What makes for a happy relationship and a productive work culture? For this 2021 story, Mark Broatch interviewed UK writer Ian Leslie about his book, Conflicted, where he talks to hostage negotiators, divorce mediators and police interviewers to understand conflict.
Have we become more disagreeable in the 21st century? Has social media made it harder to change people’s minds?
We have been getting more “disagreeable” for centuries as our societies have become steadily more egalitarian, diverse and disputatious. But the internet and social media have accelerated these trends at warp speed. They give every one of us the power to say what we think instantaneously and globally, and they bring us into contact with many more opinions and controversies in the course of an average day than we have ever faced before. We live in a world that is primed for heated disagreements and neither our culture nor our evolution has prepared us for it.
Have we become more willing to state our case because our societies are generally less top-down? Does this mean respect is harder earned?
Some have moved at different rates than others, but most societies around the world have become less hierarchical and less bound by tradition. What that means is that what we believe and what we think are much more down to each one of us than they used to be. Naturally, this produces many more differences of opinion, even in the course of daily life. In a marriage, for instance, each partner’s roles and responsibilities were once determined by culture. Nowadays, everything must be worked out almost from scratch. With more egalitarianism comes more disagreement and more negotiation.
Rows can actually be productive?
One of the most striking findings in the science of relationships is that couples who don’t argue are not necessarily the couples who stay together or stay happy. Auckland psychology professor Nickola Overall told me that “negative directness” – heated, even really quite angry rows – can be healthy for relationships. Obviously, if you have too many, or if they get nasty, they are destructive. But in proportion, they reveal to each partner what the other really cares about and what they really think. Once the storm is over, they feel closer to each other.
You write about creative tension in the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. What is the right amount of disagreement in bands and companies?
According to organisational psychology, groups and teams have an optimal level of conflict and it isn’t zero. If there is no conflict, no tension in the group, then the energy levels get very low and that’s bad for collective intelligence and bad for innovation. Obviously, if the group is arguing all the time, that’s not great, either. But there must be a level of conflict and it should be played out in open disagreements rather than submerged into passive-aggression and office politics. I looked at this in the context of normal workplaces but also through the prism of rock bands. The most successful bands are not the ones that always agree with each other, they are the ones that have found a way to channel their inner conflicts into something creative.
In the book, you talk about how conflict makes us smarter.
Yes. Let’s look at the original thinker, Socrates, the father of Western philosophy. The reason he mistrusted the relatively new technology of writing is because it could not respond to questions. He preferred talking, and he liked to talk with people who disagreed with him – or at least thought they did. His trick was to make them see, through gentle questioning, that they didn’t agree with themselves. Socrates believed that the best way to dispel illusions and identify fallacies was through the exchange of arguments. His took place face to face, in the town square of Athens, often with the town’s most respected intellectuals. His favoured technique was to invite someone to put forward an argument (on the nature of justice, say, or happiness) before asking why they believed that – how could they be so sure. Could they account for these exceptions? Eventually, under persistent questioning, the intellectual’s initial confidence would be revealed to be based on very little. Socrates was not out to humiliate anyone, but to reveal that we all know a lot less then we think. Enquiry isn’t a status competition; it’s about testing the quality of arguments.
Are polarisation and tribalism always bad?
Obviously, if groups or whole societies get stuck into tribalised conflict and neither side ever gives an inch on contentious issues, then that’s unproductive and can be destructive. But it’s not true that all polarisation is bad. I discuss a study of how Wikipedia pages are constructed, which shows that the very best ones come out of conflicts between ideologically opposed groups of editors who really get stuck into every tiny argument. Neither is it true that a good discussion should always be calm and rational. Creative discussions come from groups of people who really care about what they’re arguing for. Individuals should dig in and argue their corner, maybe with a little stubbornness!
In disagreements, you say we need to give up trying to control what the other person thinks and feels, and know that the desire to be right gets in our way and that another person’s cultural world view is just as real and rich as our own.
