Review of How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide

It seems just about everyone agrees that the vicious rift in how we disagree with each other has never been worse than it is today, especially in politics. Friends have disowned each other over whether they support gun control, immigration, climate change or Trump. We all shake our heads as if this was a hopeless, irreconcilable divide. Although this might be ultimately be true I believe we should still try.

I’ve read several books and articles that offer suggestions on how to bridge this gap. Of the ones I’ve read I’d highly recommend How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay. Peter Boghossian is a faculty member in the philosophy department at Portland State University and is a speaker for the Center of Inquiry and an international speaker for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. James Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. Because I liked this book I’ve been planning to write a review for this blog. However, this review by Eric Barker, author of Barking Up The Wrong Tree, does such a nice job hitting the key points that I’ve decided to quote from his blog entry to share the key points from How to Have Impossible Conversations.

I should note that the book’s advice is laid out in a sequence starting with beginner’s level recommended skills then intermediate and expert levels. The authors explain that they evolved these skills “drawn from the best, most effective research on applied epistemology, hostage and professional negotiations, cult exiting, subdisciplines of psychology, and more.”

Quoting more from the book, it is “organized by difficulty of application: fundamentals (Chapter 2), basics (Chapter 3), intermediate (Chapter 4), advanced (Chapter 5), expert (Chapter 6), and master (Chapter 7). Some techniques teach you to intervene in the cognition of others, instill doubt, and help people become more open to rethinking their beliefs. Other techniques are oriented toward truth-seeking. Some are just plain good advice. Their underlying commonality, regardless of your conversational goal, is that they all empower you to speak with people who have radically different political, moral, and social worldviews.”

So what are the key points of this book? Here I’ll rely on Eric Barker’s summary. (I’ve edited it slightly and added comments to explain a point if it needs to be expanded.)

·      Be a partner, not an adversary: If you’re trying to win, you’re going to lose. The best approach is: Be nice and respectful. Listen. Understand. Instill doubt. (I refuse to change my mind about this.)

·      Use Rapoport’s rules: They can seem awkward but they reduce conflict better than Valium. [I’ll add an explanation of Rapoport’s rules below.]

·      Facts are the enemy: Unless we’re talking about the savvy, attractive people who read this blog, yes, facts are the enemy. [I have some additional thoughts below.]

·      Use the “Unread Library Effect”: Let them talk. Ask questions. Let them expose their ignorance. Do not cheer when that happens.

·      Use scales: Bring extreme statements down to earth with numbered comparisons. And unless they’re certain at a level 10, they’ll mention their own doubts which can aid your cause.

·      Use disconfirmation: “Eric, under what conditions would disconfirmation not be effective?”

·      Serious beliefs are about values and identity: Don’t attack what they believe, focus on the validity of their reasoning process and whether that identity is the only way to be a good person.

What are Rapoport’s rules? Impossible Conversations explains, quoting from Daniel C. Dennett’s book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. (Rapoport is a game theorist.):

1.    Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2.    List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3.    Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4.    And only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Rapoport’s rules would fall under the concept “steelmanning” in which you restate your opponent’s case in the strongest possible way before challenging it. This approach treats your partner’s beliefs more fairly than using the “straw man” approach in which you purposely weaken or exaggerate someone’s case then refute it.

What about facts? Why do Boghossian and Lindsay urge us not to argue with facts? Well, they don’t say you should never use facts. “It does mean that introducing facts into a conversation is likely to backfire unless done at the correct moment and with great care. … Many people believe what and how they do precisely because they do not formulate their beliefs on the basis of evidence – not because they’re lacking evidence. … Few people form their beliefs on the basis of rigorous consideration of reasoned arguments. Complicating matters, most people believe they do have evidence supporting their beliefs.  … We tend to form beliefs on the basis of cherry-picked selective evidence that supports what we already believe or what we want to believe. Virtually everyone formulates most of their beliefs first then subsequently looks for supporting evidence and convincing arguments that back them up.” As Jonathan Haidt says, we think we’re being detectives who piece together the facts before reaching a conclusion when in fact we act like lawyers who choose facts to make a case.

