December 7, 2024 • 71 mins
In this episode, Dr. Jade speaks with Juliana Tafur, director of the Bridging Differences Program at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. They discuss the increasing polarization in society, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Juliana shares insights from her research on social connections across differences, emphasizing the importance of understanding value hierarchies, moral reframing, and the power of listening. They explore strategies for effective conversations, the role of social media in division, and the significance of finding common ground. The episode concludes with an introduction to a 7-day connection challenge aimed at fostering empathy and connection during a time of heightened political tension.
takeaways
- Three out of four Americans desire less polarization.
- Social media algorithms contribute to echo chambers and division.
- Moral reframing can help bridge value differences.
- Listening with compassion can change perceptions.
- Finding shared identities fosters connection.
- We can choose connection over division.
- Understanding personal stories enhances empathy.
- Common goals can unite people across differences.
- The 7-day connection challenge encourages practical skills.
- Bridging differences is beneficial for personal well-being.
Chapters
00:00
Introduction to Bridging Differences
02:18
Understanding Polarization in Society
05:47
The Role of Social Media in Division
09:43
Moral Reframing and Value Hierarchies
12:54
Strategies for Effective Conversations
16:24
The Importance of Intent in Dialogue
19:14
Bridging Differences: A Health Perspective
22:06
Navigating Group Dynamics and Social Media
27:33
Finding Common Ground in Divisive Times
33:40
Finding Common Ground
38:40
Building Connections Through Shared Identities
43:52
The Power of Compassionate Listening
55:00
The 7-Day Connection Challenge
Looking for a Next Level Human Coach? Get on the waitlist and get access to the brand-new science of quantum metabolism and identity restructuring with Dr Jade and the team.
http://nextlevelhuman.com/human-coaching
Want to become a Next Level Human Coach? Get on the waitlist. Go to: http://www.nextlevelhuman.com/human-coach
Connect with Next Level Human
Website: www.nextlevelhuman.com
support@nextlevelhuman.com
Connect with Dr. Jade Teta
Website: www.jadeteta.com
Instagram: @jadeteta
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the show everybody.
I'm Dr JT, I'm your host of theNext Level Human podcast and
today we have Juliana Tafourwith me.
Today she is the director ofthe Bridging Differences Program
at UC Berkeley's Greater GoodScience Center and her research
and her focus is really onsocial connections, especially
(00:22):
across the lines of race,religion and yes, politics.
Obviously, we're coming up herein the United States on our
2024 presidential election.
This is one of the reasons thatI wanted to have Juliana on the
program.
Juliana, I'm just going to setus up really quickly with the
first question and comment Frommy perspective, and I'm just
(00:43):
going to set us up reallyquickly with the first sort of
question and comment.
But from my perspective and I'mjust wanting you to educate me
on all this and all of us onthis from my perspective, it
does seem that a lot of peopleare a little bit more afraid, a
little bit more in their baselevel selves.
There's a lot of divisivelanguage and dehumanization
(01:04):
going on from the politicalspectrum, and it really is for a
podcast and a company calledNext Level Human.
It's concerning for me because,from my perspective, we are all
team human, all humans suffer.
This is our common sort of waythat we connect, and it really
is interesting to me that wecontinue to struggle with this
(01:26):
idea that we cannot just seeeach other as our fellow humans
and accept our differences andmove into a place of
appreciation and learning thefact that we're different and we
have different views.
So help me understand.
What does your research sayabout?
Why do we continually run intothis problem?
(01:47):
Is it getting worse from yourperspective?
I know I saw a stat from you,from your organization, that
essentially says three out, butit seems like we are having a
very difficult time doing that,and so get us caught up on.
(02:09):
What is this problem?
And then I want to just reallyquiz you and understand what I
can be doing better personallyto connect to people who differ
from me, and what we all can bedoing to be better next level
humans.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Thank you, dr Jade.
All of that was beautifullysaid.
I appreciate it.
Thank you for having me on thepodcast.
So, yes, you said it Three outof four Americans have realized,
recognized this is a seriousproblem and want to do something
about it and want to live in aless polarized country.
(02:44):
So that goes hand in hand with,yes, we live in neighborhoods
that reflect our politicalbeliefs.
We're less likely to marryacross political party lines and
a rhetoric and narrative thatmay be common in our own lives.
We're even ending relationshipsover political disagreements.
(03:05):
But, all of that said, we liketo stay in the hope and we like
to talk about the hope.
Right, we know that a majorityof Americans do value diverse
perspectives.
A lot of us three quarters, orit's not three quarters three
out of four of us believe it'simportant to hear different
(03:26):
political views, even when theydon't agree with all of them.
Right, we also desire a shiftin political discourse, moving
beyond political hostility anddivisiveness.
As a step forward and, believeit or not, although it doesn't
seem like we are many Americans,three out of four Americans,
(03:51):
again, are open to learning fromothers and realize that they
can gain insights fromconversations with those that
have different views from them.
So I think both of those thingsare true and I think we hang on
to the.
Yes, we know it's hard, but wealso know a lot of people are
(04:14):
absolutely exhausted and reallydo want to be the change that
they want to see in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Yeah, you know it's interesting and I guess I'll
just throw this out to you alittle bit.
It's funny.
When I listen to, I wouldconsider myself politically sort
of a moderate.
I probably lean a little left,but when I talk to people on
either side and have manyfriends in fact, I feel like
more of my friends lately areslightly on the right but
they're still more moderate.
(04:42):
But when I sort of see thisissue, I see that there's
distrust.
And when I get on and I know weall do this, but because I'm a
student of psychology andphilosophy and really I think of
politics as the philosophy ofsort of how to run cultures, I'm
interested in what people aresaying and of course social
media can be a very divisiveplace.
(05:03):
But I'm struck by the idea thatwhen I read comment sections
and things like that, there'sthis extreme distrust that you
seem to see with people on theother side.
It's almost just like thisprofound distrust that is going
(05:28):
on and I'm wondering, from myperspective, what is causing
that, or what is your researchshown is causing that.
Is it because of we're all inour information bubbles?
Is it because we're all buyinginto one way of seeing it?
How do we make sense of whythis is happening.
What has started this issue?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, well, it's a variety of things.
As we all know, social mediaand social media algorithms end
up showing us only what webelieve, what we want to see,
and that ends up informing whatwe think the world is and how we
think everyone thinks, which isa huge problem, because we also
(06:12):
know that 10% of the loudestvoices on social media are the
most extreme, and that's sadbecause it's only 10% right what
happens to everyone else.
But those are the ones that endup being amplified and, before
we know it, we have this senseof reality that is really not
(06:34):
reality.
Also, like, demographic shiftsin the country, across the the
board, in different states, haveled people to be fearful of,
you know, newcomers of the other, of changing makeups of our
society, and that rhetoric offear, unfortunately, is used by
(07:00):
politicians also to divide us.
So I think we have to take backthe narrative as a society and
say this is not who we are.
I rather be a good human, Irather be kind to my neighbor, I
rather extend a helping hand tosomeone who might need me, and
I rather work from a mindsetthat is not a scarcity mindset
(07:24):
there is enough to go around and, like you said, we are
interdependent and are one.
We truly depend on each other,across our differences, all of
our differences, becausecollaboration is needed to reach
important or to meet importanttasks, to join in common goals
(07:50):
and to function Right.
So oftentimes we are drawn intothese narratives without
stopping and really having amoment to understand how
interdependent we are and howmuch we need to work across our
differences to function as asociety.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, you know what's funny about that?
When I hear you talk, I meancertainly I share those values,
right, I share these values ofinclusivity and integration and
wholism, and certainlycompassion and kindness are high
(08:38):
up on my value hierarchy.
Certainly compassion andkindness are high up on my value
hierarchy than compassion, forexample, and so for me, I've
found that oftentimes we can geta little bit confused because I
might go to my friend Well, youdon't have compassion, when
it's not that they don't havecompassion, it's that freedom
(09:00):
comes first and compassion isfive steps down on their value
hierarchy.
It's still a value of theirs,it's just not as high up as mine
.
And I found that when I'mhaving these conversations I
feel like a lot of it is thismisunderstanding of where the
values are.
I might be talking aboutcompassion and they're talking
(09:21):
about freedom, and then we misseach other in this dialogue and
I'm wondering if your researchhas elucidated this or has
anything to say about this.
How can we sort of talk withpeople if our value hierarchies
are so different, and is thiseven a thing?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Absolutely, it is a thing and I appreciate you
mentioning it, having noticed itright.
There is research around thisand I just want to say at the
Greater Good Science Center, weare translators of the research
to practice.
So a lot of the researchdoesn't originate within the
Greater Good Science Center, butwe are really good at taking
(10:03):
the research and making ittranslatable and applicable to
people's lives and forpractitioners to use and help
others.
So this research that I'llmention is Jonathan Heitz.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
One of my favorites.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Great, okay, so he came up with a concept, along
with other colleagues, calledmoral reframing.
So the idea is that, yes, likeyou named it, oftentimes we are
talking about the issues thatmatter to us, but from the lens
of our values and not the valuesof the people we're speaking to
(10:41):
.
Of the people we're speaking to, and we often give our own
reasons, but we forget that thepeople who we're talking to
might not share our own values.
Right, and moral reframing isall about kind of tuning into
the values that guide the otherperson, or the other group, if
(11:03):
you will and then speaking tothose values so that what you're
trying to say comes acrossbetter, is better understood by
the other side or by the otherperson.
And you are right that we valuedifferent things across the
political spectrum.
Right, we know that, forexample, republicans or people
(11:28):
who are more conservative tendto consider values like loyalty,
authority, sanctity moreimportant, whereas liberals tend
to emphasize or value morethings like harm, care, fairness
.
And obviously this is not tosay that anyone on either side
(11:48):
doesn't care about any of thesethings.
So general kind of assumptiongrouping lots of people into
these categories.
But in general terms, this iswhat their research points to.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeah, you know.
So that's really this, to me,is where perhaps I want to know
how to have these conversations.
So what would this, what wouldthis look like?
So, if I'm talking to my friend, is the way to connect with
them to essentially say, oh, Iunderstand, you know.
Freedom, let's say, issomething that you deeply care
(12:19):
about about, and begin to have adiscussion around understanding
their framing of freedom versuscompassion.
I know, for me compassion is avery.
It's way high up on my valuehierarchy.
Right To me, I'm a very.
I see compassion.
Without compassion I don't knowhow society functions.
(12:42):
But I know that from some of myfriends they just don't see it
the way I see it.
They see it almost like, youknow, being compassionate
without boundaries, let's say,is foolishness right.
And so it's this idea of youknow, trying to understand,
where they think like they mightsee compassion as weakness,
(13:03):
where I see it as a strength.
And so I'm wondering how do wethen have these conversations?
What's the first?
If we're playing human chess,let's say, not to win, but to
connect and just have funplaying the game what's the
first move that we make?
Is it to essentially say, oh, Iunderstand, you know, you see
freedom, as you know, a veryimportant thing.
I agree, freedom is important.
(13:24):
And then to begin to have thediscussion around that?
And if that is the way to do it, then do we lose ourselves and
our own values by trying to justrevolve the conversation around
theirs?
I'm wondering how we can havethese conversations, especially
in the next week, as we're alltalking politics how we can have
(13:45):
these conversations, especiallyin the next week, as we're all
talking politics, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Well, you would start with simple questions like what
values are most important toyou, or what experiences have
shaped those values right, andthen you would understand what
and how their values mightoverlap or differ from your own.