We really suffer as a species from the enormous premium that we put on being right as individuals. Everyone wants to prove that they are the smart one, the strong one, the all-seeing one. And that can get in the way of a fruitful discussion because people take it way too far – they dig in, to the point that they stop listening to other viewpoints and fail to take on board contradictory evidence. They get ultra-defensive because they only care about coming out of a debate as the “winner”. But you know what? It doesn’t matter if you’re right or not. What matters is that we are right. So, fight your corner, yes, but be conscious that in the end, you’re just making one contribution to the wider goal of the group.
You write that curiosity beats bias, tone is more important than content, and hedging and reframing help. Be real. listen hard – are these the best strategies for productive disagreements?
In the book, I lay out 10 rules for productive arguments. One of them is: first, connect. Disagreements often fail because we get to the disagreement too soon, before we have established some basis of trust and mutual respect with the other person. Try and make a connection first, then get into it. That’s one of the lessons learnt from talking to hostage negotiators and terrorist interrogators. They taught me that before you get to the really difficult part of the conversation, you first need to let the other person know that you’re listening to them, that you respect them, in order to lower their defences. Once you’ve done that, the disagreement is going to go a lot better.
You contrast the French attitude of finding arguments fun. How do they learn this habit?
Different countries have different cultures of disagreement. In Britain, we’re fairly conflict-averse (although there are variations within the country). One of the things I like about the French is that they regard argument and dispute as fun. In Britain, we have a prohibition against discussing politics at the dinner table. When I told a French friend about this, she laughed and said, “For us, that’s the best thing about dinner!”
When should we bail from disagreements that seem unproductive?
At the end of the day, it takes two or more people to have a productive disagreement, and sometimes the other person just won’t engage with you on that level. Sometimes people are just intent on trying to humiliate you or bully you or deceive you, at which point there’s no question you should walk away. The only thing I’d add here is that these encounters are perhaps more rare than we imagine and that often, even those who start off as seemingly impossible to talk to can be brought around by applying some of the principles and techniques I outline in Conflicted.
Did writing the book make you better at recognising your arguing errors?
If researching and writing this book taught me anything, it’s that disagreement shouldn’t be stressful. In fact, it should be fun and illuminating. And done right, it can be. It can also bring people closer together. So, I have a lot more disagreements than I used to and my relationships are better for it.
Locking horns
Ian Leslie offers a toolbox of useful techniques for productive argument. Here are a few:
- DEFINE THE DISAGREEMENT
Check if it is a misunderstanding or antipathy in disguise. Step back and ask: what precisely are we disagreeing about (if anything)? Before getting into it, let the person know you’re about to disagree. Acknowledge you may be wrong and they may be right. This gives them a chance to adjust mentally before hearing you out.
- FRAME YOUR OPPONENTS POSITIVELY
You might have to fake it at first, but it always helps a conversation to go well if you like and respect your interlocutor, and they feel it. Find people who say things you find objectionable in a way that makes you respect and like them.
- FEEL THE STEEL
Instead of a straw man, build a “steel man”. Let yourself feel the emotional force of the other side’s position – inhabit it somehow, if only partially and fleetingly.
- CREATE A CULTURE OF POSITIVE ARGUMENT
Leaders should make it normal for people to challenge decisions, acknowledge doubts and address annoyances, even when they disagree or overrule them. If you’re in a position of authority, don’t be afraid to show vulnerability and admit anxiety or uncertainty.
- DON’T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO OR HOW TO FEEL
Are you in an argument with their position or their emotion? If the latter, your clever arguments will not break the deadlock. Consider acknowledging their underlying feelings. Try to avoid “you” and “but”.
- STOP TRYING TO BE RIGHT
Try not to let the urge to win the argument dominate your attitude, and if you can convey that they are in some way right they’re more likely to be open to your point of view. Check you understand: it means you get clarity and they are reassured that you’re listening. Practise losing in low-stakes situations so you’ll be better when a serious situation arises.
- ACKNOWLEDGE EXPERTISE
You shouldn’t always defer to experts, because sometimes they’re wrong. But it’s wise to acknowledge their epistemic authority. That way, you’re more likely to learn and they’re more likely to listen.
- BE SCEPTICAL OF YOUR OWN TRIBE
Probe the beliefs of your own side as well as those of the other.
This story first appeared in the NZ Listener’s May 8 - 14, 2021 edition.