How to have a conversation about hot button topics
One reason so many conversations go off the rails when discussing hot button issues on social media is of the way people are coming at the subject of communication. Arguing seems to be the default. There are different communication styles that can be used when having hot button discussions on social media (or anywhere). It has a lot to do with the intention or goal that is set for the conversation. And this is generally not an aspect that is often discussed or well understood but has everything to do with the results. Let’s take a look at some different ways of communicating.
****
Debate is an action whereby people pick a position on some topic or a platform, and then defend that position. The goal is to successfully defend one’s chosen position. That could mean defending it even if the other person is right or speaks truth. It has nothing to do with seeking truth, necessarily, as anybody who has ever been on a debate team knows. You have picked a viewpoint, and you are defending it.
Most of what I see happening with social media hot topics is some form of “debate.” Almost none of it is formal debate, but is, rather, arguing. But the principles are similar.
People pick a side, and try to win the argument for that side. Some common approaches in these debates include avoiding acknowledging when the other “side” is right, but focusing on what they get wrong; focusing on the strongest aspects of your side and the weakest aspects of your opponent’s side; and bending the truth or using creative interpretations of it, if it means winning. You listen to the other side mainly to seek for weaknesses that you can win against. There is no goal to see or understand another viewpoint — in fact, too much understanding of another viewpoint could cause one to lose the debate. Mutual respect is not a goal either, though sometimes two debaters may extend that anyway.
Debates tend to go off the rails easily unless there are formal rules and both parties have the intention and agreement to abide by them. Debates can result in changed minds of listeners sometimes, but if not formalized and designed to increase understanding from different viewpoints (like scientific debates), often do not result in deepened clarity, but instead, more fixed views, anger, and people locked in harder to one side or the other with less willingness to consider other data or viewpoints.
When debates are done by people who have the intent to create emotional response (demagogues, angry people, etc), they can and do reduce rationality and reason and increase reactive mob response. To repeat, debates are not a tool to explore or clarify facts. Facts don’t have to matter in debates, unless the rules state they do. Only winning does. And we see that happening all over social media. On the other hand, let’s explore a different approach and result.
(note: At the end of this article, I go into more depth on different ways of communicating when people believe that different facts are true. This is an issue that can gum up the success of the below approaches to communication to some degree, but like so many other things, it depends on the situation.)
***
A discussion is when two people talk about a subject and both are willing to consider a different viewpoint. Neither are trying to win a contest or dominate the other person or destroy him/her or shut down their stupid/evil ideas, they are just having a conversation.
Elements involved in discussions are usually some respect for the other person, a willingness to consider or understand what the other person is saying and even what they are not saying, giving them some slack on areas of disagreement, feeling a genuine interest or curiosity in what the other person is saying, and even a liking or affinity for them. One tends to seek to find what one agrees with that the other person is saying, rather than focusing mainly or exclusively on what one disagrees with.
Sometimes, discussions result in one or both parties seeing a new or different aspect to a topic they didn’t see before. It often results in people having a deeper understanding of one another or an appreciation they didn’t have before. Sometimes, a person’s backstory comes out and that can help others understand the context of why a person sees things the way they do. In a discussion, the goal is not to win an argument or dominate, but to get to know each other better, or explore mutual interests, or learn something, etc.
This happens a lot when talking about neutral topics, but much more rarely on hot button topics. It tends to take a very conscious effort, and strong agreement on all sides, to have that type of exchange on topics that have been repeatedly charged up and made very hot. But I believe it would be very, very worthwhile to do more of that.
This type of discussion might need to be moderated in some cases with very clear cut rules up front, in order to be successful. But if both parties are willing it tends to work out at least to some degree.
One essential and defining element of a discussion is that each person should feel that they have been heard and understood. Note that this is different than “agreed with.” You don’t have to agree with one another to understand what the other person means. And sometimes that goes further than just hearing their words. And that is a super valuable thing — to be heard and understood. It is so valuable, in fact, that doing that alone has resolved conflicts that could have led to actual war. Just that alone.