You absolutely do not have toagree and you are not leaving
your values aside when you framethings around what matters to
(14:15):
them.
This is only about you speakingtheir quote, unquote language
right, like using the way theysee the world to frame an
argument, and this is not toeither manipulate the outcome or
like right, it's just so theyunderstand that you are doing
your best to connect at a deeplevel with what matters to them
(14:39):
and frame ideas around whatmatters to them.
So I think some of thoseexamples that you gave are a
good place to start.
But this is just one of manyskills to kind of start
conversations and even to getyourself ready for conversations
, so we can talk a little bitmore about like different skills
(15:00):
at the intrapersonal level, atthe interpersonal level and then
at the inner group level, ifyou're actually a practitioner
bringing folks together.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Yeah, I love this idea and it strikes me that if
you're going to have theseconversations and either come
into a conversation it's almostas if and please correct me if
I'm wrong here, but it's almostas if I want to decrease
polarization, I have toessentially take that on and
almost put that above any othergoal, set right when it's like
(15:28):
okay, well, I am going to be theexample, I'm going to be the
next level human in theconversation.
I want to set the example that Iam going to take on
polarization, because I think itis a major problem, let's say,
and therefore I put that goal.
If I put that goal set asnumber one, then I am going to
be far more likely to remember,when I'm in these conversations,
(15:49):
to connect with that goal inmind versus connecting with the
goal of winning in mind orproving my point being in mind.
It's almost just like if I wantto decrease polarization, from
my perspective, the first movealways is to not divide, degrade
, dehumanize the person I'mtalking with or make them seem
(16:10):
or put them in a combative mode.
I want to listen to them first,which seems like what you were
saying, so that I can understandwhere they're coming from, so
that I can have a far moreimpactful and useful
conversation.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Yeah Well, I want to give in kind of your audience as
well.
I want to stress that we knowthat bridging differences is
good for health and safety.
We know that prejudices aboutthe quote, unquote, other end up
elevating stress and cancompromise immune systems.
(16:44):
So if you took it from, likethe health perspective, this is
good for you, right.
So it's one thing to make likea rational decision about thirst
polarization.
I want to do something whichwhich seems like a like a civic
orientation right to me, likethis is what we must do as a
society.
But if you want to take it fromlike a more personal, um and
(17:08):
maybe selfish reason, right,it's not good for you, um, so,
so, what are strategies?
Uh, to be able to live, coexist, um, collaborate, cooperate
with people who are differentfrom you, and and then, and then
you, you set an intention andgo for it.
(17:31):
So there's that.
And then there's also, likewhat is bridging differences,
right?
Which is like an importantframing definition to get to as
well.
So, from a more spiritual side,it starts with kind of
acknowledging and recognizingthat another person has their
(17:51):
own needs, values, goals, justlike you do.
They're just different from you, right.
And it comes with, again thisrecognition that without that
constructive dialogue, problemsolving is just not possible.
It doesn't happen without it.
And knowing that when you areentering a conversation to
(18:13):
bridge differences, you are nottrying to convince the other
person of your viewpointnecessarily, um, you're kind of
walking into the conversationwith the intent to build
consensus, right it?
This is not synonymous withcompromise, and I think it's
really important for people tounderstand that.
And it's also important tounderstand back to your point um
(18:36):
about like, do I have to leavemy values aside?
Absolutely not.
Um, we start off from the placeof who we are, what matters to
us, what identity we representor right to exist is being
questioned, then we wouldn'trecommend that you enter a
(19:09):
conversation or collaborationwhere you are attempting to
bridge differences.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Okay, yeah, so this might be the one of the most
important things you've said sofar, then.
So I just want to repeat sortof where we are.
Like, what I heard you just sayis that you should never go
into these conversations withthe idea of convincing or trying
to win.
So this might be, you know, onerule that we could put down
right now, and that to me seemspretty striking, because I do
(19:36):
think that most people who arenot being fully aware will have
the natural default to pull thetrigger of I will defend and
convince, and so this is one ofthe first things that I've heard
you say.
That's most important we haveto put aside the need to
convince other people.
(19:57):
We also said we have to makesure we know our values, but we
don't need to for lack of abetter term shove them down
other people's throat.
We can be firm in our values,and by understanding someone
else's values doesn't mean weare giving up our own values.
And so there's this idea ofthese seem like priming steps,
(20:19):
almost, where it's like okay,I'm going to enter into this
conversation, I know my goal setisn't to win and convince, and
if I'm going to enter into thisconversation, I know my goal set
isn't to win and convince, andif I'm going to end up, and my
goal set isn't to make someonetake on my values and certainly
I don't need to give up myvalues, I can simply just walk
in and be able to connect.
(20:39):
And what would be the goal thenIs it just to learn.
And you know, from you, know you, you talked about this idea of
like from an individual sort ofperspective.
Yes, it's healthier for us, butare there other ways that we
can frame this Like?
What are we gaining from this?
Uh, you know, from myperspective, I go, I love to
learn, I want to understand, soyou know that that's going to
help me, certainly go, I'm nothere to debate and win, I'm here
(21:02):
to learn and connect, and so itsounds like there's a whole set
of a whole bunch of goal setsand orientations that we can
enter into conversations withother people with.
That are very different than youknow.
The other thing where I'm goingto try to win.
There is this thing, though,that I want to ask you about,
(21:22):
because that's very different, Ithink.
Anyway, and maybe you'lleducate me on this, that's very
different.
If it's me and you, juliana,right, I meet you, we're talking
, we're sitting, findcommonality with and you can
have a nice conversationone-on-one.
(21:47):
But it seems to me that as soonas we get into the social media
realm, we forget ourselves.
As soon as we get into groupthink, we forget ourselves.
And so is there any additionalthings we need to think about
when we start to dialogue ingroups or when we start to
dialogue within social media?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, social media is a whole different ballgame.
I just want to acknowledge that, as you probably well know, it
is much harder to haveconstructive dialogue when we
have a screen between us andwhen we're hiding behind those
screens, sometimes with namesand pictures that don't
(22:27):
represent us.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
You know names and pictures that don't represent us
, so sometimes we're not eventalking to a human, which I just
read.
You've all know Harari's newbook, nexus, which is fantastic
for anyone, and he goes througha lot of this.
Right, we're not even,sometimes we're not even
dialoguing with humans and thesebots are antagonistic, almost
trying to stir up.
You know the flame and you know, obviously the algorithms are
(22:48):
such that they want people'sattention and certainly creating
divisive, dehumanizing sort ofactions can do that.
But I'm just wondering if theGreater Good Science Center has,
you know, has looked at any ofthis science and is seeing a
different way of handling it, ordo the rules still apply?
You know, go in with acharitable mindset.
You know, go in with the ideathat I want to connect.
(23:10):
Go in with the idea that I wantto learn something.
Go in with the idea that I'mnot trying to win an argument.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, all the rules stillapply and the work that we put
out a lot of it is to allowindividuals to decide for
themselves that they want to bebetter, that they want to do
better, that they want a bettersociety, right?
So I also want to emphasizethis notion of humility, which I
(23:40):
know is a value that a lot ofpeople do appreciate as well.
Right, like this idea that wecan't go about the world
thinking that no one can teachus anything, that our view of
the world is so right and theyare so wrong, right, and so just
(24:03):
an invitation to accept that wedon't have all the answers or a
monopoly on the truth.
Like how can you hate when youget to know someone?
How can you hate when youunderstand that they are a
product of their livedexperience that is maybe very
different from yours?
And when you get down tostories and personal narratives,
(24:26):
then you're connecting withwhat matters, and I think Brene
Brown said it best.
She said you can't hate upclose, and I was honest too,
even in social mediainteractions, to attempt to get
to the story under the story.
Right, what we see typically insocial media is the issue like
(24:47):
right on our face right, whatthis person believes, or the new
story that the person issharing, or emoji or not, emoji,
gif or whatever, and sometimesthat comes across as in our face
but we really have not had theopportunity to get to the story
under the story to understandwhy does this matter so deeply
(25:08):
to them?
What is it that they may befearful of Like fear is at the
core of a lot of this ordistrustful towards right.
I know you mentioned trust atthe beginning of our
conversation.
Like trust is hard to win over,especially when we're starting
from a very polarized place, andsometimes when we do this
(25:29):
bridging work, we also have toacknowledge and recognize that
getting to liking might beenough and okay, right.
Like, maybe we don't get tofull trust and that's okay.
So also recognizing that thiswork is also about small shifts
over time, even if you'restarting with I may like you now
(25:51):
, right.
And then maybe you get to knowthe person better over a series
of encounters and maybe you getinto a place where you can
actually trust them.
But don't expect that to be thedefault and what happens from
the get-go.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Well, and the other thing is and you kind of alluded
to this, but I do think, whatpeople need to understand, and I
think any human, no matterwhere you sit on the political
spectrum, you know, maybe,barring the absolute extremes of
people who, you know, justreally want to cause distress
and dysfunction in society,served by tearing other people
(26:32):
down.
Eventually, that's going to.
It's like we live in.
People like to think about oursociety and tell me what you
think about this, but peoplelike to think about our society
I see it as they like to thinkof it as a hierarchy, right.
It's like we're climbingladders, and what happens is I
call them the base levelextremes on either side, what
they seem to want to do is, whenthey're on this ladder, they
want to kick the people who arebelow them down, and they want
to pull the people who are abovethem down, and so it's just
sort of like this motto thatseems to be like me against the
(26:55):
world, but I would call that thebase level type of approach,
and I don't think most of us arelike that.
I do think, though, that mostof us are a culture level
approach, where we're climbingthe ladders and we see all the
people with the red shirts whoare on our team and we go, I'm
going to help them, or you know,and I'm going to pull the
people down from the blue side.
It seems that this, once we getin groups, we do this.
(27:18):
I think the next level humanapproach is to stop seeing
ourselves on a hierarchy ofladders and instead to see
ourselves as an ecosystem.
It's like the lion is not theking of the jungle, because he
or she cannot survive withoutthe bees and the beavers, and if
we destroy the bees and thebeavers, we end up ultimately
destroying ourselves, and I feellike humans have not yet
(27:41):
figured this out.
This divisive, dehumanizing typeof language that is being used
on both sides, from myperspective, is not good, but I
do have a question here too.
First, I want to see if youagree with that sort of.
Is that a better framing fromyour perspective?
And then, two, an immediatequestion comes up, though.
That goes well, this idea ofmoral equivalency that people
(28:03):
really get caught up on and theyjust go well, as soon as you
say it's on both sides, you'renegating the fact that perhaps
it's worse on one side or theother, and I want to know how
you handled this idea of moralequivalencies, where people tend
to go well, it's just becausewe're hearing someone.
We don't have to see this as amoral equivalence.
(28:25):
What happens when it is, youknow, essentially one side, you
know quote doing more to harmthe ecosystem than the other?
And how would we even determinethat?
Because I know people getcaught up on that where they're
like I have to stand up for thisbecause it's destructive and
one side is worse than the other.
This is the mindset that we getin.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, well, a lot to cover there, it yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Well, a lot to cover there.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, a whole lot.
Yeah, I just want to say yes.
