The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard famously observed that if everyone is a Lutheran then no one is a Lutheran. What he meant is that if youre born into a culture in which everybody has a similar worldview, you dont have an opportunity to develop genuine belief because your convictions are not subject to scrutiny.
Put another way, if you dont talk to people who hold different views, you will not know what they believe, and you wont even know what you believe. Having conversations with people who hold beliefs different from yours affords you the opportunity to reflect and only then can you evaluate whether your beliefs hold true.
Immigration. Abortion. Gun control. The seemingly impossible issue du jour is irrelevant. What is relevant: To justify your confidence you must sincerely engage people who have solid arguments against your position.
Over the last few years, Americans seem to have convinced themselves that not speaking to people who hold different moral and political beliefs makes us better people even on college campuses where intellectual sparring has historically been part of the curricula. It does not. However, it does make us less likely to revise our beliefs and more likely to convince ourselves that others should believe as we do.
Over time, failure to have conversations across divides cultivates a belief myopia that strengthens our views and deepens our divisions.
FORGET ABOUT healing political divides, overcoming polarization or the dangers of mischaracterizing people who hold different beliefs. Reaching out and speaking with someone who has different ideas is beneficial, not for utopian social reasons, but for your own good for your belief hygiene. You engage in dental hygiene not to bring insurance costs down for the masses, but because you dont want cavities, pain and gum disease.
You should engage in belief hygiene for similarly selfish reasons: Its an opportunity to reflect upon what you believe and why you believe it. If other social goods happen to occur as a byproduct friendships, increased understanding, changed minds thats great.
Having conversations across divides isnt particularly complicated.
Figure out why someone believes what they believe. The best way to do this is simply to ask, Why do you believe that? and then listen. Dont tell them why theyre wrong or parallel talk and explain what you believe. Figure out their reasons for their belief by asking questions. Then ask yourself if their conclusions are justified by the rationale they provided.
Call out extremists on your side. Identify the authoritarians and fundamentalists who claim to represent your views and speak bluntly about how they take things too far. This is a way to build trust and signal that youre not an extremist. (If you cant figure out how your side goes too far, that may be a sign that you are part of the problem and need to moderate your beliefs.)
Let people be wrong. Its OK if someone doesnt believe what you believe. Far more often than not, their beliefs dont present an existential threat theyre just one person and youll be just fine. Dont even bother to push back or point out holes in their arguments. Listen, learn and let them be wrong. Conclude by thanking them for the conversation. (As a good rule of thumb, the more strongly you disagree with someones position, the more important it is to thank them for the discussion and end on a high note.)
In our highly polarized environment, talking to those who hold different beliefs isnt easy, but its easier than you think. Fewer people talking across divides creates a hunger for honest, sincere conversation. But what there should really be is a hunger for truth.
And the best way to achieve that is to subject your beliefs to scrutiny.
Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay are the authors of the forthcoming book How to Have Impossible Conversations.