A conflict mediator I knew at one point told me about a war she prevented between two hostile countries. They both exclaimed that their upset was that the other tribe was bad, their religion was bad, their culture was bad. But on further exploration, she found that the underlying upset was water rights. Both needed water from a single river and they had no other way of resolving it other than making the other tribe bad and unworthy of the access in their minds. So she then focused on solving the water problem, which turned out to be very solvable.
Don’t underestimate the power of this simple act of intending to understand what the other person said. Think about how relieved you would feel if “the other side” just let you know they really understand your upset or communicated to you in a way that you felt really heard and listened to. The fact that this has such value could be in part because of how little it is done.
This is a key difference between debate and discussion. In debate, one can deliberately misconstrue what an opponent is saying in order to strengthen your point. Because the goal is not to understand, but to win. In discussion, the goal is to understand what was meant and said, and not to alter it. The more intention there is on understanding what the other person means, the more likely the discussion will go someplace fruitful.
One aspect of formal conflict resolution is simply to ensure that both sides understand as exactly as possible, what the other party is upset about. Sometimes, just that one step can resolve the entire conflict. It is worth a shot to see how often that would hold true in our hot button arenas.
It’s possible that when discussing hot button topics with family members or others, one could suggest it be approached like this, and try it. Worth a shot! It tends to be more successful if neutral subjects are discussed first to establish some points of agreement. One outcome from the intention to discuss rather than debate is that almost always, we tend to become more human to one another. And that alone is a pretty valuable outcome.
One thing that comes out of discussions even when people don’t end up agreeing is that they find out that each “side” actually views things with a lot more nuance than might have been previously believed. Each “side” may not end up being so “side.”
There may be more points of agreement than expected. These are far more likely to be discovered in a discussion than in a debate, as is just how nuanced someone’s viewpoint is.
By the way, I get how hard it might be to consider any of this when you are feeling that the other “side” has just screwed you over big time and is totally wacko. One reason this is so upsetting is that we are all actually on the same side. The human side. And the other “side” should know that, dammit!
If you’re going to try this, try it with someone who isn’t the most challenging person you can think of, to start with, maybe. And be willing to back up, and try again later if it’s not going too well. Or with someone else. Or wait til the upset has calmed down perhaps. Or talk about the less upsetting things first. Sooner or later, you will get to have a real live discussion on hot button issues. It’s so very different than arguing, and the outcomes can be significantly different.
****
Mutual or group problem solving. This is often a formal process, where there is an agreement that there is going to be a high level of cooperation involved. There is a mutual goal — a problem to be solved. There is often an intention to get people to the table that are affected by the problem and/or may have expertise in one or more areas relevant to the situation.
There are some excellent formal processes used in group problem solving (which could include as little as two people and as many as hundreds). These tools can help people understand their own views, articulate their needs and concerns, evaluate information together (which can include ways to verify data or find data that might be missing, extremely helpful), and brainstorm win-win solutions. The process may include going off and doing more research and then coming back for further discussion, it may involve comparing notes and if there are contrary “facts”, diving more deeply to clarify that point. The underlying intention is to really find out what has worked, what might work on as broad a basis as possible, and what will address the big picture.
The flow of this activity is very, very different than group debates that happen on social media. This process can take time and care to prepare for and it is essential for success that people understand that it is a process, that there are tools and steps involved, and where they’re all trying to go with it.
This can be a difficult process to do if people are not in agreement to do it. But once that agreement is gotten, these tools can be a powerful component of increasing understanding and finding win-win solutions.
This process or similar ones have been used to design neighborhoods, do strategic planning, and solve gnarly social problems that don’t seem to have a ready solution. Where I’ve used this approach or seen it used, the result has been powerful and effective. Some call this sort of approach Deep Listening, because a lot of listening is involved, and a concerted effort is done to go out of one’s way to ensure one has sufficient viewpoints and data.
