top of page

My Short Notes: How to have impossible conversations By Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay

Writer's picture: Siddhartha DebSiddhartha Deb

However In How to Have Impossible Conversations, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay guide you through the straightforward, practical, conversational techniques necessary for every successful conversation—whether the issue is climate change, religious faith, gender identity, or race, poverty, immigration, or gun control.


*self-referencing Post a) What’s in it for me? Learn to argue less and persuade more.

b) There is a way to discuss emotive and controversial topics without coming to blows. What if we holstered our killer facts and figures and started speaking with people, not at them? What if, instead of attempting to change minds by sheer force, we asked careful questions and actually listened to answers? What if we tried to help others challenge their assumptions?


Takeaways:


1. “Impossible” conversations can be productive when they become collaborative.

· A crucial element that’s often missing in these exchanges is give-and-take. Rather than speaking with one another, you take turns speaking at one another. Neither side listens. Instead, you simply pour your ideas onto your opponent, or worse, engage in verbal combat.

· Howwever, lots of people have changed their minds after engaging in conversation.

· This is because conversations are collaborative. If you come to see things differently, it’s in part because you yourself generated the ideas that helped change your mind.

· When you work together with somebody, you achieve better results than when you simply tell them that they’re wrong and, quite possibly, also stupid.

2. If you want to change someone’s mind, you have to listen to them.

· Before we get to listen, let’s look at the other side of the equation – talking. Why do compelling arguments fall on deaf ears? There’s actually a pretty simple explanation: people don’t like being lectured.

· Lecturing someone is like delivering a message. Once you’ve said your piece, your job is done; it’s up to the audience to digest its meaning. This works well in some contexts – say, in lecture halls – but it’s likely to backfire in conversations between equals.

· People are much more likely to accept “self-generated” ideas than messages delivered by others.

· How would you know that you’re delivering a message, not engaging in a conversation? One way is to ask yourself, “Was I invited to share this?” If the answer is “No,” you’re probably lecturing, which means now’s a good time to change tack.

· Everyone finds it deeply satisfying to be heard. Base your conversations on this psychological insight, and your rewards will be huge.

3. It’s easier to talk openly and air disagreements when you build rapport.

· Imagine two good friends strongly disagreeing about something. They will probably assume that there are good reasons why each holds such strong views. As a result, they will be more open to suggestions and less defensive.

· This isn’t to say that you should treat strangers as friends and attempt to build a high level of rapport with people you don’t know. But there is a case for building at least some rapport before getting into substantive issues. This is what “street epistemologists” do every day.

· The only way to do this without offending others is to build rapport with them.

· We can learn a couple of lessons from such conversations. One is to break the ice with obvious questions about names, occupations, and so on. The aim is to find common ground. Chances are, both you and your conversational partner have plenty in common. Maybe you’re both expectant parents, or you live in the same neighborhood. Bear these commonalities in mind when things get heated, and you’ll always remember that you’re dealing with a person just like you – not with some abstract “opponent.”

· Another tip is to avoid parallel talk. This is when someone tells you about their vacation in Cuba, and you take this as a cue to start talking about your time in Cuba. Asking someone questions about their holiday is an easy and effective way to build rapport. Using their stories to talk about your life, by contrast, is a great way to undermine this connection!

4. To change someone’s mind, you must first plant a seed of doubt.

· Well, if you want to change someone’s mind, you should also let them generate their own doubts.

· This begins with what’s known as modeling ignorance. If you want somebody to recognize the limits of their knowledge, pretend to be ignorant. Invite an explanation. The best way to do so is by asking them open questions. Start by saying something like, “I don’t know how mass deportations of illegal immigrants would play out.” Wait for them to answer, and then move on to follow-up questions. Don’t be shy about this. Get further and further into the nitty-gritty of the topic, all the while continuing to feign ignorance.

· What’s the end game here? Well, either your partner will realize that he actually doesn’t know that much – or, if he really is an expert, you will be rewarded with an interesting lesson.


5. To foster mutual respect and openness during arguments, use “Rapoport’s Rules.”

· How do you criticize someone while remaining civil? That’s the question the American game theorist Anatol Rapoport tried to answer. He came up with a checklist for voicing disagreements, called Rapoport’s Rules. These four rules were systematized by Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher who regarded them as the “best antidote” to the tendency to caricature other people’s arguments.