To address your point on kind ofthe groups that we create, I
just want to acknowledge that,developmentally, right, we used
to be in tribes, in our owngroups, and anyone who was an
(29:14):
outsider was a threat to ourgroup and we needed to be
fearful of them for survival,for protecting ourselves and our
kind or our kin.
And that is no longer the case.
Right, we are no longer inthose groups, but the mentality
(29:37):
of protecting your own and fearof the other perseveres and we
need to shift that.
We are no longer those peoplewho we were, right, we are
evolved, um, hopefully moreevolved, uh, beings, and, and on
the path, uh, to compassion, uh, to love, to acceptance, to
(30:02):
care, despite our differences,right, um, so just want to
acknowledge that, right, so,just want to acknowledge that.
And you also named like ourgroup versus the other, and kind
of like pushing one down andthe other one up, like it
(30:23):
doesn't have to be that way,right, so a really good strategy
or skill science based skillfor beginning to tap into what
unite us is finding sharedidentities, so looking beyond
our differences and really doingour best to identify larger and
kind of inclusive connectionsthat we might have with others.
(30:45):
So the idea is that.
So the idea is that we are morelikely research points to us
being more kind and moreunderstanding towards others
when we see them as part of alarger group, and I'll talk a
little bit about the sciencearound this to give you a
(31:05):
concrete example.
So there's a study out of theUK that was researching
Manchester United fans and theManchester United fans in the
first part of the study wereasked to think about their group
as Manchester United fans, sothe winds of Manchester United,
(31:28):
the fandom of Manchester United,etc.
And then they were sent acrossa parking lot where they had to,
or they came across withsomeone who was apparently
injured and this person was attimes wearing a Manchester
United jersey and at times theywere wearing a Liverpool jersey,
the rival team's jersey.
(31:50):
And then the study was repeatedand the study was repeated
taking again Manchester Unitedfans and in this case they were
made to think about soccerfandom.
So what they had in common withother soccer fans their
appreciation for the sport, etcetera.
(32:10):
And the same thing happened.
They were sent across theparking lot, a person injured,
sometimes wearing a ManchesterUnited shirt and sometimes
wearing a Liverpool shirt.
And what's interesting in whathappened was that, um, in the
first study, uh, when they weresent across, they helped.
(32:34):
Um, let me, let me pull up thescience.
I just want to make sure I Isay this, uh, correctly, so
pause me there for a second.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Yeah, and it's making sense to me because I my guess
would be that that in the firstcondition, where they were
primed to think of themselves asManchester United fans, they
would be more likely to help theManchester United jersey
wearing person.
But it seems to me that whenyou're primed to think of
yourself as a soccer fan, thatis no longer going to become an
(33:03):
issue.
You'll probably help at anequal level, no matter what
soccer jersey they're wearing.
So that's what I would guessthe hypothesis would show.
So am I right?
Close on that?
Speaker 2 (33:14):
No, you're absolutely right.
I just want to give you theexact numbers.
So it turns out that theManchester the when there were
four times more likely to helpthe person in need if the person
was wearing a Manchester Unitedjersey than if they were
wearing the jersey of the rivalteam Four times more likely.
(33:38):
So this just goes to show thatfinding shared identities can
truly dictate how well we treatpeople.
But it also goes to show thatthis is an internal shift that
we can all do when we try tounderstand.
What is it that we might havein common with folks that may be
(34:01):
more important than thisdifference that is made so
apparent and so threatening,right?
So I just want us to rememberthat, because at the end of the
day, as we kind of move towardsthe election as well, are there
things as Americans that wevalue, that we can kind of rally
(34:23):
around, like our belief inservice to community, our belief
in belonging in the spaceswhere we are, our belief in
service to community, our beliefin belonging in the spaces
where we are, our belief indemocracy and that's actually
one latest finding from researchthat we can all get around,
regardless of where we standpolitically.
We value democracy.
(34:44):
That is something we all valueand so, yeah, just an invitation
to see beyond and that's likeat the macro level.
But then we can connect with.
Are we fans of a soccer team?
Right, we can connect with.
Do we go to the same church?
Do we serve in the same foodpantry, whatever?
It is right, like there arethese smaller kind of everyday
(35:07):
connections.
Or can we connect as parentswith similar experiences with
raising kids?
So there are so many thingsthat we can find that we can
connect with others on, and fromthat shared identity we begin
to work backwards.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, you know what it reminds me of too.
If you look at these bigmovements in history, it makes
me think of Nelson Mandela,makes me think of Martin Luther
King, makes me think of MahatmaGandhi and some of these big
movements that were up againstincredible odds.
It seems to me what they didwas, you know, martin Luther
King did not necessarily focuson black versus white.
He focused on agape love.
(35:46):
We're all human, you know.
Let's all love each other.
That was sort of the message.
Nelson Mandela wasn't talkingabout black and white South
Africans, he was talking aboutSouth Africa.
He even used the rugby team asa way to unite all South
Africans.
And so this to me we haveevidence for this in very big
movements across the world.
(36:07):
And I love what you're sayingas aspiring next level humans
this idea that we need to learnthe skill of connecting on sort
of micro levels, where it's likeyou know, me and you are both
interested in psychology,research and that kind of stuff,
and we can vibe on that Right,and we can vibe on different
areas, and we need to understandthat.
But I think we lose that.
(36:27):
We need to keep going up thelevel when we are dealing in
bigger groups.
And to me, one of the things Ifocused on is I just go, we all
suffer like this is a Buddhistprinciple, right?
It's like you know, if there'sone thing that we can say, I
know this about Juliana, sheknows it about me.
We've never met before.
I know it about all youlisteners.
You know it about us.
Every single human has a storyof suffering.
(36:48):
You know it about us.
Every single human has a storyof suffering.
And so, from my perspective,when I think about loving my
fellow human, I go.
I know you talking to anAmerican.
Sure, I can vibe, and don't youlove being American?
(37:15):
Yes, I love being an Americantoo.
But if I'm talking to someoneoutside of America, instead of
othering them, I can justessentially go oh, we're all now
human.
Sometimes I wish, juliana, thatwe would just get contacted by
aliens or something, because Ithink that might be the thing
that might make us go.
You know what?
We better get on board thatwe're all humans, we're all in
this together, but right now wedon't sort of have that.
(37:36):
So let me just catch up wherewe are and then we can kind of
begin wrapping up.
But it sounds like a couple ofthings that now I've learned
from you.
Number one, this idea thatwe're not trying to win when
we're having these discussions.
Number two we really need todevelop a sense of humility.
(37:56):
Another thing I've learned isthat this idea that guess what?
Most of us don't want thispolarization that's a way that
we can connect right.
That alone is a way that we canbegin to connect with each
other.
And then this idea of findingthese commonalities and
realizing that that is going tobe the thing that tears us apart
.
Why can't we find, instead ofsearching for, what makes us
different?
(38:17):
This is just a mindset of goingwhere are we the same?
How can I connect in the same?
I know you guys have sort of awhole set of things that you do
and teach, and I know you're, ifI'm right, you're doing a
challenge on this to help peopleunderstand how to be better
with this.
Do you want to walk us through,like, some of the things that
we can do and what thischallenge is all about and some
(38:39):
of the steps that we can take onan individual level?
Because I know from myperspective, I would really like
to practice this, especially,you know, during this time where
we're seeing all thesedifferences between us.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yeah, absolutely yes.
So one that you can doindividually.
A science-based skill that youcan apply more easily is seeing
the person, not the label iswhat we're calling it.
So when we learn personaldetails about others beyond
their labels all labels, but yes, in the context of politics,
(39:12):
it's also their political labelsResearch points to us viewing
them with more warmth bytricking your brain, by asking
yourself simple questions likedo they like broccoli or carrots
(39:33):
, or do they like cats or dogs?
And what this does is that itallows us to truly take a step
back and understand that people,even people who are different
from you, have individualqualities and individual traits,
and they are more than thecategory right.
(39:53):
And then, if you want to takeit a step further, then you
would try learning somethingmore personal about them, and
this could be something abouttheir family or hobbies or, if
you're in the same company,something that they like about
the job.
Right.
And again, science shows usthat when we learn personal
(40:16):
details about those who may seemdifferent from us, we are
feeling more warmth andconnection towards them, and so
that's an easy one, honestly,that anyone can start today.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (40:30):
that makes me think of.
It makes me think of this idea.
You know, like when we watch TVlike sometimes you watch the
you'll even watch like a movieabout like a serial killer or a
show about a serial killer, andyou'll watch these shows and
you'll develop some sense ofconnection to that because you
deeply understand the story.
It just makes me think thatyou're basically saying here
that understand people's stories.
(40:51):
And when you understandpeople's stories it's going to
usually help you connect.
I also like this idea that wecan connect on the fact that we
both like dogs, or we canconnect on the fact that you can
teach me about cats.
So it's like this idea of youand me.
Let's say we both like dogs.
I'm like, cool, I love dogs.
We start talking about dogs,but let's say I love dogs and
you love cats.
(41:11):
Then I get to connect on you,with you, to teach me about cats
and you know.
So it's like it sounds to melike we're just trying to
connect and go deeper with that.
Yeah, what else, what else?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
I'm curious, so that's, that's a good one.
Or sports team lovers, um, andthen.
And then you were pointing toperspective taking, also with
like, you know, when you, whenyou see a narrative, um, even on
television, and understandwhere the person is coming from,
right, like that is perspectivetaking.
You are taking theirperspective, um, and and even if
(41:50):
you don't engage directly withthe other person, research shows
that we can broaden ourperspective when we just ask
ourselves what experiences mighthave shaped their views, right,
so it's not rocket science,it's very common sense, but it
allows us to take some distanceand to understand that maybe
(42:13):
they're not the monster we'remaking them out to be.
Another really good one, that'sa more kind of one that you can
do on your own.
Is self-distancing, reallybothering you about something
someone said to you or on socialmedia?
You could take a moment andnotice your emotions and instead
(42:35):
of asking yourself why am I soangry, you would ask yourself
why is fill in the blank yourname, in my case Juliana, why is
Juliana so angry?
What makes her so upset aboutthis?
You talk to yourself in thethird person and using her and
(42:56):
she pronouns, and it allows youto take some distance again and
to understand from a little bitof a distance what you're
feeling, and it allows you toalmost, like, re regain your
composure, uh, so that you canagain, uh, engage in
conversation or approach theperson for conversation, but it
(43:17):
it kind of it stops you in yourimpulses.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Um, so I love that one.
I love that one.
I'll tell you I I train coaches, that we have human coaches as
part of the next level human andone of the things that we found
most powerful in working withour clients is dimensionalizing
their consciousness by eithersaying, hey, let's talk to your
little girl, or let's talk toyour little boy, or let's talk
to your adolescent self, orlet's talk to your future self,
and then even let's talk to thatemotion, so internal family
(43:44):
systems and some of these things.
We use this technique and it'shighly effective at getting
people to understand themselvesa little bit better ready to
engage.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
Then we talk about listening with compassion and
the importance of and power oflistening with compassion.
(44:16):
Because we may enter aconversation wanting to honestly
serve the other person as welisten and help them make
meaning of the story and almostco-create with you, and I would
hope that that's the intentionof entering a conversation when
you're trying to listen withcompassion.
But then science tells us thatwhen we listen, just the act of
(44:38):
us listening makes us beperceived by the other person as
more trustworthy and it alsoencourages our conversation
partners or the people who arelistening to us be more open
minded and less defensive.
