How to disagree productively and find common ground
-
0:01 - 0:05Some days, it feels like
the only thing we can agree on -
0:05 - 0:07is that we can't agree on anything.
-
0:08 - 0:10Public discourse is broken.
-
0:11 - 0:13And we feel that everywhere --
-
0:13 - 0:15panelists on TV
are screaming at each other, -
0:15 - 0:19we go online to find
community and connection, -
0:19 - 0:22and we end up leaving
feeling angry and alienated. -
0:23 - 0:27In everyday life, probably
because everyone else is yelling, -
0:27 - 0:30we are so scared to get into an argument
-
0:30 - 0:32that we're willing not to engage at all.
-
0:33 - 0:36Contempt has replaced conversation.
-
0:38 - 0:42My mission in life is to help us
disagree productively. -
0:43 - 0:47To find ways to bring truth to light,
to bring new ideas to life. -
0:48 - 0:50I think -- I hope --
-
0:50 - 0:53that there is a model
for structured disagreement -
0:53 - 0:56that's kind of mutually respectful
-
0:56 - 1:00and assumes a genuine desire
to persuade and be persuaded. -
1:01 - 1:04And to uncover it,
let me take you back a little bit. -
1:04 - 1:09So, when I was 10 years old,
I loved arguing. -
1:09 - 1:12This, like, tantalizing possibility
-
1:12 - 1:15that you could convince someone
of your point of view, -
1:15 - 1:17just with the power of your words.
-
1:18 - 1:20And perhaps unsurprisingly,
-
1:20 - 1:23my parents and teachers
loved this somewhat less. -
1:23 - 1:24(Laughter)
-
1:24 - 1:26And in much the same way as they decided
-
1:27 - 1:31that four-year-old Julia might benefit
from gymnastics to burn off some energy, -
1:31 - 1:34they decided that I might benefit
from joining a debate team. -
1:34 - 1:37That is, kind of, go somewhere
to argue where they were not. -
1:37 - 1:39(Laughter)
-
1:39 - 1:41For the uninitiated,
-
1:41 - 1:44the premises of formal debate
are really straightforward: -
1:44 - 1:46there's a big idea on the table --
-
1:46 - 1:50that we support civil disobedience,
that we favor free trade -- -
1:50 - 1:54and one group of people
who speaks in favor of that idea, -
1:54 - 1:55and one against.
-
1:57 - 1:58My first debate
-
1:58 - 2:01in the cavernous auditorium
of Canberra Girls Grammar School -
2:01 - 2:04was kind of a bundle
of all of the worst mistakes -
2:04 - 2:06that you see on cable news.
-
2:06 - 2:10It felt easier to me to attack
the person making the argument -
2:10 - 2:13rather than the substance
of the ideas themselves. -
2:14 - 2:17When that same person challenged my ideas,
-
2:17 - 2:21it felt terrible, I felt
humiliated and ashamed. -
2:21 - 2:25And it felt to me like
the sophisticated response to that -
2:25 - 2:27was to be as extreme as possible.
-
2:29 - 2:34And despite this very shaky entry
into the world of debate, I loved it. -
2:34 - 2:38I saw the possibility, and over many years
worked really hard at it, -
2:38 - 2:42became really skilled
at the technical craft of debate. -
2:42 - 2:46I went on to win the World Schools
Debating Championships three times. -
2:46 - 2:49I know, you're just finding out
that this is a thing. -
2:49 - 2:52(Laughter)
-
2:52 - 2:56But it wasn't until
I started coaching debaters, -
2:56 - 2:59persuaders who are really
at the top of their game, -
2:59 - 3:01that I actually got it.
-
3:01 - 3:06The way that you reach people
is by finding common ground. -
3:06 - 3:09It's by separating ideas from identity
-
3:09 - 3:12and being genuinely open to persuasion.
-
3:13 - 3:20Debate is a way to organize conversations
about how the world is, could, should be. -
3:21 - 3:22Or to put it another way,
-
3:22 - 3:25I would love to offer you
my experience-backed, -
3:25 - 3:29evidence-tested guide
to talking to your cousin about politics -
3:29 - 3:31at your next family dinner;
-
3:31 - 3:34reorganizing the way in which your team
debates new proposals; -
3:35 - 3:38thinking about how we change
our public conversation. -
3:39 - 3:41And so, as an entry point into that:
-
3:41 - 3:45debate requires that we engage
with the conflicting idea, -
3:45 - 3:49directly, respectfully, face to face.