It is more likely to succeed, meaning a real solution is found that works, when people come into the process with somewhat of an open mind to new ideas or approaches. That means that if they have a viewpoint, they’re willing to consider others and change or modify it if the evidence warrants that. In an ideal world, they’re very actively willing to question and challenge their own viewpoint, as much as they are willing to challenge anybody else’s. Formal conflict resolution can be used as one of the tools of this process.
This approach is almost never used on social media, though social media is an excellent medium where this could be done. I’ve tried to get various groups to use this to break the logjam created by debates that are going nowhere, but it has been difficult. I think a big part of that is that many people have never observed this process at work or how well it works. Or they don’t have reality on it. And some are simply uninterested in the goal.
This process can create breakthroughs in seemingly impossible conflicts and help people to see there really are win-win solutions. One problem solving approach I’m familiar with is “Theory U.” Another is the permaculture design process. Another includes the tools found in Holistic Management. These, combined with conflict resolution techniques, can create breakthroughs in problem solving. And these and other techniques are being used in numerous more formal situations at conferences, planning meetings, stakeholder meetings, in businesses, government and community projects, and more.
****
What if two people are discussing and find out that they each believe in a different set of facts? This is a huge aspect of what is currently happening on hot button topics in the US. Here are some approaches to that:
In debate, one would try to prove that the other person’s facts are wrong. On social media, that is done in whatever way works. That could mean using any of the techniques named above and others. One thing that works well on social media is to just repeat something over and over until it becomes “reality” in people’s minds. It helps when there is an authority figure or opinion leader who is saying it. This is how demagogues, propagandists and talking heads gain agreement and large followings — by repeating something over and over with a lot of outrage and force until people start agreeing with it. After a certain point, it becomes “reality” in some social circles and then becomes very hard to challenge.
Because there is emotion attached to this “fact” now, it becomes even more difficult to challenge because the people in your social circle can react very negatively if you do, and that is threatening. This is propaganda. The goal is to create a reactionary group that is operating on emotion rather than reason, whose members will refuse to consider any contrary information or documentation as legitimate. Internet bots and paid propagandists have been used to create or expand the reach of this sort of alternate reality by amplifying mass repetition.
That aspect can be amplified further by asserting at the same time that any other source of information other than you or your authority figures, is fake, and part of the evil cabal. You have now effectively prevented people from trusting or wanting to look at any other source of information, and this army you’ve created will now help you to negate and ignore any documentation that proves you are lying, no matter how convincing it may be.
This process is good to understand, because one could ask oneself — is that how the data I believe is being promulgated? Am I being encouraged to not look at any other data? Am I being inundated with the same stories from multiple sources, that are from unknown people or have funky documentation, if any?
In a formal debate, addressing conflicting facts might include using documentation. But remember the object is to win, which means discounting and invalidating the other guy’s documentation rather than honestly considering his data, comparing notes, or otherwise working together to find the truth. Thus, encouraging people to debate can encourage people to discount any data that disagrees with “facts” they’ve been fed. It divides people and increases distrust, animosity and aggression. There is little chance that any conflicting facts will get sorted out in that circumstance.
In a discussion, people would be willing to listen to other viewpoints and even be curious about them. When seeking to resolve conflicting facts, they could agree to dive in and investigate further to see which version is true. This would be done in the spirit of seeking truth together, not proving the other guy wrong. It’s easier to do that if neither “side” is too emotionally attached to their version of events, but it can be done regardless. The goal of investigating conflicting facts would be to find out which one is true, not to win and dominate. The search could therefore be cooperative rather than competitive. Seem unlikely?
Ok. Well, yes. It would depend on two people agreeing that their intention was to increase understanding in all directions, rather than to win the argument. That is the essential pin upon which progress sits. This can take a decision to apply some emotional maturity by all concerned. It can take trying this at an appropriate time (when upsets are acute is not a good time).