So just like stopping there tothink and realize and recognize
(44:59):
the power of listening andreally making people see you
differently, just by youstopping and giving them the
time of day and recognizing yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:11):
Can I comment on that ?
Because I think this might bethe most powerful thing that
you've said, at least for me.
I don't know what you listenersthink, but at least for me,
because the idea is that we havethis idea that we can convince
and we want to convince, and weoftentimes get caught in that.
And to me, what you're saying,Juliana, is so powerful.
You're essentially saying thatif when I know this research as
(45:35):
well, but correct me if I'mwrong on this what I think a lot
of people don't understand is,the more you try to convince and
tell someone they're wrong, themore they dig in their heels.
What Juliana is so, in otherwords, you actually are
defeating your purpose ofconvincing anybody of anything
when you tell them they're wrong.
(45:56):
But what Juliana is pointing usto is this idea of we don't
actually have to do anything butlisten, and this makes someone
more likely to change their mind.
What she's telling us is thatwhen we listen from a
compassionate place, peoplebecome more open and they become
more.
You have the ability toinfluence and inspire simply by
your presence of listening.
I find that such a simple,powerful, beautiful aspect of
being human.
We don't have to do.
(46:17):
It's almost like we can changepeople in the idea of just
acting and being present, versusbeing in people's faces.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
A hundred percent, yeah, I love that.
That's all people need.
There's a quote I love by DavidAugsburger, who's a theology
expert, in his book CaringEnough to Confront.
He says being heard is so closeto being loved that for the
average person they are almostindistinguishable.
And I just want us to sit withthat for a minute because it's
(46:47):
so powerful.
That's all we want.
Being listened to is one of ourmost fundamental needs.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
I think I may have lost you, Juliana, but if you
can hear me, you may want tocome off and log back in.
You're quiet.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
It changes the game.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
You look like you're locked up on me.
See if you come back.
So we'll see if, uh, if julianapops back in um, because we
just lost her on the feed, buthopefully she'll, she'll uh,
(47:24):
come back in.
But I loved essentially whatshe was saying there.
You know, in regards to thisidea of listening and
compassionately listening, and Ido think if we're going to
listen as humans in this way, wedo have to come at it from a
place of there's something herefor me to learn rather than
there's something for me toteach.
That's where the humility piecesort of comes in.
(47:47):
For us.
It's really powerful.
And then just realizing thatthere's a story here from this
person and stories areinteresting, I mean there's no
better way to connect withsomeone in my mind than to say
to them tell me about your story.
I mean, who doesn't want toshare their story?
Right?
And I think that is a big pieceof this and this idea that when
(48:10):
we are in this place where wehave somebody sharing their
story and we're listening fromthat perspective, there's deep
connection.
There's deep connection there.
So Juliana's coming back in.
I was just telling him, juliana, that, just filling him in on
this idea.
I love this idea of justlistening, because one of the
(48:30):
things I think that's importantis there's nothing more
connection oriented than saying,hey, juliana, tell me your
story, where are you from, whatare you doing?
There's nothing that openspeople up more than that, and so
I love that aspect of things alot and, I have to be honest,
it's something that I'm notnecessarily great about.
(48:51):
I'll tell you a secret I'mreally good with, like, if I
meet Juliana or if I meet any ofyou listeners.
I'm really good at compassionand listening, but you know who
I'm not good at it with is myfamily and my brothers and my
sisters and my parents and mycousins and my aunts and uncles.
It's like somehow with them, Iguess, because there's more
history there, I can easily goback into my base level self.
(49:14):
But yeah, julianne, so now thatI got you back, what else
besides?
Well, you were going to tell usabout this favorite quote of
yours.
Times is by David Augsburger.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
He's a theology expert.
In his book Caring Enough toConfront, he says being heard is
so close to being loved thatfor the average person they are
almost indistinguishable.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
Oh, wow, yeah, that is super, super powerful.
And how many of us can relateto that Like 100%?
You know it's funny, super,super powerful.
And how many of us can relateto that Like a hundred percent?
Like you know, it's funnysometimes that I, when I used to
date a lot right, and I wouldgo on these dates with
individuals and this, this wouldmake itself known because I'm
just someone who, when I meetsomeone for the first time, I
just let them talk and I'm veryinterested in people's stories
(50:06):
and but I, there were a coupleof times there where I'm, you
know, she's like that wasamazing, you know, and I'm
thinking to myself, I didn'teven say anything, like I don't
know why she thinks I'm amazing.
I literally said nothing, andso I do think this speaks to
kind of what you're speakingabout.
So, as we wrap up, I guess Iwould love to hear your final
things, and then I want to hearabout, you know, this connection
(50:26):
challenge.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Let's see from our other skillsthat we haven't talked about, I
think, identifying common goals.
We already touched on moralreframing and kind of connecting
with their values and not yourvalues.
What?
Speaker 1 (50:44):
would that be like, though?
What would that be like?
Common goals of, like you know,in politics, let's say,
maintaining the democracy, orcommon goals of, you know,
freedom of autonomy, and youknow what is that.
Or is that more more personaland not, you know, sort of
political?
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Yeah, I mean I think we we take it to the personal.
Obviously, at the policy andpolitical level there's a lot
that politics do to identifycommon goals to move forward.
But at the personal level itcould be as simple as do we care
(51:20):
about the education system andthe quality of education that
kids are getting Right?
That is a common goal that a lotof us can get around.
That a lot of us can get around.
And the idea is that when weidentify those shared goals,
(51:42):
especially one that identifieseveryone involved, we end up
putting aside our differencesand cooperating.
And then, once we arecooperating on common goals,
it's easier to shift ourperceptions or perspectives of
people from maybe you knowadversaries to simply
collaborators, right?
So I just want us to think ofthat too, that sometimes the
(52:03):
best way and depending on whoyou are like, you may be called
into a conversation for the sakeof listening with compassion
and dialogue and getting to knowthe other person's perspective
and way of being in this world,but we won't attract everyone
into bridge building and thoseconversations in that way.
(52:24):
So just acknowledging that, youknow, for practitioners,
executing this work oftentimes acommon goal and like what is in
the interest of all partiesinvolved is a great way to begin
to bring groups together,because it taps to a shared need
and it's easy to do, like itboils down to identifying what
(52:49):
is a goal that we share and thenkind of mapping out ways that
we can collaborate and havingenough moments of interaction so
that we are beginning to seepast our differences and are
beginning to value what we eachcontribute to this shared goal.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Yeah, I love that idea.
Yeah, I love that idea.
To me, I can almost see myselfin a conversation using your
example and saying, instead ofsaying sounds to me like you
don't care about kids, I couldsay well, it looks like we're
(53:28):
both that you're you care, andso now we can continue dialogue
versus me.
You know, saying you don't care, and all of a sudden there's a
record scratch where it's likeyou know.
It turns into an argument Ilove, I love that idea.
Speaker 2 (53:39):
A hundred percent.
That level sets theconversation and people feel
seen, when you acknowledge thatyou are seeing something that is
also important to them, butmaybe their approach to it is a
little bit different from yours.
So how can those approachesmerge so that true collaboration
and cooperation can happen andso you can begin to change the
(53:59):
perspective or perception of whothis person previously was in
your mind?
Speaker 1 (54:04):
You know what else I love too, juliana?
I love the idea that having aconversation with someone and by
me showing up this way, I dothink they're much more likely
to show up this way in theirnext conversation.
It reminds me of this idea whenI'm walking down the trail by
my house and I like to smile atpeople as they pass, and the
truth is, most don't smile back.
Right, I try to make eyecontact, I try to smile at them
(54:26):
and most people aren't going tosmile back, and I just keep
doing that because part of megoes maybe I didn't see him
smile back, but I know they'regoing to feel that and I also
know they're far more likely tosmile or be in a good mood to
the next person that they pass,and I think this is part of that
too.
I do think that we humans wantto matter and make a difference.
I think most of us want tomatter and make a difference,
(54:48):
and this is a very positive waythat we can do this without, you
know, having to give up ourvalues or be different.
I just love the idea of this.
It's very simple to do.
So let me ask you, with thischallenge that you're doing,
walk us through how this works?
And is it essentially this ideathat we're taking these skill
sets that you've sort ofeducated us on and we're just
(55:11):
challenging ourselves to usethese for a certain amount of
days, or how does this work?
Speaker 2 (55:17):
Yeah, absolutely.
So we have a seven-day campaignfor connection challenge.
So, leading up to the election,we are not campaigning for a
candidate, not campaigning forthe hatred, division,
polarization that is hurting us,but we are campaigning for
connection, because we dobelieve that politics may divide
us, but we can chooseconnection.
(55:38):
So we've created seven days ofskills that we are disseminating
on a daily basis.
So when people sign up theywill be getting a skill a day
and each of those skills is aninvitation to practice.
So obviously, in a day maybeyou won't get to foster a
(56:01):
relationship and collaborate onshared goals, so we're very
mindful of that.
So we have kind of kept it atmaybe a self-reflection practice
, or maybe you visualize someonein a different light, or maybe
you do turn to your partner orroommates and listen to them
with compassion not necessarilyon politics, right.
(56:24):
So the idea is that we'rebeginning to equip folks, to
build the muscles to be able todo this in their everyday lives
and incrementally increase theirability to engage across
difference, even intense,conversations.
(56:45):
So we know that you won'tnecessarily jump into the
hardest conversation or into thelongest bridge right, we talk
about short bridges also.
So maybe it's a bridge withsomeone you love, that you have
a disagreement on something, andthen eventually, you can get to
someone you don't know that youhave a big disagreement on a
(57:07):
policy issue, right?
So like thinking of it as shortand long bridges.
And when might you be ready toengage in that long bridge and
understanding that it is trulylike exercising it is a muscle
that can be worked out so thatyou can be prepared to have
those harder conversations whenthe time comes.
Speaker 1 (57:28):
Yeah, I love this Kind of like basic training for
next level humans.
So is there kind of a?
I love that level humans, yes,so is there a?
Is there kind of a?
I love that a lot, so is it.
Is there a link or where can Isend people to to find this?
Speaker 2 (57:37):
absolutely.
Um, let me.
We have a tiny uh url that iscirculating, but let me, let me
tell you the tiny url.
Speaker 1 (57:47):
Um yeah, I just love this idea of you know, with this
, not having to be heavy lifting.
You know what I also like,julianne?
I also like that it's rightaround election time, because I
do think this is the mostimportant time to do this work
and to get these skill sets.
Speaker 2 (58:03):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Our tiny URL is 7daychallenge24.
Seven day 7daychallenge.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Challenge 24.
Seven Day Challenge yeah, 24.
Speaker 2 (58:15):
Seven, number seven day with caps, challenge with C
caps and 24.
I'm happy to pop it in the chatand to make it available in
show notes afterwards as well.
Yeah 100%.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
I'll put it in the show notes for sure.
I appreciate you.
So, juliana, any any further.
First of all, thank you foryour work.
You know, from my perspective,these are the organizations that
I really want to.
You know.
The greater good science center.
Thank you for your work there.
Thank you for helping translateall this science for us.
Thank you for bringing simpleways for us to just be better
humans and connect.
(58:50):
And is there any other thingthat you want to say or leave us
with?
Speaker 2 (58:56):
I just want to say that we can do this right, like
in this moment of anxiety andstress and division.
It's hard to forget that we cando this stress and division.
