Scribbler Logo

    You have 4 summaries left

    Hidden Brain

    US 2.0: Living With Our Differences

    Mon Feb 12 2024
    Insight Action GapIdentity AttacksDisengagementIntractable ConflictsPolitical PolarizationBuilding RelationshipsConflict ResolutionFacilitated ConversationsListening and UnderstandingEngaging with Opposing Views

    Description

    The podcast explores the "Insight Action Gap" and its impact on political debates. It discusses incidents where identities were attacked, leading to disengagement and conflicts. The episode also delves into intractable conflicts, political polarization, and the importance of building relationships for conflict resolution. Facilitated conversations are highlighted as a means to reduce tension around divisive issues. The role of listening, understanding, and engaging with opposing views is emphasized in overcoming toxic polarization.

    Insights

    The Insight Action Gap

    The podcast explores the "Insight Action Gap," which refers to the disconnect between knowing the right thing to do and actually doing it.

    Identity Attacks and Disengagement

    Stray comments can often lead to bigger problems and it becomes difficult to resolve conflicts once they escalate.

    Intractable Conflicts and Political Polarization

    Conflicts escalate due to individual psychology, group psychology, and societal factors like political systems and intertwined issues.

    Building Relationships for Conflict Resolution

    Conflict resolution researcher Peter Coleman worked at a mental health facility where he learned the importance of building relationships in de-escalating conflicts.

    Facilitated Conversations for Peaceful Dialogue

    The Public Conversations Project aimed to create conditions for peaceful dialogue and prevent future violence in the community.

    Listening and Understanding for Conflict Resolution

    Conflict resolution often requires listening and understanding rather than trying to persuade.

    Engaging with Opposing Views

    The speaker engaged in a conversation with someone who held conspiracy theories and political views.

    Chapters

    1. The Insight Action Gap
    2. Identity Attacks and Disengagement
    3. Intractable Conflicts and Political Polarization
    4. Building Relationships for Conflict Resolution
    5. Facilitated Conversations for Peaceful Dialogue
    6. Listening and Understanding for Conflict Resolution
    7. Engaging with Opposing Views
    Summary
    Transcript

    The Insight Action Gap

    00:00 - 08:09

    • The podcast explores the "Insight Action Gap," which refers to the disconnect between knowing the right thing to do and actually doing it.
    • This gap is not about hypocrisy, but rather the different brain processes involved in learning and taking action.
    • The episode focuses on how this gap affects our political debates with opponents.
    • Peter Coleman, a psychologist at Columbia University, studies how minor disagreements can escalate into conflicts and how our thought patterns can either deepen divides or help us mend fences.
    • Coleman shares an incident from a conference where tensions escalated between an Israeli negotiator and a Dutch ambassador during a discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    • Despite attempts by others to defuse the situation, both individuals left the conference, highlighting how their identities were publicly attacked and disabled their ability to manage the situation effectively.

    Identity Attacks and Disengagement

    07:47 - 15:40

    • Two individuals in the podcast felt their identities attacked, which hindered their ability to manage the situation.
    • One of the individuals had a neighbor who made sarcastic remarks about certain social issues and expressed extreme views, causing them to disengage from the relationship.
    • The individual's decision to disengage was influenced by both not wanting to have certain conversations with their neighbor and having different political preferences.
    • Despite being an expert in conflict resolution, the individual chose to disengage with someone who disagreed with them because they didn't see any potential for constructive conversation.
    • Stray comments can often lead to bigger problems and it becomes difficult to resolve conflicts once they escalate.
    • The transcript then transitions into a different topic about a war in Gaza and its impact on Columbia University.
    • After the war started, protests erupted at Columbia University, leading to verbal attacks and accusations between students in classrooms.
    • The tense atmosphere on campus triggered and traumatized students, causing some of them to question whether they should stay at the university.

    Intractable Conflicts and Political Polarization

    15:13 - 23:04

    • Students in the classroom were triggered and traumatized by a campus incident, questioning whether they should stay.
    • Intractable conflicts are characterized by high levels of destructiveness, long durations, and failed attempts to resolve them.
    • The partisan divide in the US is seen as an example of an intractable conflict, with increasing enmity and obstructionism since the late 1970s.
    • Political polarization is evident in Congress and attitudes of voters, leading to ideological differences and some political violence.
    • Small militant groups are mobilizing to destabilize the status quo, although not at the level of violence seen in other conflicts.
    • Conflicts escalate due to individual psychology, group psychology, and societal factors like political systems and intertwined issues.
    • Simple interventions to bring people together often fail due to the complexity of forces driving division.
    • An example of such intervention was My Country Talks, where political opponents met for breakfast and a walk in Central Park.

