Over the past few years and during this year’s contentious election campaign, rooted in America’s deep divisions, the way people talk to each other has hardened. We wanted to explore how some people try to bridge the divides. We asked our NPR journalists to look for examples of people working through their differences. We share these stories in our Seeking Common Ground series.

Jeanne Safer and Richard Brookhiser are no strangers to disagreements. The couple have been at odds for almost half a century. Safer is a psychoanalyst and describes herself as liberal. Brookhiser says he is a conservative Republican and works for the National review. The two men say they disagree on “just about everything” politically – and they have very rarely voted for the same person.

Although friends sometimes criticized their marriage, Safer and Brookhiser say they always supported each other and found ways to talk about most topics. Even if there are things they still don’t discuss – at all.

“Abortion,” Brookhiser said. “This was the issue we both had strong and opposing views on.”

Even when they find a subject too difficult, everyone says they try to center their conversations on respect and the desire to promote understanding.

Clinical psychologist Allison Briscoe Smith argues that this type of mutual respect is essential to engaging across difference. She co-teaches a course at Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center on Bridging the differences. And she says without that respect, a conversation isn’t possible — and you may want to disengage.

“I often hear, ‘If I talk to this person, am I subject to violence and dehumanization?’ …” she said. “I don’t invite people to have a conversation with people who are violent towards you or dehumanizing towards you. This is not a requirement…and bridging differences does not require or ask us to do so.”

As the holidays approach, many people prepare to have similar conversations with loved ones who might disagree with them. These conversations can quickly become personal.

Vote data from the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University shows that nearly half of the American electorate thinks members of the opposing political party are “downright bad.” In a 2022 Pew Research Center Studya growing number of Americans said members of the other party were dishonest, immoral and closed-minded.

These divisions are visible in our conversations, in our relationships and in our brains. But research in neuroscience and psychology shows that even if we disagree, are ways to bridge these gaps – and some people actively use these strategies in their daily lives.

Getting started in science

Neuroscience has shown that when two people agree, their brain activity is more synchronized than when they disagree.

Neuroscientist at Yale School of Medicine Joy Hirsch led a Study 2021 which revealed that people’s brains lit up the same way when they agreed. She thinks this means these people share more information and the two people are more in consensus. Compared to people who disagree: their brain acts like a cacophony instead of a harmonious duo. Moreover, they seem to mobilize more cognitive and emotional resources than when they agree with each other. Hirsch says one interpretation of this is that disagreeing is more taxing on us than agreeing.

“The amount of territory the brain devotes to disagreement amazed me,” she says.

But if you find yourself in a disagreement where mutual respect is present and you want to try to have a conversation, science has some tools to make it more productive.

A simple reframing

Tool 1: Focus on your breathing

When we face potential conflict, our body’s automatic response may not help us regulate our emotions. Our pupils dilate. Our hearts are racing. Our palms can get sweaty. And the amygdala – the threat detector at the base of our brain – goes off.

We may also feel angry at the other person.

“We are angry because we hear someone say something that seems so wrong to us and we have to tell them it’s wrong,” says Ken Barishpsychologist at Weill Cornell Medical College who wrote the forthcoming book Bridging our political divide. “So we have this mixture of anxiety and anger, and over time that turns into resentment. And contempt – and contempt is a very destructive interpersonal process.”

But Briscoe-Smith says we can begin to work through these emotions by slowing down and refocusing on breathing. This can help combat the body’s automatic response to conflict, helping us to think more clearly and take the next step.

“Can you slow down a little?” » said Briscoe-Smith. “So that you can kind of come back into yourself. … Can you breathe and then align with the intention?”

Tool 2: Refocus the goals of the conversation

When we approach conversations as debates, we may think that there is only one right answer to the topic at hand: ours.

“So people exchange opinions,” Barish says. “I express my opinion. You express yours. And people get even angrier. Nothing really happens.”

Research shows that this tactic – telling another person facts or bombarding them with articles arguing their point of view – will do little to change the other person’s mind. Safer and Brookhiser call this “article pushing” and say they abandoned this strategy long ago.

Barish’s advice?

“Don’t debate opinions. Discuss your concerns.”

Tool 3: Empathy

Humanize the other person you are talking to by asking them about their life, their family, their hobbies, and not just their opinion on a single subject. This can help create more common ground outside of the current conversation.

Additionally, Barish suggests trying to practice intellectual charity and humility by examining the strongest parts of someone’s opinion rather than the weaker ones, and understanding where our own arguments might be useful.

Safer and Brookhiser say this approach they’ve learned over time has changed the way they approach others in general, not just each other.

“It really opens your mind to think that someone you disagree with cares for you, helps you, is there for you,” Safer says. “It was actually a real eye-opener for me, just how much it means.”

Copyright 2024 NPR