The authors conclude that introducing facts can backfire and harden your partner’s viewpoint rather than leading your partner to change their mind. They suggest that a more effective way to work facts into a conversation is through questions and by saying something like “I may be wrong about this. It’s my understanding that …”

They also offer a valuable tip on choice of words: eliminate the word “but” and replace it with “and.” For instance, instead of saying “Yes, but how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?” we say, “Yes, and how should we deal with the children of illegal immigrants?”

I’ve found that when I disagree with someone on a subject the person I’m talking with often asks why I disagree. They’ll ask what evidence do I have. That gives me the opening to introduce the facts I’ve used to support my conclusion. I should note that sometimes my partner doesn’t ask for my reasons. The less reasonable person will just launch into an attack because I dare to disagree with their unshakeable opinions. In that case, I might still cite my reasons but find a way to end the conversation. Diplomatically, of course!

While I admit I haven’t mastered all of the techniques in this book the key points discussed above have helped me when talking with people who don’t see things the way I do. Read How to Have Impossible Conversations because I think it is possible to have reasonable conversations.

Scott Adams on Twitter: "The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event." / Twitter

I posted this on my Thinking Objectively blog and am reposting here because I think what he says about the lessons we learn from the Coronavirus pandemic about our systems and civilization can also apply to us on a personal level. 

The link takes you to a Twitter thread he posted; I've also added the text below in case the link doesn't work.

Scott Adams on Twitter: "The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event." / Twitter

The #Coronavirus is acting like an unwelcome Olympics for scientists, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, techies, leaders, parents, and ordinary heroes of every kind. Setting records in every event. You can almost feel humanity getting smarter. The most capable among us are forming lasting connections. Sharing best practices. Learning shortcuts. Building a working trust. Creating tools at blazing speeds. One way to imagine the future is that the economy will lose trillions of dollars and we will never get it back. Another filter on the future is that energy doesn’t disappear, it only relocates and changes form. A huge amount of energy is leaving the economy. We know that for sure. What is less clear is where that energy is going. My filter shows a global “mind” being formed, in real time, to fight our common enemy, the virus. That mind needs a lot of energy, like a newborn. And wow, is it getting it. I had resisted the common pundit prediction that “everything would be different” after this crisis because I expect a speedy recovery. But I revise my opinion. While I still expect a speedy recovery, I also think this experience is rewiring the collective mind of civilization. We probably crammed years of innovation into months. We’ll be coming out of this with a LOT of extra knowledge about our systems and ourselves. And that energy will get channeled back into the economy. The coming weeks will test us all. But when it is over, we will be far smarter, and far tougher, in every way. As Steve Jobs proved, the right thoughts and the right skill stack can turn into trillions of dollars. Civilization’s skill stack is undergoing a major upgrade. Watch how much energy that later pumps into the economy. It will be amazing.

An Idea for Civil Discussion

I posted the entry below in my Thinking Objectively blog but I thought it would be worth posting it here too. The overall topic covers a political discussion I had this week but the lesson I learned can apply to personal development as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently I had dinner with a couple friends when our conversation eventually drifted to the 2020 presidential election. One of my friends expressed disappointment that President Trump had done nothing about gun control. I said that I’m happy he hasn’t been pushing for more gun control. Knowing that my friend is liberal I figured it would carry more weight if I cited a study done by Leah Libresco, a statistician, former news writer at FiveThirtyEight, a self-described liberal and an advocate of gun control. Libresco wrote an article on a study in which she describes a study she conducted. (I also wrote a blog entry on her article.)

[M]y colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Libresco’s study revealed that most gun deaths fall into one of these categories: suicide, gang violence and domestic disputes. She admits that the most commonly touted gun control measures would have no impact on these outcomes. When I cited this study to my friends I also referred to the high murder rate in Chicago which has tough gun control laws.

