opinion."
"I think we have a lot of commonality."
"Tell me how you come to that opinion."
Not For Social Media
In response to a question from the audience about how this can all work when there is so much misinformation out there, the speakers suggested that we ask about sources to substantiate arguments. They also stressed that this type of method is not for social media, but for human, face-to-face interaction, and that lack of "looking into someone's eyeballs" is conducive to negative behavior. Schrogin added that a lot of the problems we are facing are due to social media.
Relationship is Most Important
Norris and Schrogin emphasized that "You can always listen and you can always acknowledge. The most important thing is relationship." As we venture out into these potentially explosive conversations, especially during an election year, we need to understand the importance of people's stories. Norris summed it up: "We do the best we can. There's an aspirational element to this whole thing."