4 Tips to Help You Engage in More Productive Disagreements

Last week, we discussed how techniques such as affect labeling and physiological sigh can help us to stay calm when triggered and get into a better state of mind. But how do we go about the messy business of actually engaging with people who think differently from us?

British philosopher Bertrand Russell once wrote,

Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.

Sometimes, getting through to people feels impossible with both sides bolstered by a profligate confidence in their firepower. What should we do if we want to avoid living in an echo chamber but also prefer to avoid confrontation? How can we communicate our viewpoints both effectively and gently?

A Case of Cognitive Dissonance

Imagine two Americans named Marsha and Alexandria. Marsha supports the right to bear arms and believes abortion is equivalent to murder. Alex supports gun regulation and a woman’s right to choose. Which person is more likely to support capital punishment?

Based on the normal distribution of political opinions, most of us would say Marsha is more likely to support capital punishment because of her conservative views. But how do certain political ideologies get grouped together? Why would Marsha support the death penalty if she is pro-life? And why would Alex support individual freedom when it comes to abortion but not gun ownership? How do we explain the cognitive dissonance?

The answer may lie in the factors that govern our decision-making process. We may be more primed to accept certain policy positions depending on our genetics, gender, ethnic background, upbringing, personality, and socioeconomic status. In a 2003 paper, Jost and colleagues from Stanford University argued that personality traits can predict whether someone is more likely to identify as liberal or conservative.

In their meta-analysis, the researchers found that conservatives tend to have a higher need for order, structure, and closure compared to liberals and also rank lower on measures of tolerance for ambiguity, complexity, and openness to experience. In addition, conservatives were more likely to fear threats to social stability and score higher on measures of death anxiety.

Finding Common Ground

Moral Foundations Theory, put forth by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, argues that humans across cultures share a common core of ethical beliefs upon which we build different narratives and identities. How those values are expressed and the relative importance we assign to them can differ, however.

Some people may value adherence to authority above freedom of expression and thereby condemn flag burning as morally reprehensible. Others may place freedom of speech at the top of the moral hierarchy and therefore condone actions that reject patriotism in favor of equality. The five universal moral foundations are:

* Harm/care — leads to disapproval of individuals that inflict pain and suffering on others

* Fairness/reciprocity — involves issues of equality and justice

* Ingroup/loyalty — based on our attachment to groups (such as our family, church, or country) and underlies virtues of patriotism

* Authority/respect — tendency to create hierarchical structures of dominance and subordination and appeals to values of leadership, obedience, and tradition

* Purity/sanctity — evokes emotions of disgust in