-
3:49 - 3:52The foundation of debate is rebuttal.
-
3:52 - 3:55The idea that you make a claim
and I provide a response, -
3:55 - 3:57and you respond to my response.
-
3:58 - 4:01Without rebuttal, it's not debate,
it's just pontificating. -
4:02 - 4:07And I had originally imagined
that the most successful debaters, -
4:07 - 4:09really excellent persuaders,
-
4:09 - 4:12must be great at going to extremes.
-
4:12 - 4:18They must have some magical ability
to make the polarizing palatable. -
4:19 - 4:22And it took me a really
long time to figure out -
4:22 - 4:25that the opposite is actually true.
-
4:26 - 4:32People who disagree the most productively
start by finding common ground, -
4:32 - 4:34no matter how narrow it is.
-
4:34 - 4:36They identify the thing
that we can all agree on -
4:36 - 4:38and go from there:
-
4:38 - 4:43the right to an education,
equality between all people, -
4:43 - 4:46the importance of safer communities.
-
4:46 - 4:48What they're doing is inviting us
-
4:48 - 4:51into what psychologists
call shared reality. -
4:52 - 4:57And shared reality
is the antidote to alternative facts. -
4:58 - 5:01The conflict, of course, is still there.
-
5:01 - 5:03That's why it's a debate.
-
5:03 - 5:08Shared reality just gives us
a platform to start to talk about it. -
5:08 - 5:12But the trick of debate
is that you end up doing it directly, -
5:12 - 5:14face to face, across the table.
-
5:15 - 5:18And research backs up
that that really matters. -
5:18 - 5:22Professor Juliana Schroeder
at UC Berkeley and her colleagues -
5:22 - 5:26have research that suggests
that listening to someone's voice -
5:26 - 5:29as they make a controversial argument
-
5:29 - 5:31is literally humanizing.
-
5:31 - 5:35It makes it easier to engage
with what that person has to say. -
5:36 - 5:39So, step away from the keyboards,
start conversing. -
5:40 - 5:43And if we are to expand
that notion a little bit, -
5:43 - 5:50nothing is stopping us from pressing pause
on a parade of keynote speeches, -
5:50 - 5:53the sequence of very polite
panel discussions, -
5:53 - 5:56and replacing some of that
with a structured debate. -
5:57 - 6:00All of our conferences could have,
at their centerpiece, -
6:00 - 6:04a debate over the biggest,
most controversial ideas in the field. -
6:05 - 6:09Each of our weekly team meetings
could devote 10 minutes -
6:09 - 6:14to a debate about a proposal to change
the way in which that team works. -
6:14 - 6:20And as innovative ideas go,
this one is both easy and free. -
6:20 - 6:21You could start tomorrow.
-
6:21 - 6:22(Laughter)
-
6:23 - 6:25And once we're inside this shared reality,
-
6:25 - 6:29debate also requires
that we separate ideas -
6:29 - 6:33from the identity
of the person discussing them. -
6:33 - 6:37So in formal debate, nothing is a topic
unless it is controversial: -
6:37 - 6:42that we should raise
the voting age, outlaw gambling. -
6:43 - 6:46But the debaters don't choose their sides.
-
6:46 - 6:50So that's why it makes no sense
to do what 10-year-old Julia did. -
6:51 - 6:55Attacking the identity of the person
making the argument is irrelevant, -
6:55 - 6:57because they didn't choose it.
-
6:57 - 7:01Your only winning strategy
-
7:01 - 7:07is to engage with the best, clearest,
least personal version of the idea. -
7:08 - 7:12And it might sound impossible
or naive to imagine -
7:12 - 7:16that you could ever take that notion
outside the high school auditorium. -
7:17 - 7:23We spend so much time dismissing ideas
as democrat or republican. -
7:23 - 7:27Rejecting proposals
because they came from headquarters, -
7:27 - 7:30or from a region
that we think is not like ours. -
7:31 - 7:32But it is possible.
