How to Have Impossible Conversations

How to Have Impossible Conversations Plot Summary

Introduction

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation that seemed destined for disaster? Perhaps it was with a family member whose political views made your blood boil, or a colleague whose religious beliefs contradicted everything you hold true. These moments can feel like impossible chasms to cross, leaving us frustrated, angry, and even more entrenched in our positions than before. Yet in our increasingly polarized world, the ability to have meaningful conversations across deep divides isn't just a nice skill to have—it's essential for our collective well-being. When we avoid difficult conversations or handle them poorly, we lose opportunities for understanding, growth, and connection. The techniques in the following chapters aren't just theoretical concepts—they're practical tools that can transform seemingly impossible conversations into bridges of understanding, even when the divide seems unbridgeable.

Chapter 1: Master the Fundamentals of Respectful Dialogue

The foundation of any meaningful conversation, especially a difficult one, begins with understanding the fundamentals of respectful dialogue. At its core, this means approaching conversations as partnerships rather than battles to be won. When Peter Boghossian was discussing affirmative action with a colleague years ago, he made a critical mistake that many of us make: he focused on winning rather than understanding. "You have no evidence. You have complete confidence in a belief for which you have no evidence," Peter told his colleague during their heated exchange. His colleague responded, "You're not listening," to which Peter replied, "I am listening. I'm trying to figure out how you could believe so strongly in something with no evidence." The conversation quickly deteriorated, with his colleague eventually calling him an expletive and walking away. Looking back, Peter realized he wasn't truly listening; he was interrupting, shifting topics, and focused solely on proving his point rather than understanding hers. This exchange illustrates what happens when we forget the fundamentals: listening genuinely, building rapport, acknowledging the other person's intentions, and knowing when to walk away. When Anthony Magnabosco, a street epistemologist, approached a woman named Kari after her hike, he demonstrated these fundamentals masterfully. He began with simple questions about her hike, established rapport by finding common ground about hiking with children, and created a comfortable space before transitioning to deeper topics. This approach created trust that allowed for a meaningful conversation about her beliefs. The key to mastering these fundamentals lies in shifting your mindset from winning to understanding. This means asking yourself, "Why am I having this discussion? What are my goals?" before beginning. It means viewing your conversation partner as exactly that—a partner in a collaborative process, not an opponent to be defeated. It requires listening more than speaking, acknowledging that people generally have better intentions than we assume, and recognizing when it's time to gracefully exit a conversation. To put these fundamentals into practice, start with small, everyday interactions. Practice saying "I hear you" and truly meaning it. Build rapport by asking sincere questions about others' interests and motivations. When conversations become heated, listen more and talk less. Remember that delivering messages rarely works; collaborative exchanges do. By mastering these fundamentals, you'll create the foundation necessary for navigating even the most challenging conversations.

Chapter 2: Build Golden Bridges for Changed Minds

Changing someone's mind—or allowing them the space to change their own—requires creating pathways that preserve dignity and self-respect. This concept, known as building "Golden Bridges," is essential for successful conversations where minds might actually change. A Golden Bridge is a graceful exit route that allows someone to revise their beliefs without feeling humiliated or embarrassed. Peter once had a conversation with a Lakers fan while waiting in line at a Los Angeles restaurant. He began by questioning why the fan supported a team whose players weren't even from LA. "The players on the team aren't even from LA. Right?" Peter asked. The fan acknowledged this fact but explained, "But they're my team. This is my city. I love LA!" Peter continued probing, asking if the fan would feel more connected to the team if all players were from LA. After some thought, the fan admitted he might. Peter had successfully instilled some doubt, but then made a crucial mistake—he pushed too hard, trying to convince the fan to support another team entirely. The result was predictable: the fan became defensive and doubled down on his Lakers enthusiasm. The conversation that had been enjoyable became tense and unproductive. Peter failed to build a Golden Bridge—a way for the fan to consider a new perspective without feeling his identity as a Lakers supporter was under attack. He should have acknowledged the fan's connection to his team, thanked him for the conversation, and allowed him time to reflect on this new perspective. Building Golden Bridges means offering statements like "Everyone makes mistakes" or "This is an extremely complicated issue with so much confusion surrounding it." These statements give your conversation partner an escape route from embarrassment. When someone has to admit being on the wrong side of a moral issue—like a parent who opposed vaccines having to reconsider that position—the psychological stakes are enormous. Without a Golden Bridge, they'll likely entrench further in their original belief rather than face the shame of being wrong. To build effective Golden Bridges in your conversations, give your partner the same gracious exit you'd want if your positions were reversed. Never put a toll on the bridge by saying things like "It's about time!" or "I told you so!" when someone changes their mind. Instead, acknowledge the difficulty of changing perspectives on important issues. Remember that building Golden Bridges isn't about manipulating others—it's about creating psychological safety that allows for genuine reconsideration of beliefs. By mastering this skill, you'll make it easier for others—and yourself—to grow beyond entrenched positions.