It's hard to forget that we cando this, and I just want to
(59:16):
leave people with the idea thatthis is possible, that we have
seen people do this across someof the most complex divides and
really walk away, not changingtheir position on the issue, but
changing how they perceive theother person and feeling an
enormous relief from that, andthat's what we're inviting you
(59:40):
to do.
We're not changing anyone'sperspective on issues.
We are changing how we feelabout others and we are
connecting at a deeper levelwith others and we are feeling
better about ourselves and weare feeling better about the
polarization and hatred becausewe are doing something about it.
Speaker 1 (59:59):
Yeah, I love it.
I think this work is soimportant.
Thank you again.
Juliana Tafor, thank you forbeing here.
Go ahead and hang on the line.
I'm going to shut down therecord, just make sure
everything uploads, but for allof you listening, thank you so
much for hanging out with us andwe will see you at the next
show.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
Thank you.
Welcome to the show everybody.
I'm Dr JT, I'm your host of theNext Level Human podcast and
today we have Juliana Tafourwith me.
Today she is the director ofthe Bridging Differences Program
at UC Berkeley's Greater GoodScience Center and her research
and her focus is really onsocial connections, especially
(00:22):
across the lines of race,religion and yes, politics.
Obviously, we're coming up herein the United States on our
2024 presidential election.
This is one of the reasons thatI wanted to have Juliana on the
program.
Juliana, I'm just going to setus up really quickly with the
first question and comment Frommy perspective, and I'm just
(00:43):
going to set us up reallyquickly with the first sort of
question and comment.
But from my perspective and I'mjust wanting you to educate me
on all this and all of us onthis from my perspective, it
does seem that a lot of peopleare a little bit more afraid, a
little bit more in their baselevel selves.
There's a lot of divisivelanguage and dehumanization
(01:04):
going on from the politicalspectrum, and it really is for a
podcast and a company calledNext Level Human.
It's concerning for me because,from my perspective, we are all
team human, all humans suffer.
This is our common sort of waythat we connect, and it really
is interesting to me that wecontinue to struggle with this
(01:26):
idea that we cannot just seeeach other as our fellow humans
and accept our differences andmove into a place of
appreciation and learning thefact that we're different and we
have different views.
So help me understand.
What does your research sayabout?
Why do we continually run intothis problem?
(01:47):
Is it getting worse from yourperspective?
I know I saw a stat from you,from your organization, that
essentially says three out, butit seems like we are having a
very difficult time doing that,and so get us caught up on.
(02:09):
What is this problem?
And then I want to just reallyquiz you and understand what I
can be doing better personallyto connect to people who differ
from me, and what we all can bedoing to be better next level
humans.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Thank you, dr Jade.
All of that was beautifullysaid.
I appreciate it.
Thank you for having me on thepodcast.
So, yes, you said it Three outof four Americans have realized,
recognized this is a seriousproblem and want to do something
about it and want to live in aless polarized country.
(02:44):
So that goes hand in hand with,yes, we live in neighborhoods
that reflect our politicalbeliefs.
We're less likely to marryacross political party lines and
a rhetoric and narrative thatmay be common in our own lives.
We're even ending relationshipsover political disagreements.
(03:05):
But, all of that said, we liketo stay in the hope and we like
to talk about the hope.
Right, we know that a majorityof Americans do value diverse
perspectives.
A lot of us three quarters, orit's not three quarters three
out of four of us believe it'simportant to hear different
(03:26):
political views, even when theydon't agree with all of them.
Right, we also desire a shiftin political discourse, moving
beyond political hostility anddivisiveness.
As a step forward and, believeit or not, although it doesn't
seem like we are many Americans,three out of four Americans,
(03:51):
again, are open to learning fromothers and realize that they
can gain insights fromconversations with those that
have different views from them.
So I think both of those thingsare true and I think we hang on
to the.
Yes, we know it's hard, but wealso know a lot of people are
(04:14):
absolutely exhausted and reallydo want to be the change that
they want to see in the world.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Yeah, you know it's interesting and I guess I'll
just throw this out to you alittle bit.
It's funny.
When I listen to, I wouldconsider myself politically sort
of a moderate.
I probably lean a little left,but when I talk to people on
either side and have manyfriends in fact, I feel like
more of my friends lately areslightly on the right but
they're still more moderate.
(04:42):
But when I sort of see thisissue, I see that there's
distrust.
And when I get on and I know weall do this, but because I'm a
student of psychology andphilosophy and really I think of
politics as the philosophy ofsort of how to run cultures, I'm
interested in what people aresaying and of course social
media can be a very divisiveplace.
(05:03):
But I'm struck by the idea thatwhen I read comment sections
and things like that, there'sthis extreme distrust that you
seem to see with people on theother side.
It's almost just like thisprofound distrust that is going
(05:28):
on and I'm wondering, from myperspective, what is causing
that, or what is your researchshown is causing that.
Is it because of we're all inour information bubbles?
Is it because we're all buyinginto one way of seeing it?
How do we make sense of whythis is happening.
What has started this issue?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, well, it's a variety of things.
As we all know, social mediaand social media algorithms end
up showing us only what webelieve, what we want to see,
and that ends up informing whatwe think the world is and how we
think everyone thinks, which isa huge problem, because we also
(06:12):
know that 10% of the loudestvoices on social media are the
most extreme, and that's sadbecause it's only 10% right what
happens to everyone else.
But those are the ones that endup being amplified and, before
we know it, we have this senseof reality that is really not
(06:34):
reality.
Also, like, demographic shiftsin the country, across the the
board, in different states, haveled people to be fearful of,
you know, newcomers of the other, of changing makeups of our
society, and that rhetoric offear, unfortunately, is used by
(07:00):
politicians also to divide us.
So I think we have to take backthe narrative as a society and
say this is not who we are.
I rather be a good human, Irather be kind to my neighbor, I
rather extend a helping hand tosomeone who might need me, and
I rather work from a mindsetthat is not a scarcity mindset
(07:24):
there is enough to go around and, like you said, we are
interdependent and are one.
We truly depend on each other,across our differences, all of
our differences, becausecollaboration is needed to reach
important or to meet importanttasks, to join in common goals
(07:50):
and to function Right.
So oftentimes we are drawn intothese narratives without
stopping and really having amoment to understand how
interdependent we are and howmuch we need to work across our
differences to function as asociety.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Yeah, you know what's funny about that?
When I hear you talk, I meancertainly I share those values,
right, I share these values ofinclusivity and integration and
wholism, and certainlycompassion and kindness are high
(08:38):
up on my value hierarchy.
Certainly compassion andkindness are high up on my value
hierarchy than compassion, forexample, and so for me, I've
found that oftentimes we can geta little bit confused because I
might go to my friend Well, youdon't have compassion, when
it's not that they don't havecompassion, it's that freedom
(09:00):
comes first and compassion isfive steps down on their value
hierarchy.
It's still a value of theirs,it's just not as high up as mine
.
And I found that when I'mhaving these conversations I
feel like a lot of it is thismisunderstanding of where the
values are.
I might be talking aboutcompassion and they're talking
(09:21):
about freedom, and then we misseach other in this dialogue and
I'm wondering if your researchhas elucidated this or has
anything to say about this.
How can we sort of talk withpeople if our value hierarchies
are so different, and is thiseven a thing?
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Absolutely, it is a thing and I appreciate you
mentioning it, having noticed itright.
There is research around thisand I just want to say at the
Greater Good Science Center, weare translators of the research
to practice.
So a lot of the researchdoesn't originate within the
Greater Good Science Center, butwe are really good at taking
(10:03):
the research and making ittranslatable and applicable to
people's lives and forpractitioners to use and help
others.
So this research that I'llmention is Jonathan Heitz.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
One of my favorites.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Great, okay, so he came up with a concept, along
with other colleagues, calledmoral reframing.
So the idea is that, yes, likeyou named it, oftentimes we are
talking about the issues thatmatter to us, but from the lens
of our values and not the valuesof the people we're speaking to
(10:41):
.
Of the people we're speaking to, and we often give our own
reasons, but we forget that thepeople who we're talking to
might not share our own values.
Right, and moral reframing isall about kind of tuning into
the values that guide the otherperson, or the other group, if
(11:03):
you will and then speaking tothose values so that what you're
trying to say comes acrossbetter, is better understood by
the other side or by the otherperson.
And you are right that we valuedifferent things across the
political spectrum.
Right, we know that, forexample, republicans or people
(11:28):
who are more conservative tendto consider values like loyalty,
authority, sanctity moreimportant, whereas liberals tend
to emphasize or value morethings like harm, care, fairness
.
And obviously this is not tosay that anyone on either side
(11:48):
doesn't care about any of thesethings.
So general kind of assumptiongrouping lots of people into
these categories.
But in general terms, this iswhat their research points to.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Yeah, you know.
So that's really this, to me,is where perhaps I want to know
how to have these conversations.
So what would this, what wouldthis look like?
So, if I'm talking to my friend, is the way to connect with
them to essentially say, oh, Iunderstand, you know.
Freedom, let's say, issomething that you deeply care
(12:19):
about about, and begin to have adiscussion around understanding
their framing of freedom versuscompassion.
I know, for me compassion is avery.
It's way high up on my valuehierarchy.
Right To me, I'm a very.
I see compassion.
Without compassion I don't knowhow society functions.
(12:42):
But I know that from some of myfriends they just don't see it
the way I see it.
They see it almost like, youknow, being compassionate
without boundaries, let's say,is foolishness right.
And so it's this idea of youknow, trying to understand,
where they think like they mightsee compassion as weakness,
(13:03):
where I see it as a strength.
And so I'm wondering how do wethen have these conversations?
What's the first?
If we're playing human chess,let's say, not to win, but to
connect and just have funplaying the game what's the
first move that we make?
Is it to essentially say, oh, Iunderstand, you know, you see
freedom, as you know, a veryimportant thing.
I agree, freedom is important.
(13:24):
And then to begin to have thediscussion around that?
And if that is the way to do it, then do we lose ourselves and
our own values by trying to justrevolve the conversation around
theirs?
I'm wondering how we can havethese conversations, especially
in the next week, as we're alltalking politics how we can have
(13:45):
these conversations, especiallyin the next week, as we're all
talking politics, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Well, you would start with simple questions like what
values are most important toyou, or what experiences have
shaped those values right, andthen you would understand what
and how their values mightoverlap or differ from your own.
You absolutely do not have toagree and you are not leaving
your values aside when you framethings around what matters to
(14:15):
them.
This is only about you speakingtheir quote, unquote language
right, like using the way theysee the world to frame an
argument, and this is not toeither manipulate the outcome or
like right, it's just so theyunderstand that you are doing
your best to connect at a deeplevel with what matters to them
(14:39):
and frame ideas around whatmatters to them.
So I think some of thoseexamples that you gave are a
good place to start.
But this is just one of manyskills to kind of start
conversations and even to getyourself ready for conversations
, so we can talk a little bitmore about like different skills
(15:00):
at the intrapersonal level, atthe interpersonal level and then
at the inner group level, ifyou're actually a practitioner
bringing folks together.
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Yeah, I love this idea and it strikes me that if
you're going to have theseconversations and either come
into a conversation it's almostas if and please correct me if
I'm wrong here, but it's almostas if I want to decrease
polarization, I have toessentially take that on and
almost put that above any othergoal, set right when it's like
(15:28):
okay, well, I am going to be theexample, I'm going to be the
next level human in theconversation.