-
7:32 - 7:37When I work with teams,
trying to come up with the next big idea, -
7:37 - 7:39or solve a really complex problem,
-
7:39 - 7:45I start by asking them, all of them,
to submit ideas anonymously. -
7:45 - 7:48So by way of illustration, two years ago,
-
7:48 - 7:50I was working with multiple
government agencies -
7:50 - 7:54to generate new solutions
to reduce long-term unemployment. -
7:54 - 7:57Which is one of those really wicked,
-
7:57 - 8:00sticky, well-studied
public policy problems. -
8:01 - 8:03So exactly as I described,
right at the beginning, -
8:03 - 8:07potential solutions were captured
from everywhere. -
8:07 - 8:09We aggregated them,
-
8:09 - 8:11each of them was produced
on an identical template. -
8:11 - 8:15At this point, they all look the same,
they have no separate identity. -
8:15 - 8:19And then, of course,
they are discussed, picked over, -
8:19 - 8:21refined, finalized.
-
8:21 - 8:25And at the end of that process,
more than 20 of those new ideas -
8:25 - 8:29are presented to the cabinet ministers
responsible for consideration. -
8:30 - 8:36But more than half of those,
the originator of those ideas -
8:36 - 8:40was someone who might have a hard time
getting the ear of a policy advisor. -
8:40 - 8:42Or who, because of their identity,
-
8:42 - 8:45might not be taken
entirely seriously if they did. -
8:45 - 8:49Folks who answer the phones,
assistants who manage calendars, -
8:49 - 8:53representatives from agencies
who weren't always trusted. -
8:55 - 8:58Imagine if our news media
did the same thing. -
8:58 - 9:01You can kind of see it now --
a weekly cable news segment -
9:01 - 9:04with a big policy proposal on the table
-
9:04 - 9:07that doesn't call it
liberal or conservative. -
9:08 - 9:13Or a series of op-eds
for and against a big idea -
9:13 - 9:16that don't tell you
where the writers worked. -
9:17 - 9:20Our public conversations,
even our private disagreements, -
9:20 - 9:26can be transformed by debating ideas,
rather than discussing identity. -
9:28 - 9:32And then, the thing that debate
allows us to do as human beings -
9:32 - 9:36is open ourselves,
really open ourselves up -
9:36 - 9:39to the possibility that we might be wrong.
-
9:39 - 9:41The humility of uncertainty.
-
9:42 - 9:47One of the reasons it is so hard
to disagree productively -
9:47 - 9:49is because we become
attached to our ideas. -
9:49 - 9:55We start to believe that we own them
and that by extension, they own us. -
9:56 - 9:59But eventually, if you debate long enough,
-
9:59 - 10:00you will switch sides,
-
10:00 - 10:04you'll argue for and against
the expansion of the welfare state. -
10:04 - 10:07For and against compulsory voting.
-
10:07 - 10:12And that exercise
flips a kind of cognitive switch. -
10:12 - 10:14The suspicions that you hold
-
10:15 - 10:19about people who espouse beliefs
that you don't have, starts to evaporate. -
10:20 - 10:23Because you can imagine yourself
stepping into those shoes. -
10:23 - 10:26And as you're stepping into those,
-
10:26 - 10:28you're embracing
the humility of uncertainty. -
10:28 - 10:30The possibility of being wrong.
-
10:31 - 10:36And it's that exact humility
that makes us better decision-makers. -
10:36 - 10:41Neuroscientist and psychologist Mark Leary
at Duke University and his colleagues -
10:41 - 10:44have found that people
who are able to practice -- -
10:44 - 10:45and it is a skill --
-
10:45 - 10:49what those researchers call
intellectual humility -
10:49 - 10:52are more capable of evaluating
a broad range of evidence, -
10:52 - 10:55are more objective when they do so,
-
10:55 - 10:59and become less defensive
when confronted with conflicting evidence. -
10:59 - 11:03All attributes that we want in our bosses,
-
11:03 - 11:06colleagues, discussion partners,
decision-makers, -
11:06 - 11:09all virtues that we would like
to claim for ourselves. -
11:11 - 11:14And so, as we're embracing
that humility of uncertainty, -
11:14 - 11:18we should be asking each other,
all of us, a question. -
11:19 - 11:22Our debate moderators, our news anchors
should be asking it -
11:22 - 11:25of our elective representatives
and candidates for office, too. -
11:26 - 11:31"What is it that you have changed
your mind about and why?" -
11:33 - 11:37"What uncertainty are you humble about?"