Chapter 3: Navigate Emotional Roadblocks with Confidence

Emotions can derail even the most promising conversations, especially when discussing deeply held beliefs or values. Learning to navigate these emotional roadblocks—both your own and your conversation partner's—is essential for maintaining productive dialogue when tensions rise. The ability to recognize and manage anger, frustration, and defensiveness can transform potentially explosive exchanges into opportunities for understanding. Psychologist Paul Ekman noted simply, "Anger calls forth anger." This observation captures how emotions can escalate in conversations, creating destructive cycles. When Peter was discussing immigration with one of his father's friends, DB, the conversation quickly became heated. DB insisted that media coverage of potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign was "all horseshit" and became increasingly agitated as Peter asked what evidence might change his mind. "What if Putin came out on Russian TV and told the world he collaborated with Trump before the election? Would you believe then?" Peter asked. After a long pause, DB responded, "I dunno." The emotional intensity of the conversation made it difficult for DB to consider alternative perspectives. This exchange illustrates how emotions can create barriers to productive conversation. When we become angry or defensive, we experience what Ekman calls a "refractory period"—a state where our nervous system and emotional biases severely impact our information processing. During this period, we're literally unable to think clearly or consider new information objectively. Anger particularly seeks its own justification, leading us to misinterpret information in ways that confirm our anger is justified. To navigate these emotional roadblocks, first learn to recognize the early signs of mounting anger in yourself—perhaps tension in your body, changes in your breathing, or a strong urge to interrupt. When you notice these signals, pause and breathe. Literally. Take a deep breath and create space between your emotional reaction and your response. If you feel yourself becoming frustrated beyond your ability to remain civil, it's better to say, "I think we should take a break from this topic" than to continue and damage the relationship. When your conversation partner becomes angry, resist the urge to respond in kind. Instead, listen more attentively and acknowledge their perspective without necessarily agreeing with it. Say something like, "I can see this is really important to you" or "I understand why this is frustrating." Avoid pointing out their anger directly, as this often escalates the situation. Instead, name the dynamic: "Our disagreement seems pretty deep on this, and I get how that's frustrating. Maybe we should set this aside for now." By developing these emotional navigation skills, you'll be able to maintain productive conversations even when emotions run high. Remember that the goal isn't to suppress emotions but to prevent them from hijacking the conversation. With practice, you'll develop the confidence to face emotional intensity with calm assurance, keeping the path to understanding open.

Chapter 4: Speak the Language of Moral Values

When conversations seem impossible, it's often because we're speaking different moral languages without realizing it. Research by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt reveals that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians operate from different moral foundations, which explains why they frequently talk past each other. Learning to translate your ideas into the moral language of your conversation partner can bridge seemingly unbridgeable divides. On August 20, 2018, President Trump tweeted about fentanyl coming into the U.S. from China, calling it "Poisonous Synthetic Heroin" and urging action to stop "this poison from killing our children and destroying our country." Haidt noted that this message hit multiple moral foundations: sanctity ("poison seeping in"), loyalty ("us vs them"), authority ("leaders must protect"), and care ("kids"). This made it a powerful appeal across moral divides because it spoke to values that resonate with different groups. This example illustrates how effective communication requires understanding and speaking the moral language of your audience. Haidt's research identified six moral foundations that people respond to differently: care versus harm, fairness versus cheating, loyalty versus betrayal, authority versus subversion, sanctity versus degradation, and liberty versus oppression. Conservatives tend to respond to all six foundations, with particular sensitivity to loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals focus primarily on care and fairness, with some emphasis on liberty. Libertarians prioritize liberty above all else. When discussing gun control, for instance, conservatives are sensitive to values of security (a kind of sanctity) and liberty, including the capacity to defend themselves. A liberal saying, "I understand why you'd differ, but because people make mistakes, having such easy access to guns makes me feel less secure, and thus less free, not more," would be more effective than quoting murder statistics because it speaks to conservative values of security and liberty. To speak the moral language of others, first expose yourself to different moral viewpoints through reading materials from people with different outlooks and having face-to-face conversations with people from different backgrounds. Pay attention to particular words and terms that carry moral weight. If someone uses the word "equity" instead of "equality," ask why they chose that specific term. When speaking to conservatives, invoke keywords like "leadership," "freedom," and "family." With liberals, appeal to "the disadvantaged," "the poor," and concerns about harm. By learning to translate your ideas into the moral language of your conversation partner, you create bridges across seemingly impossible divides. This doesn't mean abandoning your own values, but rather finding ways to express them that resonate with others. Remember, effective moral reframing isn't about manipulation—it's about creating genuine understanding by speaking in terms that matter to the person across from you.