But here is where I stumbled onto a potentially valuable approach to talking about controversial subjects. Given the findings of this study by a gun control advocate and the results in cities like Chicago I said, “I’m not sure what else we can do.” My friend said maybe longer waiting periods to buy guns and universal background checks would help. She didn’t say “let’s confiscate guns” and didn’t label me as an unrepentant gun nut. I said I’d be willing to consider her ideas. I think by citing these facts from a source on her side of the political spectrum and saying that I didn’t know what else we could do about gun violence left the door open for a civil discussion.

[Note: Libresco concludes her article with: “A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.” Amen!

Rafael Nadal on Doubt

-->

The Tennis Channel previewed an upcoming 60 Minutes interview of tennis player Rafael Nadal by Jon Wertheim, Tennis Channel commentator and Sports Illustrated executive editor. Nadal ended 2019 with a number 1 ranking in the world and with 19 Grand Slam titles, only one behind Roger Federer. The clip starts with Wertheim asking Nadal to talk about the importance of doubt in his game. Nadal: “If I don’t feel doubt I’m going to be in trouble. Doubt is very important to my success.” Wertheim expressed surprise at Nadal’s answer because Wertheim thought top performers wouldn’t claim doubt as their strength. Nadal’s reply: “If you don’t have doubt it probably means you’re being arrogant. I think it [doubt] is good for me because I feel alert. Tennis is a sport where things can change very quickly.”

I think what Nadal refers to isn’t doubt in oneself but doubt in the outcome, maybe even doubt in how well you will perform that day against that opponent. I also think Nadal is saying that you can’t assume you’re going to win a match against someone whom you’ve beaten before. By avoiding overconfidence you stay alert and not allow yourself to be lured into complacency. As is commonly said in professional sports that’s why the games are played: the outcome is not guaranteed. The underdog can sometimes win if they’re having a good day and the presumed winner is having an off day or doesn’t adjust to something their opponent is doing differently.

In an interview after the 2017 French Open Nadal also said that doubt drives him to improve the weaknesses in his game. This reflects his belief in an growth mindset in which you think you can improve with thoughtful effort as opposed to a closed mindset which believes our talents are set in stone and can’t be expanded. You think either you’ve got what it takes or you don’t. Nadal applied this open mindset when he changed his service motion before the 2019 Australian Open to boost the speed and penetration of his serve.

On the other hand if the doubt we feel reflects a fundamental lack of belief in one’s abilities it would undermine our performance in the heat of competition. It can make it even more likely that we will choke under pressure.

I’d summarize it this way. Doubt about outcome keeps us on our toes while competing and drives us to improve. However doubt in ourselves makes it more likely we won’t step up to the challenge.

Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

Learning is optimized when we fail 15% of the time -- ScienceDaily

As a junior varsity high school tennis coach I tell the players that they should look at losing matches as an opportunity to learn what they can do to improve their game. (I tell myself that too when I play tennis matches.) If the players can learn from losses they still win in the long run even though they lost the latest match. (I’d also say they can also learn from wins by looking at what they can improve. I do this by keeping a journal in which I rate whether I improved in technique, tactics and mental parts of my game and rate what needs to be improved.)

The Science Daily article links to a paper titled The Eight Five Percent Rule for optimal learning that is fairly technical. The Science Daily article summarizes:

Educators and educational scholars have long recognized that there is something of a "sweet spot" when it comes to learning. That is, we learn best when we are challenged to grasp something just outside the bounds of our existing knowledge. When a challenge is too simple, we don't learn anything new; likewise, we don't enhance our knowledge when a challenge is so difficult that we fail entirely or give up.

So where does the sweet spot lie? According to the new study, to be published in the journal Nature Communications, it's when failure occurs 15% of the time. Put another way, it's when the right answer is given 85% of the time.

So we optimize our learning if we fail about one out of six times. Good to know!

I believe these results parallel what it takes to achieve a state of mind that is called Flow, a concept identified by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a Hungarian-American psychologist. The Wikipedia entry describes flow as “the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by the complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.”

I say that there is a connection between optimal learning and flow because achieving a flow state requires facing a task that challenges you without being daunting. The Positive Psychology website explains: “an optimal Flow state was created when people tackled challenges that they perceived to be at just the right level of ‘stretch’ for their skill sets. In other words, neither too tough nor too easy as to be boring.”