-
11:38 - 11:40And this by the way, isn't some fantasy
-
11:40 - 11:44about how public life
and public conversations could work. -
11:44 - 11:45It has precedent.
-
11:46 - 11:48So, in 1969,
-
11:48 - 11:51beloved American children's
television presenter Mister Rogers -
11:51 - 11:53sits impaneled
-
11:53 - 11:57before the United States congressional
subcommittee on communications, -
11:57 - 12:01chaired by the seemingly very
curmudgeonly John Pastore. -
12:02 - 12:05And Mister Rogers is there
to make a kind of classic debate case, -
12:05 - 12:07a really bold proposal:
-
12:07 - 12:11an increase in federal funding
for public broadcasting. -
12:12 - 12:13And at the outset,
-
12:13 - 12:16committee disciplinarian
Senator Pastore is not having it. -
12:16 - 12:19This is about to end
really poorly for Mister Rogers. -
12:20 - 12:25But patiently, very reasonably,
Mister Rogers makes the case -
12:25 - 12:29why good quality children's broadcasting,
-
12:29 - 12:33the kinds of television programs
that talk about the drama that arises -
12:33 - 12:35in the most ordinary of families,
-
12:35 - 12:37matters to all of us.
-
12:37 - 12:39Even while it costs us.
-
12:40 - 12:43He invites us into a shared reality.
-
12:44 - 12:46And on the other side of that table,
-
12:46 - 12:52Senator Pastore listens,
engages and opens his mind. -
12:53 - 12:58Out loud, in public, on the record.
-
12:59 - 13:01And Senator Pastore
says to Mister Rogers, -
13:01 - 13:04"You know, I'm supposed to be
a pretty tough guy, -
13:04 - 13:08and this is the first time
I've had goosebumps in two days." -
13:08 - 13:13And then, later, "It looks like you
just earned the 20 million dollars." -
13:14 - 13:18We need many more Mister Rogers.
-
13:18 - 13:21People with the technical skills
of debate and persuasion. -
13:22 - 13:24But on the other side of that table,
-
13:24 - 13:29we need many, many,
many more Senator Pastores. -
13:30 - 13:33And the magic of debate
is that it lets you, it empowers you -
13:33 - 13:39to be both Mister Rogers
and Senator Pastore simultaneously. -
13:40 - 13:43When I work with those same teams
that we talked about before, -
13:43 - 13:48I ask them at the outset to pre-commit
to the possibility of being wrong. -
13:48 - 13:53To explain to me and to each other
what it would take to change their minds. -
13:54 - 13:57And that's all about the attitude,
not the exercise. -
13:58 - 14:01Once you start thinking about
what it would take to change your mind, -
14:01 - 14:05you start to wonder why
you were quite so sure in the first place. -
14:06 - 14:10There is so much
that the practice of debate -
14:10 - 14:13has to offer us
for how to disagree productively. -
14:13 - 14:15And we should bring it to our workplaces,
-
14:15 - 14:18our conferences,
our city council meetings. -
14:18 - 14:23And the principles of debate can transform
the way that we talk to one another, -
14:24 - 14:28to empower us to stop talking
and to start listening. -
14:28 - 14:32To stop dismissing
and to start persuading. -
14:32 - 14:36To stop shutting down
and to start opening our minds. -
14:37 - 14:38Thank you so much.
-
14:38 - 14:43(Applause)
- Title:
- How to disagree productively and find common ground
- Speaker:
- Julia Dhar
- Description:
-
Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 14:56
Oliver Friedman edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Oliver Friedman approved English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Oliver Friedman edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Brian Greene edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Krystian Aparta accepted English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground | ||
Ivana Korom edited English subtitles for How to disagree productively and find common ground |