The story phase
Why can’t we all just get along?
You’ve probably heard this question on the news, on social media, and everywhere else.
You might hold a stance on something that feels completely reasonable, even obvious, to you. But to someone else, that same stance looks wrong, wrong on so many levels.
Now imagine debating it. You both bring facts, studies, and every piece of evidence you can find. And yet, at some point, the discussion hits a wall. We’ve seen it over and over again. You’ve both said everything that can be said: the science, the logic, the “common sense.” And still, you disagree.
Your gut feeling holds onto your narrative, no matter what.
A gut feeling that murmurs in your ear, “No, I’m right about this.”
But if you’re right, that means the other person must be wrong. The problem is, they probably feel the same way about you.
Sometimes, you watch a political debate on TV and find yourself screaming, “This person must be kidding.” The next thing you know, that person becomes the president of the country.
Sounds familiar?!
Anyhow, this brings us to a very important point. Sometimes, something sounds so obviously wrong to you that it feels almost unnecessary to explain why. You feel like it should be common knowledge by now. It should have been settled. And yet, sometimes, more than 50% of the country seems to think otherwise.
Why is this?
How did this happen?
The structure phase
A reasonable answer comes from the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.
Haidt argues that the two political camps in many Western countries, liberals and conservatives, tend to have very different values. He also argues that both of these parties, which means all of us, rarely begin with logic when we take a stance on something. We come to a stance almost intuitively, based on the values we inherit, partly through biology and partly through the culture we grew up in.
Then comes the rational mind, mostly to justify the stance we already hold.
In other words, logical reasoning is just there to support our gut feelings.
The metaphor Haidt uses to explain this is the elephant and the rider. The elephant represents our intuitions, emotions, and core moral values. The rider represents our conscious reasoning, the part of us that tries to explain, guide, and justify what the elephant has already decided.
This is why some debates around abortion, equality, climate change, or immigration can feel endless. It does not matter how many facts we bring to the table. These disagreements are rooted in our values, more than we’d want to admit.
Does this mean that we will never get along?
Of course not.
As Jonathan Haidt suggests, we just have to approach things differently with different people.
The interface
So the big question is: with all these differences in our values, what is the most constructive way to debate and get the best out of a discussion?
Like mentioned before, intuitions come first and reasoning comes second. This means, if we want to change someone’s mind, we need to talk to their elephant, their core moral values, not only to the rider, their logical reasoning.
If you try to talk only to the rider, they will find all the evidence in the world to prove you wrong. Even if they can’t find any evidence, the debate will most likely not go anywhere constructive. The best way to find common ground is to get permission from the elephant.
For example, say a liberal and a conservative argue about climate regulations. If the liberal says, “The science is clear. Emissions must be reduced. Here are ten graphs showing why you’re wrong,” they are talking to the rider, not the elephant.
In the meantime, the conservative’s elephant, their gut feeling, is thinking about big government overreach, loss of jobs, and a possible threat to tradition and industry. So even before the conservative opens their mouth, they have already decided that the liberal is wrong. Now they are just trying to find counter-evidence to prove the liberal is wrong.
However, if the liberal started the debate like this instead: “We all care deeply about keeping our communities strong and independent. That’s exactly why we need domestically made clean energy, so we can control our own future, protect jobs, and stay competitive.”
Now, both of them are on the same page, even though the core argument has not changed at all. The conservative’s elephant is calmer. It gives the green light to a more constructive debate.
It’s also important to note that these are not tricks, or ways to outsmart somebody. It’s about understanding, empathy, and the collective well-being of our society.