It can be challenging, but is not impossible to gain this agreement. An important note is this: If people have the intention to understand one another, even if they don’t sort out all the conflicting facts, they tend to end up more tolerant of the other person’s viewpoint. That opens the door to deeper examination later, but also alleviates some of the tension arising from opposing views. It may loosen up the viewpoints a bit. Maybe one or both people will be willing to consider a different view of either a small point or a large one. This can be a gradient process. Be willing to appreciate your gains where you get them.
One major challenge could be lack of research skills on one or both sides, which I address below.
In a group problem solving session, the entire group might be used to sort out conflicting facts, using the power of the various skill sets and backgrounds to do so, under the control of a skilled facilitator. This is by far the most powerful approach and most likely to succeed. When I’ve seen this done, often, what is found is different than either of the original conflicting facts. And that can happen regardless of the approach. The main point about resolving conflicting facts is, again, intention. Is your main intention to prove the set of facts you subscribe to or dominate with them? Or do you have the intention to cooperatively explore in the spirit of curiosity, with the certainty that none of us has the whole picture, the concept that what you believe could turn out to be wrong and that’s ok because truth is valuable, and the idea that we all are likely going to learn something we didn’t know?
****
Another way to differentiate these two ways of approaching conflicting facts is “debate” versus “investigation.” In an investigation, the intention is to find out. You know there are things you don’t already know. One can approach investigation very methodically and thoroughly, or haphazardly. On social media, people are strongly encouraged to approach it haphazardly, with no real methodology involved.
Just as there are specific processes to facilitate group problem solving, there are specific tools that investigators can use — and so can the rest of us. And as someone with professional researcher training, my view is that we all need those tools, because we’re inundated with a tsunami of BS daily, on the internet and how do we sort it all out? Who has time? No wonder we listen to our friends or opinion leaders instead of investigating ourselves.
There are simple investigatory tools that anybody can use to help one sort out truth from alternative fact. A few of these are:
1. Understanding and using source documents (like court cases, videos of speeches, etc, as opposed to people’s opinions or secondhand reporting about those things).
2. Understanding how to vet sources. Which ones are credible? How do you tell?
3. Understanding where to go to find data. It becomes overwhelming if you don’t have the knowledge of how to fact check quickly.
4. Understanding the difference between a fact and opinion. OK, that should be listed as #1.
5. Using a multiple resource system — not limiting yourself to one source or “side” for data.
There are more, but that is a topic for another article.
***
I’m posting this for obvious reasons. I would like to encourage more of us to consider trying to use discussion or group problem solving approaches as opposed to debate, for some of these hot button topics. I very strongly believe it could deeply change the entire dynamic of our interactions on social media and other venues. This may not be possible in the midst of acute upsets going in all directions, but the seed of the concept can hopefully be planted for later germination.
It clearly helps when each person strives to have a clean intention to not argue or win, but to understand. If just one person has that intention, it can get somewhere, but it is much easier if both people have that intent. It becomes discouraging fast when only one person is trying to understand — but sometimes it is enough to motivate the other person to try too.
It is good to gain agreement up front about the goal and intention of the conversation, and to spell it out along with some ground rules for keeping that intention on the rails, just because people are so used to falling into debate mode.
Some people are trained and already really good at this and can help guide others in being more successful — even forming groups so that you have some support in doing so! I am not personally aware of any groups for or by facilitators or coaches for this type of thing, but suspect some already exist. Let me know who you are, if so — I’ll add you as a resource.
For those who only want to debate, I’m not trying to change your minds. Ya’ll go for it. I’m speaking to those who might be tired of that or who feel that it isn’t creating a lot of positive change. I’m very much interested in having those conversations, and I do have them regularly in my professional setting. I’m open to discussion or group problem solving with anybody else who would like to have that conversation.
I believe it is a route to healing the divisions in the country, and aim to continue to contribute to that effort.
****
Resources:
Theory U — https://www.presencing.org/aboutus/theory-u
Holistic Management — https://holisticmanagement.org/
Permaculture design — https://permacultureprinciples.com/principles/
We do facilitation for group problem solving as well as for holistic design sessions or charettes — https://growpermaculture.com