Chapter 5: Transform Disagreement into Discovery

Transforming disagreement into discovery requires shifting from a debate mindset to a learning mindset. When we approach conversations as opportunities to learn rather than battles to win, we open doors to genuine understanding and growth. This transformation begins with recognizing that every conversation, even a contentious one, offers valuable insights if we're willing to listen. When Peter was on tour in Australia, he debated a Christian apologist from Singapore about the genesis of the universe. Peter argued that the only way to know how the universe was created was through science, and since neither of them was a physicist, they were both unqualified to render judgment. The apologist countered that we could reason our way to the fact that the universe was created by a supernatural entity. Instead of genuinely engaging with this perspective, Peter doubled down on his position, later realizing he had "paraded his ignorance as a virtue" by saying, "Look how humble I am because I'm saying I don't know—and neither do you!" This experience taught Peter a valuable lesson: sometimes we are the ideologues, unwilling to learn from perspectives different from our own. The opportunity to learn is a conversational ace in the hole that will nearly always allow for a friendly, profitable exchange, even when agreement seems impossible. When you cannot seek truth collaboratively or intervene in someone's thinking, you can switch to a learning frame that helps you understand your conversation partner's thinking. Adopting a posture of learning is particularly effective with dogmatists—people who hold their beliefs with absolute certainty. Nothing you say seems to reach them, but by focusing on understanding how they know what they claim to know (their epistemology), you position yourself for more effective future discussions. You might ask, "How did you arrive at that conclusion?" or "What led you to believe that?" These questions help you understand their reasoning process without directly challenging their beliefs. To transform disagreement into discovery, be explicit about your intention to learn. Say, "I want to learn" or "What more can you tell me about this so I can understand where you're coming from?" When conversations become tense, listen more than you speak. Ask clarifying questions that help you understand not just what your partner believes but why they believe it. Remember that the goal isn't to prove them wrong but to understand their perspective fully. This approach doesn't mean abandoning your own views or values. Rather, it means recognizing that your conversation partner has a different perspective, different assumptions, and different information that you might not have. By approaching disagreement as an opportunity for discovery, you create space for mutual understanding and growth. Even if minds don't change immediately, the seeds of doubt and reflection you plant may eventually bear fruit.

Chapter 6: Practice Disconfirmation for Deeper Understanding

At the heart of changing minds lies a powerful technique called disconfirmation—asking "Under what conditions could this belief be wrong?" This approach shifts the conversation from defending positions to examining how we know what we claim to know, creating space for genuine reconsideration of beliefs. It's the single most effective technique for instilling doubt and helping people change their minds. Peter once had a conversation with a beer truck enthusiast who confidently stated, "That truck is filled with beer!" When asked how he knew, the man pointed to obvious clues: "BEER" written on the side, the driver's delivery uniform, and the time of day. But asking "How do you know that?" didn't challenge his belief. A more effective approach would have been to ask, "How could that belief be wrong?" This question invites consideration of alternative possibilities: "What if the driver already delivered all the beer and was on her way back to refill the truck?" This example illustrates the difference between asking how someone knows something and asking how their belief could be wrong. The first approach often leads people to rehearse reasons supporting their belief, potentially entrenching them further. The second approach invites them to consider conditions under which their belief might be false, creating space for doubt and reconsideration. Disconfirmation works by identifying whether beliefs are disconfirmable (can be shown to be false under certain conditions) or not disconfirmable (held as absolute truths). When someone says their belief cannot be disconfirmed, they're claiming absolute knowledge—a position that's difficult to justify for most beliefs. By asking disconfirming questions, you help people recognize the limits of their certainty and open doors to more nuanced understanding. To practice disconfirmation effectively, first ask your conversation partner how confident they are in their belief on a scale from 1 to 10. If they respond with a 10, ask, "Is there any evidence, even hypothetically, that could make you change your mind?" If they say no, their belief is not disconfirmable. If they say yes, follow up with, "What would it take for you to change your mind? What evidence could cause you to revise that belief?" When beliefs are disconfirmable but only under wildly implausible conditions (like "Show me the bones of Christ" as a condition for doubting Jesus's resurrection), focus on why their disconfirmation criteria are set so high. Ask, "How did you go about setting your bar for doubt at that level? Why isn't simpler evidence enough to cast doubt?" This helps them reflect on more reasonable disconfirmation criteria. By practicing disconfirmation, you create opportunities for deeper understanding—both for yourself and your conversation partner. Remember that the goal isn't to win arguments but to help people hold their beliefs with appropriate confidence, recognizing the limits of what they (and we all) can know with certainty. This humility is the foundation of genuine learning and growth.

Summary

Throughout these chapters, we've explored powerful techniques for transforming seemingly impossible conversations into opportunities for connection and understanding. From mastering the fundamentals of respectful dialogue to speaking the language of moral values, these approaches offer practical pathways across even the deepest divides. As the authors remind us, "Conversations that remain civil, empower you, and change even the staunchest of minds are possible—even across deep divides." The journey to better conversations begins with a simple shift in mindset: from winning to understanding. When we approach conversations as partnerships rather than battles, listen more than we speak, and remain open to changing our own minds, we create space for genuine dialogue. Remember that the techniques in this book are cumulative—start with the fundamentals and gradually incorporate more advanced approaches as you gain confidence. The next time you face a seemingly impossible conversation, take a deep breath and step forward with these tools in hand. You have everything you need to speak your mind, understand others, and bridge the divides that separate us.

About Author

Loading...

Peter Boghossian

Read more