I want to set the example that Iam going to take on
polarization, because I think itis a major problem, let's say,
and therefore I put that goal.
If I put that goal set asnumber one, then I am going to
be far more likely to remember,when I'm in these conversations,
(15:49):
to connect with that goal inmind versus connecting with the
goal of winning in mind orproving my point being in mind.
It's almost just like if I wantto decrease polarization, from
my perspective, the first movealways is to not divide, degrade
, dehumanize the person I'mtalking with or make them seem
(16:10):
or put them in a combative mode.
I want to listen to them first,which seems like what you were
saying, so that I can understandwhere they're coming from, so
that I can have a far moreimpactful and useful
conversation.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Yeah Well, I want to give in kind of your audience as
well.
I want to stress that we knowthat bridging differences is
good for health and safety.
We know that prejudices aboutthe quote, unquote, other end up
elevating stress and cancompromise immune systems.
(16:44):
So if you took it from, likethe health perspective, this is
good for you, right.
So it's one thing to make likea rational decision about thirst
polarization.
I want to do something whichwhich seems like a like a civic
orientation right to me, likethis is what we must do as a
society.
But if you want to take it fromlike a more personal, um and
(17:08):
maybe selfish reason, right,it's not good for you, um, so,
so, what are strategies?
Uh, to be able to live, coexist, um, collaborate, cooperate
with people who are differentfrom you, and and then, and then
you, you set an intention andgo for it.
(17:31):
So there's that.
And then there's also, likewhat is bridging differences,
right?
Which is like an importantframing definition to get to as
well.
So, from a more spiritual side,it starts with kind of
acknowledging and recognizingthat another person has their
(17:51):
own needs, values, goals, justlike you do.
They're just different from you, right.
And it comes with, again thisrecognition that without that
constructive dialogue, problemsolving is just not possible.
It doesn't happen without it.
And knowing that when you areentering a conversation to
(18:13):
bridge differences, you are nottrying to convince the other
person of your viewpointnecessarily, um, you're kind of
walking into the conversationwith the intent to build
consensus, right it?
This is not synonymous withcompromise, and I think it's
really important for people tounderstand that.
And it's also important tounderstand back to your point um
(18:36):
about like, do I have to leavemy values aside?
Absolutely not.
Um, we start off from the placeof who we are, what matters to
us, what identity we representor right to exist is being
questioned, then we wouldn'trecommend that you enter a
(19:09):
conversation or collaborationwhere you are attempting to
bridge differences.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Okay, yeah, so this might be the one of the most
important things you've said sofar, then.
So I just want to repeat sortof where we are.
Like, what I heard you just sayis that you should never go
into these conversations withthe idea of convincing or trying
to win.
So this might be, you know, onerule that we could put down
right now, and that to me seemspretty striking, because I do
(19:36):
think that most people who arenot being fully aware will have
the natural default to pull thetrigger of I will defend and
convince, and so this is one ofthe first things that I've heard
you say.
That's most important we haveto put aside the need to
convince other people.
(19:57):
We also said we have to makesure we know our values, but we
don't need to for lack of abetter term shove them down
other people's throat.
We can be firm in our values,and by understanding someone
else's values doesn't mean weare giving up our own values.
And so there's this idea ofthese seem like priming steps,
(20:19):
almost, where it's like okay,I'm going to enter into this
conversation, I know my goal setisn't to win and convince, and
if I'm going to enter into thisconversation, I know my goal set
isn't to win and convince, andif I'm going to end up, and my
goal set isn't to make someonetake on my values and certainly
I don't need to give up myvalues, I can simply just walk
in and be able to connect.
(20:39):
And what would be the goal thenIs it just to learn.
And you know, from you, know you, you talked about this idea of
like from an individual sort ofperspective.
Yes, it's healthier for us, butare there other ways that we
can frame this Like?
What are we gaining from this?
Uh, you know, from myperspective, I go, I love to
learn, I want to understand, soyou know that that's going to
help me, certainly go, I'm nothere to debate and win, I'm here
(21:02):
to learn and connect, and so itsounds like there's a whole set
of a whole bunch of goal setsand orientations that we can
enter into conversations withother people with.
That are very different than youknow.
The other thing where I'm goingto try to win.
There is this thing, though,that I want to ask you about,
(21:22):
because that's very different, Ithink.
Anyway, and maybe you'lleducate me on this, that's very
different.
If it's me and you, juliana,right, I meet you, we're talking
, we're sitting, findcommonality with and you can
have a nice conversationone-on-one.
(21:47):
But it seems to me that as soonas we get into the social media
realm, we forget ourselves.
As soon as we get into groupthink, we forget ourselves.
And so is there any additionalthings we need to think about
when we start to dialogue ingroups or when we start to
dialogue within social media?
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, social media is a whole different ballgame.
I just want to acknowledge that, as you probably well know, it
is much harder to haveconstructive dialogue when we
have a screen between us andwhen we're hiding behind those
screens, sometimes with namesand pictures that don't
(22:27):
represent us.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
You know names and pictures that don't represent us
, so sometimes we're not eventalking to a human, which I just
read.
You've all know Harari's newbook, nexus, which is fantastic
for anyone, and he goes througha lot of this.
Right, we're not even,sometimes we're not even
dialoguing with humans and thesebots are antagonistic, almost
trying to stir up.
You know the flame and you know, obviously the algorithms are
(22:48):
such that they want people'sattention and certainly creating
divisive, dehumanizing sort ofactions can do that.
But I'm just wondering if theGreater Good Science Center has,
you know, has looked at any ofthis science and is seeing a
different way of handling it, ordo the rules still apply?
You know, go in with acharitable mindset.
You know, go in with the ideathat I want to connect.
(23:10):
Go in with the idea that I wantto learn something.
Go in with the idea that I'mnot trying to win an argument.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, all the rules stillapply and the work that we put
out a lot of it is to allowindividuals to decide for
themselves that they want to bebetter, that they want to do
better, that they want a bettersociety, right?
So I also want to emphasizethis notion of humility, which I
(23:40):
know is a value that a lot ofpeople do appreciate as well.
Right, like this idea that wecan't go about the world
thinking that no one can teachus anything, that our view of
the world is so right and theyare so wrong, right, and so just
(24:03):
an invitation to accept that wedon't have all the answers or a
monopoly on the truth.
Like how can you hate when youget to know someone?
How can you hate when youunderstand that they are a
product of their livedexperience that is maybe very
different from yours?
And when you get down tostories and personal narratives,
(24:26):
then you're connecting withwhat matters, and I think Brene
Brown said it best.
She said you can't hate upclose, and I was honest too,
even in social mediainteractions, to attempt to get
to the story under the story.
Right, what we see typically insocial media is the issue like
(24:47):
right on our face right, whatthis person believes, or the new
story that the person issharing, or emoji or not, emoji,
gif or whatever, and sometimesthat comes across as in our face
but we really have not had theopportunity to get to the story
under the story to understandwhy does this matter so deeply
(25:08):
to them?
What is it that they may befearful of Like fear is at the
core of a lot of this ordistrustful towards right.
I know you mentioned trust atthe beginning of our
conversation.
Like trust is hard to win over,especially when we're starting
from a very polarized place, andsometimes when we do this
(25:29):
bridging work, we also have toacknowledge and recognize that
getting to liking might beenough and okay, right.
Like, maybe we don't get tofull trust and that's okay.
So also recognizing that thiswork is also about small shifts
over time, even if you'restarting with I may like you now
(25:51):
, right.
And then maybe you get to knowthe person better over a series
of encounters and maybe you getinto a place where you can
actually trust them.
But don't expect that to be thedefault and what happens from
the get-go.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Well, and the other thing is and you kind of alluded
to this, but I do think, whatpeople need to understand, and I
think any human, no matterwhere you sit on the political
spectrum, you know, maybe,barring the absolute extremes of
people who, you know, justreally want to cause distress
and dysfunction in society,served by tearing other people
(26:32):
down.
Eventually, that's going to.
It's like we live in.
People like to think about oursociety and tell me what you
think about this, but peoplelike to think about our society
I see it as they like to thinkof it as a hierarchy, right.
It's like we're climbingladders, and what happens is I
call them the base levelextremes on either side, what
they seem to want to do is, whenthey're on this ladder, they
want to kick the people who arebelow them down, and they want
to pull the people who are abovethem down, and so it's just
sort of like this motto thatseems to be like me against the
(26:55):
world, but I would call that thebase level type of approach,
and I don't think most of us arelike that.
I do think, though, that mostof us are a culture level
approach, where we're climbingthe ladders and we see all the
people with the red shirts whoare on our team and we go, I'm
going to help them, or you know,and I'm going to pull the
people down from the blue side.
It seems that this, once we getin groups, we do this.
(27:18):
I think the next level humanapproach is to stop seeing
ourselves on a hierarchy ofladders and instead to see
ourselves as an ecosystem.
It's like the lion is not theking of the jungle, because he
or she cannot survive withoutthe bees and the beavers, and if
we destroy the bees and thebeavers, we end up ultimately
destroying ourselves, and I feellike humans have not yet
(27:41):
figured this out.
This divisive, dehumanizing typeof language that is being used
on both sides, from myperspective, is not good, but I
do have a question here too.
First, I want to see if youagree with that sort of.
Is that a better framing fromyour perspective?
And then, two, an immediatequestion comes up, though.
That goes well, this idea ofmoral equivalency that people
(28:03):
really get caught up on and theyjust go well, as soon as you
say it's on both sides, you'renegating the fact that perhaps
it's worse on one side or theother, and I want to know how
you handled this idea of moralequivalencies, where people tend
to go well, it's just becausewe're hearing someone.
We don't have to see this as amoral equivalence.
(28:25):
What happens when it is, youknow, essentially one side, you
know quote doing more to harmthe ecosystem than the other?
And how would we even determinethat?
Because I know people getcaught up on that where they're
like I have to stand up for thisbecause it's destructive and
one side is worse than the other.
This is the mindset that we getin.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
Yeah, well, a lot to cover there, it yeah.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
Well, a lot to cover there.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah, a whole lot.
Yeah, I just want to say yes.
To address your point on kind ofthe groups that we create, I
just want to acknowledge that,developmentally, right, we used
to be in tribes, in our owngroups, and anyone who was an
(29:14):
outsider was a threat to ourgroup and we needed to be
fearful of them for survival,for protecting ourselves and our
kind or our kin.
And that is no longer the case.
Right, we are no longer inthose groups, but the mentality
(29:37):
of protecting your own and fearof the other perseveres and we
need to shift that.
We are no longer those peoplewho we were, right, we are
evolved, um, hopefully moreevolved, uh, beings, and, and on
the path, uh, to compassion, uh, to love, to acceptance, to
(30:02):
care, despite our differences,right, um, so just want to
acknowledge that, right, so,just want to acknowledge that.
And you also named like ourgroup versus the other, and kind
of like pushing one down andthe other one up, like it
(30:23):
doesn't have to be that way,right, so a really good strategy
or skill science based skillfor beginning to tap into what
unite us is finding sharedidentities, so looking beyond
our differences and really doingour best to identify larger and
kind of inclusive connectionsthat we might have with others.
(30:45):
So the idea is that.