Putting together the findings on optimal learning and flow it appears that both need a “Goldilocks” challenge: one that stretches you to achieve flow and reveals what you need to improve for the next time.

Lessons from the NFL AFC Championship

I know many people outside of New England are tired of seeing the New England Patriots playing in the Super Bowl. There are a lot of reasons why the Pats dominate so much but I believe we can apply a couple things Tom Brady said in the post-game interview of the 2019 NFL’s AFC Championship (in which the New England Patriots beat the Kansas City Chiefs 37-31). We can apply these ideas not just to sports but how we live. I’ve provided his response to a reporter’s question with key words in bold.

Q: How do you stay so calm in the biggest moments, especially when your team is down and you have to drive the team right back?

BRADY: “Part of playing sports is just staying in the moment. We always say one play at a time and you can’t make up for things that happen in the past. You just have to think about what you are going to do moving forward. Start of the fourth quarter, they scored. We are up three to start the fourth quarter. What a great opportunity to be against this team and to be ahead three in the fourth quarter with a chance to win is pretty sweet. They blew so many teams out this year. It is just a great opportunity for us, and we took advantage of it.”

His first point, staying in the moment, is key. I’ve seen players and teams get desperate or angry when losing or when calls go against them then try for plays or shots that aren’t part of their normal repertoire. They’re upset about what just happened then try to make up for it by hitting the ball harder or going for shots they don’t “own.” For instance, in tennis (the sport with which I’m most familiar because I play it almost daily) I’ve seen players go for a shot or an angle that they normally wouldn’t try if they were ahead. Instead, they often end up making an unforced error, which only makes things worse. (I know because I’ve done it!) 

As Brady says it’s better to forget about past mistakes or calls that go against you and focus on two things: stay in the moment while thinking of what you’re going to do next. One tip I use in tennis after making a mistake is to tell myself, “Next time” while making a couple shadow swings on how I wanted to hit the shot that I just missed. “Next time” means I’m telling myself I’ll do it better the next time I have the chance. This attitude implicitly represents a focus on the process rather than the results. It also reflects their confidence in themselves. And, it also means that their self-esteem isn’t tied to the outcome. Sure, it doesn’t feel good to lose but someone like Brady or Federer just use the loss as motivation to learn from what happened and try to improve. (This also reflects something I’ve written about in a previous post: the difference between having a growth mindset rather than a fixed mindset.)

Later Brady said that the Pats had a “great opportunity” when starting the fourth quarter with a three point lead over a team that was seeded #1 and had beaten other teams by large margins. I find it interesting that he didn’t say it was a challenge or that they were nervous. This is one of the qualities I’ve noticed with champions like the Brady, the Patriots or, switching to tennis again, Roger Federer. They are unflappable.  They see facing a tough opponent as an opportunity to excel rather than a challenge for which they might not be good enough.

So what accounts for this calmness? I’d say these factors: focus on the present, confidence in yourself without tying the outcome to your self-esteem and a process-oriented mentality. 

Tennis Reminders

I originally posted this in January 2018 in my blog on Talking Sports and updated it today. It occurred to me that some of the ideas could also apply to flourishing and self-development so I've pasted the post below.

Tennis Reminders

In an earlier post, Can I? versus I Can!, I shared results of research on how people performed when they asked themselves the question “Can I do this?” versus coaxing themselves with “I can do this!” I mentioned that I apply this by asking myself “Can I play well today?” then answering “Yes!”

At the end of that post I also mentioned that I also use the acronym LIFE3 as part of my pre-match routine to remind why I’m playing: to Learn, Improve, have Fun and to Express myself, to Explore my capabilities and to Exercise.

