From Controversy to Dialogue - Beginner Level
P. Boghossian and J. Lindsay on How to Have Impossible Conversations
In this part of my introduction to Boghossian’s and Lindsay’s How to Have Impossible Conversations, I'll discuss the first level of competency in challenging your conversation partner's beliefs in hopes that they'll consider questioning them.
The authors call this intervening in someone’s cognitions and giving them the gift of the doubt.
If you're new to this series or need a refresher, feel free to skip to Part I.
Moving your conversation partner from unshakeable confidence in their beliefs to a questioning attitude in 8 moves
#1 Modeling
If you want your partner to consider the possibility that their beliefs might not be completely accurate, model the desired behaviour. This means if you expect openness, start by being curious and open-minded yourself, ask questions, show interest, and listen attentively.
In other words, lead by example.
For an effective approach, pair this attitude with what the authors call the Unread Library Effect. This concept highlights how people often claim to know things, but closer examination reveals gaps and limitations they may not realize.
Combining behavior modeling with the Unread Library Effect is powerful:
In many conversations, the more ignorance you admit, the more readily your partner in the conversation will step in with an explanation to help you understand. And the more they attempt to explain, the more likely they are to realize the limits of their own knowledge.
#2 Words
When discussing a topic, especially a controversial one, it's crucial to realize that people may use the same word to mean different things.
Boghossian and Lindsay illustrate this with the story of James Damore, who was fired by Google in 2017 for "perpetuating gender stereotypes."
It turned out that Google and Damore had different interpretations of the terms diversity and inclusion. These terms had taken on nonstandard meanings, which, if overlooked, could lead to misunderstandings and risks.
To prevent disagreements and uncertainties, take a cue from good philosophers: clarify the meaning of key terms with your conversation partner before diving into your argument.
#3 Ask Questions
The authors suggest following Socrates' example and steering the conversation with a specific question rather than keeping it on a broad topic.
They also emphasize using calibrated questions, like open-ended "How...?" and "What...?" questions, to keep the conversation focused and prevent it from veering off track.
Their general advice is to:
avoid closed questions ... unless you need clarification, want to clear up confusion, or verify that you've understood your partner's thoughts correctly.
#4 Acknowledge Extremists
The authors emphasize a crucial aspect of conversations involving different moral perspectives: to have any chance of being heard, you must appear trustworthy to your conversation partner. They need to see you as distinct from others who share your moral views in their extreme form and recognize common values between you:
Unless you can distinguish yourself from the people ‘on your side’ who your conversation partner considers the most frightening, you’ll never gain their trust; they’ll never care how much you know about topics near to their deepest concerns, like religion, morals, and politics.
One simple way to establish common ground based on values is to assure your partner that you don’t hold extreme views like others on your side do and that you differ from them.
Taking this approach helps build trust and mutual understanding.
#5 Navigating Social Media
If you're aiming for a civil debate on social media, which can be quite a challenge, it's best to avoid provocative questions altogether. Even better, steer clear of controversial topics in the social media arena.
The authors caution that the strategies they present in their book are tailored for face-to-face conversations. Whether these strategies can be as effective online remains uncertain, as there isn't much evidence to support their efficacy in the digital realm.
While there are some advantages to online debates — like being able to vent or carefully consider your response — the drawbacks outweigh them:
You miss out on visual cues like body language and tone of voice, which can lead to misunderstandings.
Social media debates happen in public spaces, with others chiming in either as active participants or vocal observers. This can make it challenging to have a thoughtful and productive conversation without feeling pressured to defend your views in front of your 'tribe.'
It's common for people on social media to seek validation rather than engage in a debate. If you try to correct their views, it may lead to arguments and damage the connection between you while reinforcing their convictions.
We’ve all been there.
In a previous post here on Substack, Debating in the Digital Arena, I shared my experience debating a well-known philosopher on X. To my surprise, one of his fans labeled me a conspiracy theorist just for asking what the philosopher meant by science in his post.
I can't help but wonder if things would have played out differently in a face-to-face discussion.
#6 Don’t Blame, Do Discuss Contributions
Blaming your opponent for a negative outcome supposedly linked to their moral or political views isn't helpful, to say the least.
Usually, the accused person becomes defensive and tries to change the subject.
This is what the authors call whataboutery:
That is, pundits and commentators deflect blame from their side by forcefully asking, ‘What about [some roughly similar thing from the other side]?’.
A better approach than blaming is to invite people to collaborate in understanding the various factors that led to the undesirable outcome:
Our moral divide is widened by partisanship, which includes being overtly partisan, even on our own side. … This increases partisanship and thus damages civility across the divide. Avoid this by shifting to contribution. In any situation, the contribution system that led to a problem will probably turn out to be complex.
#7 Focus on Epistemology
Epistemology is a term used in philosophy to mean:
The theory of knowledge, especially regarding its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology investigates what makes a belief justified compared to mere opinion.
In simpler terms, claiming to know something should come after examining the evidence or reasons behind that claim.
The authors note that:
The most common mistake in conversations is focusing on what people claim to know (beliefs and conclusions) rather than how they arrived at that knowledge (their reasoning process).
So, instead of debating a specific knowledge claim like “trans-women are women,” it's better to focus on the reasons behind that claim.
Here are the benefits:
1 “Focusing on epistemology helps people explain how they arrived at their conclusions, providing a fresh route around rehearsed messages”. Rehearsed messages are pre-packaged responses people have learned in response to challenges to their views.
2 “Further, if you challenge someone’s beliefs, then you’re far more likely to evoke a defensive posture than if you question their reasoning that led them to their beliefs.”
A straightforward way to question someone’s reasons for their beliefs is by asking calibrated questions, that is, open-ended questions, and/or outsider questions. These are questions that encourage the conversation partner to consider their views from an outsider’s perspective. For example:
Many people who live in [place] believe [contradictory belief]. How might they view this belief?
#8 Learn
When debating controversial topics, having a learning mindset benefits everyone involved.
If you're the one holding firm beliefs, being open to learning from your opponent allows you to test your beliefs and maybe realize you could be wrong.
Likewise, if your opponent is stuck in their views, showing a willingness to learn from them can make them feel heard and increase the chance they'll consider your perspective.
Even if your opponent doesn't respond as hoped, you can still gain insight from the exchange.
You might wonder, what's there to learn?
Well, asking questions about how they support their beliefs helps you understand their stance better, preparing you for future discussions.
And delving into their epistemology might even trigger the 'Unread Library Effect,' causing them to question the basis of their beliefs.
This section of the book wraps up by outlining behaviors that often derail difficult conversations unless your goal is to avoid having a civil and productive discussion.
These behaviors include being rude, talking over or interrupting the other person, mocking their position, getting angry, and neglecting to consider the reasoning behind their beliefs.
In essence, these actions contradict the guidelines provided in points 1 to 8 above.
To sum up
The most important skill … is learning how to figure out how people know what they claim to know. … If all else fails, switch to a learning mode. …
Practice. Practice. Practice.
Try applying these points the next time you’re having an impossible conversation and let me know how you did in the comments :)
Don't forget to catch the April edition, where you'll learn the techniques to "graduate" to the intermediate level of proficiency in impossible conversations.
REFERENCE
Boghossian, Peter & Lindsay, James (2019), How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, New York: Lifelong Books - Hachette Book Group