So the idea is that we are morelikely research points to us
being more kind and moreunderstanding towards others
when we see them as part of alarger group, and I'll talk a
little bit about the sciencearound this to give you a
(31:05):
concrete example.
So there's a study out of theUK that was researching
Manchester United fans and theManchester United fans in the
first part of the study wereasked to think about their group
as Manchester United fans, sothe winds of Manchester United,
(31:28):
the fandom of Manchester United,etc.
And then they were sent acrossa parking lot where they had to,
or they came across withsomeone who was apparently
injured and this person was attimes wearing a Manchester
United jersey and at times theywere wearing a Liverpool jersey,
the rival team's jersey.
(31:50):
And then the study was repeatedand the study was repeated
taking again Manchester Unitedfans and in this case they were
made to think about soccerfandom.
So what they had in common withother soccer fans their
appreciation for the sport, etcetera.
(32:10):
And the same thing happened.
They were sent across theparking lot, a person injured,
sometimes wearing a ManchesterUnited shirt and sometimes
wearing a Liverpool shirt.
And what's interesting in whathappened was that, um, in the
first study, uh, when they weresent across, they helped.
(32:34):
Um, let me, let me pull up thescience.
I just want to make sure I Isay this, uh, correctly, so
pause me there for a second.
Speaker 1 (32:42):
Yeah, and it's making sense to me because I my guess
would be that that in the firstcondition, where they were
primed to think of themselves asManchester United fans, they
would be more likely to help theManchester United jersey
wearing person.
But it seems to me that whenyou're primed to think of
yourself as a soccer fan, thatis no longer going to become an
(33:03):
issue.
You'll probably help at anequal level, no matter what
soccer jersey they're wearing.
So that's what I would guessthe hypothesis would show.
So am I right?
Close on that?
Speaker 2 (33:14):
No, you're absolutely right.
I just want to give you theexact numbers.
So it turns out that theManchester the when there were
four times more likely to helpthe person in need if the person
was wearing a Manchester Unitedjersey than if they were
wearing the jersey of the rivalteam Four times more likely.
(33:38):
So this just goes to show thatfinding shared identities can
truly dictate how well we treatpeople.
But it also goes to show thatthis is an internal shift that
we can all do when we try tounderstand.
What is it that we might havein common with folks that may be
(34:01):
more important than thisdifference that is made so
apparent and so threatening,right?
So I just want us to rememberthat, because at the end of the
day, as we kind of move towardsthe election as well, are there
things as Americans that wevalue, that we can kind of rally
(34:23):
around, like our belief inservice to community, our belief
in belonging in the spaceswhere we are, our belief in
service to community, our beliefin belonging in the spaces
where we are, our belief indemocracy and that's actually
one latest finding from researchthat we can all get around,
regardless of where we standpolitically.
We value democracy.
(34:44):
That is something we all valueand so, yeah, just an invitation
to see beyond and that's likeat the macro level.
But then we can connect with.
Are we fans of a soccer team?
Right, we can connect with.
Do we go to the same church?
Do we serve in the same foodpantry, whatever?
It is right, like there arethese smaller kind of everyday
(35:07):
connections.
Or can we connect as parentswith similar experiences with
raising kids?
So there are so many thingsthat we can find that we can
connect with others on, and fromthat shared identity we begin
to work backwards.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yeah, you know what it reminds me of too.
If you look at these bigmovements in history, it makes
me think of Nelson Mandela,makes me think of Martin Luther
King, makes me think of MahatmaGandhi and some of these big
movements that were up againstincredible odds.
It seems to me what they didwas, you know, martin Luther
King did not necessarily focuson black versus white.
He focused on agape love.
(35:46):
We're all human, you know.
Let's all love each other.
That was sort of the message.
Nelson Mandela wasn't talkingabout black and white South
Africans, he was talking aboutSouth Africa.
He even used the rugby team asa way to unite all South
Africans.
And so this to me we haveevidence for this in very big
movements across the world.
(36:07):
And I love what you're sayingas aspiring next level humans
this idea that we need to learnthe skill of connecting on sort
of micro levels, where it's likeyou know, me and you are both
interested in psychology,research and that kind of stuff,
and we can vibe on that Right,and we can vibe on different
areas, and we need to understandthat.
But I think we lose that.
(36:27):
We need to keep going up thelevel when we are dealing in
bigger groups.
And to me, one of the things Ifocused on is I just go, we all
suffer like this is a Buddhistprinciple, right?
It's like you know, if there'sone thing that we can say, I
know this about Juliana, sheknows it about me.
We've never met before.
I know it about all youlisteners.
You know it about us.
Every single human has a storyof suffering.
(36:48):
You know it about us.
Every single human has a storyof suffering.
And so, from my perspective,when I think about loving my
fellow human, I go.
I know you talking to anAmerican.
Sure, I can vibe, and don't youlove being American?
(37:15):
Yes, I love being an Americantoo.
But if I'm talking to someoneoutside of America, instead of
othering them, I can justessentially go oh, we're all now
human.
Sometimes I wish, juliana, thatwe would just get contacted by
aliens or something, because Ithink that might be the thing
that might make us go.
You know what?
We better get on board thatwe're all humans, we're all in
this together, but right now wedon't sort of have that.
(37:36):
So let me just catch up wherewe are and then we can kind of
begin wrapping up.
But it sounds like a couple ofthings that now I've learned
from you.
Number one, this idea thatwe're not trying to win when
we're having these discussions.
Number two we really need todevelop a sense of humility.
(37:56):
Another thing I've learned isthat this idea that guess what?
Most of us don't want thispolarization that's a way that
we can connect right.
That alone is a way that we canbegin to connect with each
other.
And then this idea of findingthese commonalities and
realizing that that is going tobe the thing that tears us apart
.
Why can't we find, instead ofsearching for, what makes us
different?
(38:17):
This is just a mindset of goingwhere are we the same?
How can I connect in the same?
I know you guys have sort of awhole set of things that you do
and teach, and I know you're, ifI'm right, you're doing a
challenge on this to help peopleunderstand how to be better
with this.
Do you want to walk us through,like, some of the things that
we can do and what thischallenge is all about and some
(38:39):
of the steps that we can take onan individual level?
Because I know from myperspective, I would really like
to practice this, especially,you know, during this time where
we're seeing all thesedifferences between us.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
Yeah, absolutely yes.
So one that you can doindividually.
A science-based skill that youcan apply more easily is seeing
the person, not the label iswhat we're calling it.
So when we learn personaldetails about others beyond
their labels all labels, but yes, in the context of politics,
(39:12):
it's also their political labelsResearch points to us viewing
them with more warmth bytricking your brain, by asking
yourself simple questions likedo they like broccoli or carrots
(39:33):
, or do they like cats or dogs?
And what this does is that itallows us to truly take a step
back and understand that people,even people who are different
from you, have individualqualities and individual traits,
and they are more than thecategory right.
(39:53):
And then, if you want to takeit a step further, then you
would try learning somethingmore personal about them, and
this could be something abouttheir family or hobbies or, if
you're in the same company,something that they like about
the job.
Right.
And again, science shows usthat when we learn personal
(40:16):
details about those who may seemdifferent from us, we are
feeling more warmth andconnection towards them, and so
that's an easy one, honestly,that anyone can start today.
You know what?
Speaker 1 (40:30):
that makes me think of.
It makes me think of this idea.
You know, like when we watch TVlike sometimes you watch the
you'll even watch like a movieabout like a serial killer or a
show about a serial killer, andyou'll watch these shows and
you'll develop some sense ofconnection to that because you
deeply understand the story.
It just makes me think thatyou're basically saying here
that understand people's stories.
(40:51):
And when you understandpeople's stories it's going to
usually help you connect.
I also like this idea that wecan connect on the fact that we
both like dogs, or we canconnect on the fact that you can
teach me about cats.
So it's like this idea of youand me.
Let's say we both like dogs.
I'm like, cool, I love dogs.
We start talking about dogs,but let's say I love dogs and
you love cats.
(41:11):
Then I get to connect on you,with you, to teach me about cats
and you know.
So it's like it sounds to melike we're just trying to
connect and go deeper with that.
Yeah, what else, what else?
Speaker 2 (41:28):
I'm curious, so that's, that's a good one.
Or sports team lovers, um, andthen.
And then you were pointing toperspective taking, also with
like, you know, when you, whenyou see a narrative, um, even on
television, and understandwhere the person is coming from,
right, like that is perspectivetaking.
You are taking theirperspective, um, and and even if
(41:50):
you don't engage directly withthe other person, research shows
that we can broaden ourperspective when we just ask
ourselves what experiences mighthave shaped their views, right,
so it's not rocket science,it's very common sense, but it
allows us to take some distanceand to understand that maybe
(42:13):
they're not the monster we'remaking them out to be.
Another really good one, that'sa more kind of one that you can
do on your own.
Is self-distancing, reallybothering you about something
someone said to you or on socialmedia?
You could take a moment andnotice your emotions and instead
(42:35):
of asking yourself why am I soangry, you would ask yourself
why is fill in the blank yourname, in my case Juliana, why is
Juliana so angry?
What makes her so upset aboutthis?
You talk to yourself in thethird person and using her and
(42:56):
she pronouns, and it allows youto take some distance again and
to understand from a little bitof a distance what you're
feeling, and it allows you toalmost, like, re regain your
composure, uh, so that you canagain, uh, engage in
conversation or approach theperson for conversation, but it
(43:17):
it kind of it stops you in yourimpulses.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Um, so I love that one.
I love that one.
I'll tell you I I train coaches, that we have human coaches as
part of the next level human andone of the things that we found
most powerful in working withour clients is dimensionalizing
their consciousness by eithersaying, hey, let's talk to your
little girl, or let's talk toyour little boy, or let's talk
to your adolescent self, orlet's talk to your future self,
and then even let's talk to thatemotion, so internal family
(43:44):
systems and some of these things.
We use this technique and it'shighly effective at getting
people to understand themselvesa little bit better ready to
engage.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
Then we talk about listening with compassion and
the importance of and power oflistening with compassion.
(44:16):
Because we may enter aconversation wanting to honestly
serve the other person as welisten and help them make
meaning of the story and almostco-create with you, and I would
hope that that's the intentionof entering a conversation when
you're trying to listen withcompassion.
But then science tells us thatwhen we listen, just the act of
(44:38):
us listening makes us beperceived by the other person as
more trustworthy and it alsoencourages our conversation
partners or the people who arelistening to us be more open
minded and less defensive.
So just like stopping there tothink and realize and recognize
(44:59):
the power of listening andreally making people see you
differently, just by youstopping and giving them the
time of day and recognizing yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:11):
Can I comment on that ?
Because I think this might bethe most powerful thing that
you've said, at least for me.
I don't know what you listenersthink, but at least for me,
because the idea is that we havethis idea that we can convince
and we want to convince, and weoftentimes get caught in that.
And to me, what you're saying,Juliana, is so powerful.
You're essentially saying thatif when I know this research as
(45:35):
well, but correct me if I'mwrong on this what I think a lot
of people don't understand is,the more you try to convince and
tell someone they're wrong, themore they dig in their heels.
What Juliana is so, in otherwords, you actually are
defeating your purpose ofconvincing anybody of anything
when you tell them they're wrong.
(45:56):
But what Juliana is pointing usto is this idea of we don't
actually have to do anything butlisten, and this makes someone
more likely to change their mind.
