Watching today’s talk shows has become
difficult for me. They seem to
orchestrate conflict purely for entertaining our sensation muscle. I meanwhile
hardly watch them anymore and find myself missing the days of Alfred Biolek’s
insightful, respectful talk show format—those who grew up like me in Germany in
the '80s and '90s may remember it.
"Respectfully disagreeing" seems to
have almost disappeared today. What happens when
people with opposing political views are brought together to discuss? Most of
us - myself included - would expect conflict, clashes, and even deeper divides.
Perhaps this is one reason why many people try to avoid such interactions.
It was a surprise to me to learn that the opposite is true. In a recent experiment (still in publication), opponents were brought together to discuss political topics they disagreed on. Surprisingly, participants rated the experience more positively than expected. Pre-measured dislike of each other decreased by 20%. Even without the goal of reaching consensus, empathy and respect for each other increased because the face-to-face meeting was able to stop the typical dehumanization of the other side that increases polarization.
The skill of disagreeing respectfully can be cultivated. Of course, not every conversation will be able to resolve conflicts. But avoiding interaction might actually worsen polarization, feeding our negativity bias and the dehuminaziation of the other side. That’s why Neuroscientist Jamil Zaki, author of Hope for Cynics, outlines four principles of respectful disagreement, that – according to research – is capable to lower polarization effects:
These principles help to move from ‘Yes,but’ to
true dialogue. In both peace work and
business, true dialogue creates a foundation for mutual understanding and at a
later stage shared commitment and responsibility. Embracing these principles of
respectful disagreement fosters what I call a "mutual listening
experience" - something I've found to be an important ingredient for teams
moving from a "yes, but" competition of arguments to a genuine
dialogue that allows common ground to be found.
Building a culture of respectful disagreement. Enabling a culture of respectful disagreement, the ability to disagree in a face-to-face situation, is probably the first step. But given that most of our conversations are channeled through some kind of pre-programmed process or digital function, I think we also need to build respectful disagreement into structures and systems. Living in Switzerland, one of the world’s oldest and most participatory democracies, I see e.g. how respectful disagreement can be built into the political system. Every citizen has the right to initiate a referendum on issues they disagree with, provided they collect enough signatures. In that vein, I believe we need more ideas how to design interventions and mechanisms for encouraging respectful disagreement – for more depolarization, peace and partnering for innovation to be successful! Thanks for sharing your ideas on that here, or with me directly.