The final pre-match self-talk covers key reminders on the techniques I want to use. I use two phrases, one for groundstrokes and one for serving. For groundstrokes I say, “Watch me Catch Butt.” This actually contains three reminders in one. Watch: reminds me to watch the shadow of the ball. Why the shadow? To narrow my focus to something specific on the ball, not the ball itself. (I actually don’t watch the ball over its entire flight. More on that in a later post. Hint: has to do with something called saccadic eye movements.) Catch: reminds me that on my forehand I’m holding my left arm across my body and basically parallel to the baseline as if I’m going to catch the ball. This forces me to turn my upper body, which sets up the coil needed to generate power. On the backhand I pretend I’m going to catch the ball with the butt of my racket. On volleys Catch reminds me to set up my racket as if I’m catching the ball with it. Butt: reminds me to pull the racket through contact to help generate racket speed.

Finally, when serving, I use the word UP to remind myself that I’m hitting Up on the ball and to Pronate.

By the way, in case you were wondering, here is a little background on my tennis playing ability and experience. When I’ve taken tennis lessons in the past couple years I’ve asked the four different instructors how they’d rate me on the NTRP (National Tennis Rating Program) scale. All of them say I’m at least a 4.0, maybe a little higher. Of course, all of them say this is based on what they see during lessons and that the rating could change depending on how I play in actual matches.

I constantly study the game by watching YouTube videos, reading many books and subscribing to a bunch of email newsletters of pros and instructors such as Wil Hamilton, Clay Ballard, Brent Abel, Peter Freeman, Ramon Osa, Jorge Capestany, and Ian Westermann. For the last three years I also have kept a tennis journal in which I rate myself whether I made incremental improvement in technique, tactics and my mental/emotional state. The journal also records observations on areas that need to be worked on for the next match.

I also use the Babolat POP wrist sensor to track my strokes. The POP collects average and maximum speeds of groundstrokes and serves, the kinds of groundstrokes (top spin, slice or flat) and gives an overall rating based on spin, speed and style. (I record this information in a spreadsheet to look for trends.)

All of this information aims to show that even though I might not be a 4.5 or higher rated player my constant study has resulted in my game continuing to advance. I believe I’m playing better now at the age of 67 than I have ever played before in the 50+ years that I’ve played this sport. And I’m not done!

UPDATE 1/2/2019

Since writing this a year ago I've tweaked and added to my pre-match routine. The UP reminder for serving now is PUPSS which stands for Point at the toss, hit Up, Pronate, start the serve take back Slowly and try to keep my body Sideways longer. I added these to my pre-serve reminder because I was finding myself starting the take back too fast then stopping or slowing down and my body was opening to the court too early which I think caused my first serve to go into the net too often.

The following might sound hokey but I also ask why am I playing. The answer is LIFES. This stands for to Learn more about the game and myself, to Improve, to have Fun, to Explore, get Exercise, have Excitement and Express myself with Style. The Style reminder is to get me to focus on playing smoothly and on the process of hitting the ball rather than the results. I got this idea after reading Gabriele Wulf’s Attention and Motor Skill Learning in which she describes the results of her research on the difference between having an external focus rather than an internal focus in performing athletic skills.

Here is how Amazon summarizes her book. “Attention and Motor Skill Learning challenges traditional views that the method of learning a motor skill involves focusing attention on each part of the skill and internalizing proper execution. Instead, author Gabriele Wulf argues that the learning of new motor skills suffers when attentional focus is on the coordination of movements. When attention is directed to the desired movement effect, however, performance levels rise. Not only is a higher level of performance often achieved faster with an external rather than an internal attention focus, but the skill is retained better.”

Her book discusses experiments she conducted with people doing a variety of skills such as standing on a balance bar and trying to keep it steady. The internal group was told to try to keep their feet as steady as possible while the external group was told to try to keep two lights that were on the balance beam as steady as possible. The external group consistently did better than the internal group and maintained this advantage when tested days or weeks later.

You could argue that my emphasis on making my shots with style actually is an internal focus but I would say it’s more of an external focus. By thinking about making my strokes with smooth style I’m thinking about the result, not on the mechanics of how to play with style. And I’m thinking mostly about how the forehand, backhand or serve look when they’re completed rather than the whole stroke. Bottom line: I think it works, at least for me!