What she's telling us is thatwhen we listen from a
compassionate place, peoplebecome more open and they become
more.
You have the ability toinfluence and inspire simply by
your presence of listening.
I find that such a simple,powerful, beautiful aspect of
being human.
We don't have to do.
(46:17):
It's almost like we can changepeople in the idea of just
acting and being present, versusbeing in people's faces.
Speaker 2 (46:24):
A hundred percent, yeah, I love that.
That's all people need.
There's a quote I love by DavidAugsburger, who's a theology
expert, in his book CaringEnough to Confront.
He says being heard is so closeto being loved that for the
average person they are almostindistinguishable.
And I just want us to sit withthat for a minute because it's
(46:47):
so powerful.
That's all we want.
Being listened to is one of ourmost fundamental needs.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
I think I may have lost you, Juliana, but if you
can hear me, you may want tocome off and log back in.
You're quiet.
Speaker 2 (47:01):
It changes the game.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
You look like you're locked up on me.
See if you come back.
So we'll see if, uh, if julianapops back in um, because we
just lost her on the feed, buthopefully she'll, she'll uh,
(47:24):
come back in.
But I loved essentially whatshe was saying there.
You know, in regards to thisidea of listening and
compassionately listening, and Ido think if we're going to
listen as humans in this way, wedo have to come at it from a
place of there's something herefor me to learn rather than
there's something for me toteach.
That's where the humility piecesort of comes in.
(47:47):
For us.
It's really powerful.
And then just realizing thatthere's a story here from this
person and stories areinteresting, I mean there's no
better way to connect withsomeone in my mind than to say
to them tell me about your story.
I mean, who doesn't want toshare their story?
Right?
And I think that is a big pieceof this and this idea that when
(48:10):
we are in this place where wehave somebody sharing their
story and we're listening fromthat perspective, there's deep
connection.
There's deep connection there.
So Juliana's coming back in.
I was just telling him, juliana, that, just filling him in on
this idea.
I love this idea of justlistening, because one of the
(48:30):
things I think that's importantis there's nothing more
connection oriented than saying,hey, juliana, tell me your
story, where are you from, whatare you doing?
There's nothing that openspeople up more than that, and so
I love that aspect of things alot and, I have to be honest,
it's something that I'm notnecessarily great about.
(48:51):
I'll tell you a secret I'mreally good with, like, if I
meet Juliana or if I meet any ofyou listeners.
I'm really good at compassionand listening, but you know who
I'm not good at it with is myfamily and my brothers and my
sisters and my parents and mycousins and my aunts and uncles.
It's like somehow with them, Iguess, because there's more
history there, I can easily goback into my base level self.
(49:14):
But yeah, julianne, so now thatI got you back, what else
besides?
Well, you were going to tell usabout this favorite quote of
yours.
Times is by David Augsburger.
Speaker 2 (49:32):
He's a theology expert.
In his book Caring Enough toConfront, he says being heard is
so close to being loved thatfor the average person they are
almost indistinguishable.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
Oh, wow, yeah, that is super, super powerful.
And how many of us can relateto that Like 100%?
You know it's funny, super,super powerful.
And how many of us can relateto that Like a hundred percent?
Like you know, it's funnysometimes that I, when I used to
date a lot right, and I wouldgo on these dates with
individuals and this, this wouldmake itself known because I'm
just someone who, when I meetsomeone for the first time, I
just let them talk and I'm veryinterested in people's stories
(50:06):
and but I, there were a coupleof times there where I'm, you
know, she's like that wasamazing, you know, and I'm
thinking to myself, I didn'teven say anything, like I don't
know why she thinks I'm amazing.
I literally said nothing, andso I do think this speaks to
kind of what you're speakingabout.
So, as we wrap up, I guess Iwould love to hear your final
things, and then I want to hearabout, you know, this connection
(50:26):
challenge.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Let's see from our other skillsthat we haven't talked about, I
think, identifying common goals.
We already touched on moralreframing and kind of connecting
with their values and not yourvalues.
What?
Speaker 1 (50:44):
would that be like, though?
What would that be like?
Common goals of, like you know,in politics, let's say,
maintaining the democracy, orcommon goals of, you know,
freedom of autonomy, and youknow what is that.
Or is that more more personaland not, you know, sort of
political?
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Yeah, I mean I think we we take it to the personal.
Obviously, at the policy andpolitical level there's a lot
that politics do to identifycommon goals to move forward.
But at the personal level itcould be as simple as do we care
(51:20):
about the education system andthe quality of education that
kids are getting Right?
That is a common goal that a lotof us can get around.
That a lot of us can get around.
And the idea is that when weidentify those shared goals,
(51:42):
especially one that identifieseveryone involved, we end up
putting aside our differencesand cooperating.
And then, once we arecooperating on common goals,
it's easier to shift ourperceptions or perspectives of
people from maybe you knowadversaries to simply
collaborators, right?
So I just want us to think ofthat too, that sometimes the
(52:03):
best way and depending on whoyou are like, you may be called
into a conversation for the sakeof listening with compassion
and dialogue and getting to knowthe other person's perspective
and way of being in this world,but we won't attract everyone
into bridge building and thoseconversations in that way.
(52:24):
So just acknowledging that, youknow, for practitioners,
executing this work oftentimes acommon goal and like what is in
the interest of all partiesinvolved is a great way to begin
to bring groups together,because it taps to a shared need
and it's easy to do, like itboils down to identifying what
(52:49):
is a goal that we share and thenkind of mapping out ways that
we can collaborate and havingenough moments of interaction so
that we are beginning to seepast our differences and are
beginning to value what we eachcontribute to this shared goal.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Yeah, I love that idea.
Yeah, I love that idea.
To me, I can almost see myselfin a conversation using your
example and saying, instead ofsaying sounds to me like you
don't care about kids, I couldsay well, it looks like we're
(53:28):
both that you're you care, andso now we can continue dialogue
versus me.
You know, saying you don't care, and all of a sudden there's a
record scratch where it's likeyou know.
It turns into an argument Ilove, I love that idea.
Speaker 2 (53:39):
A hundred percent.
That level sets theconversation and people feel
seen, when you acknowledge thatyou are seeing something that is
also important to them, butmaybe their approach to it is a
little bit different from yours.
So how can those approachesmerge so that true collaboration
and cooperation can happen andso you can begin to change the
(53:59):
perspective or perception of whothis person previously was in
your mind?
Speaker 1 (54:04):
You know what else I love too, juliana?
I love the idea that having aconversation with someone and by
me showing up this way, I dothink they're much more likely
to show up this way in theirnext conversation.
It reminds me of this idea whenI'm walking down the trail by
my house and I like to smile atpeople as they pass, and the
truth is, most don't smile back.
Right, I try to make eyecontact, I try to smile at them
(54:26):
and most people aren't going tosmile back, and I just keep
doing that because part of megoes maybe I didn't see him
smile back, but I know they'regoing to feel that and I also
know they're far more likely tosmile or be in a good mood to
the next person that they pass,and I think this is part of that
too.
I do think that we humans wantto matter and make a difference.
I think most of us want tomatter and make a difference,
(54:48):
and this is a very positive waythat we can do this without, you
know, having to give up ourvalues or be different.
I just love the idea of this.
It's very simple to do.
So let me ask you, with thischallenge that you're doing,
walk us through how this works?
And is it essentially this ideathat we're taking these skill
sets that you've sort ofeducated us on and we're just
(55:11):
challenging ourselves to usethese for a certain amount of
days, or how does this work?
Speaker 2 (55:17):
Yeah, absolutely.
So we have a seven-day campaignfor connection challenge.
So, leading up to the election,we are not campaigning for a
candidate, not campaigning forthe hatred, division,
polarization that is hurting us,but we are campaigning for
connection, because we dobelieve that politics may divide
us, but we can chooseconnection.
(55:38):
So we've created seven days ofskills that we are disseminating
on a daily basis.
So when people sign up theywill be getting a skill a day
and each of those skills is aninvitation to practice.
So obviously, in a day maybeyou won't get to foster a
(56:01):
relationship and collaborate onshared goals, so we're very
mindful of that.
So we have kind of kept it atmaybe a self-reflection practice
, or maybe you visualize someonein a different light, or maybe
you do turn to your partner orroommates and listen to them
with compassion not necessarilyon politics, right.
(56:24):
So the idea is that we'rebeginning to equip folks, to
build the muscles to be able todo this in their everyday lives
and incrementally increase theirability to engage across
difference, even intense,conversations.
(56:45):
So we know that you won'tnecessarily jump into the
hardest conversation or into thelongest bridge right, we talk
about short bridges also.
So maybe it's a bridge withsomeone you love, that you have
a disagreement on something, andthen eventually, you can get to
someone you don't know that youhave a big disagreement on a
(57:07):
policy issue, right?
So like thinking of it as shortand long bridges.
And when might you be ready toengage in that long bridge and
understanding that it is trulylike exercising it is a muscle
that can be worked out so thatyou can be prepared to have
those harder conversations whenthe time comes.
Speaker 1 (57:28):
Yeah, I love this Kind of like basic training for
next level humans.
So is there kind of a?
I love that level humans, yes,so is there a?
Is there kind of a?
I love that a lot, so is it.
Is there a link or where can Isend people to to find this?
Speaker 2 (57:37):
absolutely.
Um, let me.
We have a tiny uh url that iscirculating, but let me, let me
tell you the tiny url.
Speaker 1 (57:47):
Um yeah, I just love this idea of you know, with this
, not having to be heavy lifting.
You know what I also like,julianne?
I also like that it's rightaround election time, because I
do think this is the mostimportant time to do this work
and to get these skill sets.
Speaker 2 (58:03):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Our tiny URL is 7daychallenge24.
Seven day 7daychallenge.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Challenge 24.
Seven Day Challenge yeah, 24.
Speaker 2 (58:15):
Seven, number seven day with caps, challenge with C
caps and 24.
I'm happy to pop it in the chatand to make it available in
show notes afterwards as well.
Yeah 100%.
Speaker 1 (58:30):
I'll put it in the show notes for sure.
I appreciate you.
So, juliana, any any further.
First of all, thank you foryour work.
You know, from my perspective,these are the organizations that
I really want to.
You know.
The greater good science center.
Thank you for your work there.
Thank you for helping translateall this science for us.
Thank you for bringing simpleways for us to just be better
humans and connect.
(58:50):
And is there any other thingthat you want to say or leave us
with?
Speaker 2 (58:56):
I just want to say that we can do this right, like
in this moment of anxiety andstress and division.
It's hard to forget that we cando this stress and division.
It's hard to forget that we cando this, and I just want to
(59:16):
leave people with the idea thatthis is possible, that we have
seen people do this across someof the most complex divides and
really walk away, not changingtheir position on the issue, but
changing how they perceive theother person and feeling an
enormous relief from that, andthat's what we're inviting you
(59:40):
to do.
We're not changing anyone'sperspective on issues.
We are changing how we feelabout others and we are
connecting at a deeper levelwith others and we are feeling
better about ourselves and weare feeling better about the
polarization and hatred becausewe are doing something about it.
Speaker 1 (59:59):
Yeah, I love it.
I think this work is soimportant.
Thank you again.
Juliana Tafor, thank you forbeing here.
Go ahead and hang on the line.
I'm going to shut down therecord, just make sure
everything uploads, but for allof you listening, thank you so
much for hanging out with us andwe will see you at the next
show.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!