· Rule One states that you must attempt to rephrase your partner’s position in your own words. Do it as clearly and fairly as you can. You want them to say, “Wow, I wish I’d put it like that.”

· Rule Two says that you must list every point of agreement between you and your conversation partner.

· Rule Three suggests you should tell your partner what you’ve learned from their argument.

· And finally, Rule Four states that you may voice disagreements only after you’ve gone through the previous three rules.

· Each of these rules has a specific rationale. Take Rule One. Rephrasing your partner’s argument demonstrates that you want to understand their position. Underscoring points of agreement, as Rule Two demands, creates a neutral terrain onto which you can both retreat if the argument gets too heated.

· When you list what you’ve learned from them, in accordance with Rule Three, you offer your partner an example of what psychologists call pro-social modeling. Simply put, you show them how you’d like them to behave. By deferring to your partner’s expertise, you model mutual respect and openness. You also encourage them to join you in a collaborative endeavor rather than a battle. Even if they don’t reciprocate, this rule demonstrates that you value their input. This alone can help cool tempers.

· Following Rapoport’s Rules can be difficult – especially in the heat of the moment – but it will improve your conversations.


6. Not everyone forms their beliefs on the basis of evidence.

· People who value evidence above all else often find it hard to understand somebody like Ham. Unsurprisingly, this makes conversations very difficult.

· When beliefs are driven by moral or social considerations, facts rarely cut through. This is because, as humans, we care deeply about being “good.” This means that we often value feedback from peers and role models more than facts.

· they simply need to find a different way to talk – one which does not just focus on facts.


7. If evidential arguments aren’t helping, try posing logical questions instead.

· Sometimes evidence just doesn’t get you very far.

· Ironically, introducing facts in order to change someone’s mind often backfires. Their beliefs become even more entrenched. This is because this style of argument gives your opponent a reason to defend their position. They may think that admitting they were wrong will make them look “foolish.” Or they may have invested a lot of time, energy, and money into their belief.

· So, if offering factual evidence doesn’t work, what should you do instead?

· The key is to focus on the internal logic of your opponent’s belief. For now, forget about whether their views make sense. Instead, ask lots of open questions. As we learned earlier, questions are great at exposing problems and contradictions. Finally, you can try asking so-called disconfirming questions.


8. The art of hostage negotiation offers a wealth of tricks to improve conversations.

· Your conversation partners might not be as demanding as a bank robber, but that doesn’t mean you can’t employ some of the tricks police negotiators use. These tricks can help conversations flow smoothly.

· Consider so-called minimal encouragers. These are small signals that discreetly inform the speaker you’re listening – things like “Yeah,” “I see,” and “OK.” Although they require virtually no effort, minimal encouragers work great at reassuring your partner and defusing tense moments.

· Then there’s mirroring. This is another simple verbal technique that lets the speaker know you’re listening. Perhaps more importantly, it also tells them that you “get” what they’re saying. Here’s how it works: when your partner says something, simply repeat the last two or three words – but phrase them as a question.

· So, if they exclaim, “I’m just so sick and tired of people pushing everyone around!” you’d reply, “Pushing everyone around?” The idea is to keep the person talking so they offer more and more information. Whatever they say may become useful later in the conversation.

· It’s also important to remember that if you want people to change their minds, you have to give them a graceful exit. In the world of hostage negotiation, this is known as building a golden bridge. This technique draws on the insight that people are more likely to stick to their guns if that’s the only way they can save face. In practice, this can be as simple as emphasizing that the problem you’re dealing with would be very difficult for anyone, including you.

· Finally, one of the best ways to create the conditions for a positive conversation is to begin by addressing small issues. Start negotiations by dealing with things that are easy to resolve. If you agree on the small stuff early on, you’ll create a climate of success. This is the sort of environment that makes it easier to remain civil when the conversation turns to bigger disagreements.



Bibliography


Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay (2022, June 06). Book Source. Personal. How to have impossible conversations.self-referencing




Note


These are all personal notes and reviews for self referencing; The self interpretations are not meant for any profit or marketing.




Suggestion to readers


Please read the entire book. Suggested.










--------------------------------------Thank you, Gratitude, Love and Light-----------------------------------

37 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Kommentare


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

©2022 by LettersToMe. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page