Notes from Conflicted by Ian Leslie

It’s the end of May 2021 and more than half the world is still under quarantine. While this forced house arrest allowed many of us to spend more time with our families, binge on Netflix, buy stonks, etc, it also included some highly volatile events like the US elections, a military coup, turbulent times across many nations. If one looks at the social media today one would think we, as humans, are so divided that it is almost a miracle that anything gets done. Conflicted by Ian Leslie, tries to look at the way most of our conflicts take shape and how we can change our behaviours and debate constructively. It builds over the idea that a debate is not a duel but rather a combined effort in raising the consciousness of both the sides and arrive at more creative solutions. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and here are my notes from some things that stood out.

High context vs Low context cultures

What often feels like a total disagreement (of the order of Church vs Galileo) is actually rooted in tiny cultural differences. High context cultures are where the context is already set and people can drop subtle hints or signals to show what they mean. Most of Asia is known for its shared symbolism and meanings and people there don’t need to directly say what they mean. Low context cultures like the US and EU are where people don’t have shared symbolism and context and people need to be more direct. One can be from a high context culture and think the person from the low context culture is being rude but in reality it is a clash of two cultures. For an efficient discussion, one must strive to understand the cultural roots of ones counterpart.

Why do we find it so hard to be disagreed with?

When someone disagrees with us, a fight or flight mechanism is triggered. It is the same flight or fight mechanism that is triggered when we are in physical danger. Our brain can deal with a tough situation in one of two ways – consider it a threat or consider it a challenge. A threat tenses our arteries and suspends blood flow and makes us less efficient. A challenge state on the other hand, leads to a rush in the blood flow to the necessary muscles and we as a body, become more efficient. This is what happens to champion sportsmen as they are cornered. They take it up as a challenge vs ordinary people like us who consider tough situations as a threat.

Confirmation bias is a feature

According to evolutionary psychologists, we have not evolved to seek the truth, when we find ourselves in an argument. We have evolved to reason and argue our way out of conflicts. A physically weak specie like us got to the top of the proverbial food chain by reasoning and communicating. Those of our ancestors who got into more physical confrontations got weeded out and those who got into fewer fights and argued their way out got the chance to breed and grow. This is why we are hardwired to hold on to our views and defend them. There is no evolutionary need to arrive at the truth or explore more information. To become efficient arguers, we have to fight our instincts to hold on to our views.

Confirmation bias is actually an evolutionary feature. In a group discussion everyone should fight for their views and question everyone else’s. Given the right process, this instinct can lead to accumulation of more data and information and create new ways of thinking about problems.

10 tips to argue more effectively

1. Start by addressing emotions – say you are not trying to change their views but understand them
2. Make them feel like an equal and ‘don’t try to put them right’ (righting reflex). While discussing, pause your need to be right and try to seek the truth in what the other person is saying.
3. In a discussion we all want to project ourselves in a certain way. Understand that the counterpart is also trying to project a certain face and let them have it. Acknowledge their status. ‘One down’ parties (those who feel insecure) generally act very aggressive. Goal is to avoid this and give them a sense of security. Most discussions boil over to identity clash and that can never go well.
4. Understand the cultural differences. I wrote about the story of scarf, gloves and hand (ask to choose two items that are related) on Linkedin, that illustrates how our cultural roots drive our choices.
5. Be interested and interesting. Don’t distort new information to fit into what you want. It is easy to judge as it feeds our ego. Curiosity takes energy. Choose the latter.
6. Apologise for when you are wrong and do it well. A good apology is one that costs us something.
7. Don’t stick to common scripted arguments. Use novelty as our brains are wired to seek novelty.
8. Create a map of the issues and create a process through which the discussion can take forward. Hostage negotiations also go in this way. Turn the mess into something that can be handled.
9. Try to control your anger and emotions. Do not escalate. Only use anger and hostility carefully, rarely, and it should ideally come as a surprise.
10. Be real and don’t fake curiosity or empathy. This one trumps all the other. You cannot fake empathy and curiosity.

If I could summarise my key takeaway in one line, it is to be genuinely curious in what your counterpart is saying and seek integration of ideas, rather than to push through your own agenda. It is super hard to fake both curiosity and interest so be careful not to come across as a phoney.

I run a startup called Harmonize. We are hiring and if you’re looking for an exciting startup journey, please write to jobs@harmonizehq.com. Apart from this blog, I tweet about startup life and practical wisdom in books.