    Building Relationships for Conflict Resolution

    22:44 - 31:01

    • Two individuals agreed to meet in New York City and had a positive connection during their first meeting, discussing common interests such as family and work.
    • They decided to meet again the next night and attended a Brooklyn Nets basketball game, followed by drinks.
    • The conversation took a turn when a journalist brought up the topic of Colin Kaepernick and his protest against racial inequality.
    • One of the individuals became angry and started using profanity, leading to an aggressive and tense situation.
    • The organization behind these conversations acknowledged that such conflicts can occur despite good intentions.
    • Research shows that conversations between people with opposing views often leave both parties feeling frustrated and alienated from each other.
    • My Country Talks reports that 80% of participants surveyed were satisfied with their interactions after taking part in these conversations.
    • Social psychologist Gordon Allport believed that direct contact between different social groups could promote understanding, empathy, and reduce tension, but certain conditions must be met for it to be effective.
    • Conflict resolution researcher Peter Coleman worked at a mental health facility where he learned the importance of building relationships in de-escalating conflicts.
    • A story from Boston in 1994 highlighted the hostile rhetoric surrounding pro-life vs. pro-choice debates, leading to a tragic incident where a woman was shot at an abortion clinic.

    Facilitated Conversations for Peaceful Dialogue

    30:35 - 38:37

    • In 1994, a tragic event occurred in Brookline, Massachusetts where a man shot and killed a woman at an abortion clinic, causing division and upset in the community.
    • The Public Conversations Project, led by Laura Chason, reached out to pro-life and pro-choice activists to have conversations with each other despite their differences.
    • Initially, it was difficult to convince people to participate due to fear and anger towards the other side.
    • A group of three pro-life leaders and three pro-choice leaders agreed to meet secretly for one month in a church basement.
    • Over time, these facilitated conversations helped them develop respect and appreciation for each other's intelligence and integrity.
    • The focus of the discussions was not about changing opinions on abortion but finding common ground on related issues like preventing unwanted pregnancies and avoiding violence.
    • After five and a half years of ongoing conversations, they publicly shared their experience in an article called "Talking with the Enemy" in 2001.
    • Their activism aimed to create conditions for peaceful dialogue and prevent future violence in the community.
    • They had a positive impact on reducing tension around the abortion debate by modeling how to engage with those who hold opposing views.
    • The process of change was more affective (emotional) than cognitive (logical), as they came to see each other as full human beings deserving of respect and friendship.

    Listening and Understanding for Conflict Resolution

    38:09 - 45:30

    • Conflict resolution often requires listening and understanding rather than trying to persuade.
    • Some conflicts are deep identity conflicts that are not easily resolved or discarded.
    • Extraordinary events can create a sense of instability that makes people more open to new approaches to conflict resolution.
    • Physical movement, especially in beautiful surroundings, can help shift perspectives during conversations.
    • The host shares a personal experience of reaching out to his neighbor for a walk and conversation as a way to overcome toxic polarization.
    • The conversation focused on listening and understanding rather than engaging in political arguments or debates.

    Engaging with Opposing Views

    45:13 - 52:32

    • The speaker engaged in a conversation with someone who held conspiracy theories and political views.
    • Instead of challenging the person, the speaker listened and asked clarifying questions.
    • As they continued to walk and talk, the person started doubting their own beliefs and expressed doubts about voting for a certain candidate again.
    • The speaker gave the person a copy of their book on political polarization, which the person acknowledged as a significant problem but didn't know how to address.
    • The speaker's son later encountered the person, who mentioned reading the book and found it "not bad," surprising both the son and the speaker.
    • The speaker and this person have continued conversations, exchanging readings and occasionally meeting up to talk.
    • Peter Coleman, a psychologist at Columbia University, is the author of "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization."
    • In an unrelated story from another podcast episode called "My Unsung Hero," Jennifer Reinhart recalls being comforted by a nurse during her hospital stay after suffering life-threatening injuries.
    1