How to talk to someone who strongly disagrees with you

Two people who disagree strongly usually have one of two conversations: a fight, or a polite avoidance of the subject. There is a third and it takes some deliberate effort.

The aim is not agreement. It is understanding a position well enough to state it fairly — which is rarer than it sounds and changes more than winning does.

What is actually happening

When positions are far apart, each side is usually arguing against a simplified version of the other. Both are confident they understand, and both are somewhat wrong.

Strong disagreement also tends to carry an assumption about motive: they believe this because they are careless, or unkind, or have not thought about it. That assumption is doing more damage to the conversation than the disagreement is.

Why it happens

Most of what you know about the other position came from people arguing against it.
Strong views are often built on a value rather than a fact, and values cannot be corrected with facts.
The format is wrong: most of these happen as public performances with an audience, where neither side can afford to move.

What it looks like

A relative brings up immigration at dinner.

You both state headline positions in the first thirty seconds.
Somebody cites a statistic. Somebody disputes it.
The tone shifts and other people at the table go quiet.
One of you changes the subject.
Nothing was exchanged and both of you are more certain than before.

What to do instead

1. Ask what is underneath it

"What worries you most about it?" Positions are downstream of concerns, and the concern is almost always more reasonable — and more discussable — than the slogan.

2. State their view back, properly

Not the weak version. Say it well enough that they would sign it. Until you can, you are arguing with somebody who is not in the room.

3. Find where the actual disagreement is

Facts, values, or what should be done about it. These need completely different conversations and people mix all three within a minute.

4. Drop the motive assumption

Assume they are reasonable and have reasons. You will be right more often than you expect, and when you are wrong it costs nothing.

5. Aim to understand, not to finish

Leave with a clearer idea of why somebody thinks what they think. That is a complete result, and it is the one that occasionally leads to somebody changing their mind weeks later.

Try this

Pick a view you genuinely disagree with and find somebody who holds it.
Spend the first five minutes only asking questions.
Say their position back and ask what you got wrong.
Name the point where you actually diverge.
End without resolving it, on purpose.

What it sounds like

Two performances

Them: It's just common sense that it's out of control.

You: That's not what the numbers say at all.

Them: You can make numbers say anything.

You: So facts don't matter, then.

Four lines, both entrenched, and the last one was a door closing. Neither has learned anything about the other's actual reasoning.

A conversation

Them: It's just common sense that it's out of control.

You: What's the bit that feels out of control to you?

Them: The town's changed and nobody asked anyone here about it.

You: That's a different point from the one I was going to argue with. I don't think I disagree with that part.

The question found a concern about consultation, not about numbers. There is still a real disagreement somewhere, but now it is possible to find it.

Why this is hard to actually do

It requires giving up the satisfying part. Understanding somebody you think is wrong feels like a concession and produces none of the immediate reward of rebutting them.

It is much harder with an audience. If you can, have these conversations one to one.

Some people are not having a conversation and no technique fixes that. Leaving is allowed.

What it costs to leave it

Whole subjects become unmentionable with people you otherwise get on with.
Your own view stops being tested and gets weaker without you noticing.
It becomes easy to believe nobody reasonable disagrees with you, which is never true.

Practise it

Reading about conversations is not the same as having one. Splivex puts you on video with somebody who disagrees with you, for twenty minutes, about one question. There is no score and no winner — the only question afterwards is whether either of you changed your mind.

Practise on Splivex →