Many of us anticipate the upcoming post-election Thanksgiving holiday with dread, fearing that angry political arguments will tear our families apart. We can’t talk to each other, we don’t want to and we don’t know how.

It seems we no longer view the opposing party as someone we disagree with. Rather, we think they are bad people. Our political views are dominated by deeply felt grievances on both the left and the right. We now only see extremism on the other side.

There is an antidote to this malignant decay. With over 40 years of experience as a child and family therapist, helping families communicate with more openness and empathy, I will offer you some advice.

Successful discussion of any important disagreement is based on a simple principle: we must listen to each other. But it’s hard to listen, especially in most political discussions, when we’re not really listening: we’re waiting for an opportunity to make our case and argue our side.

Listening is first an attitude, then a skill. To listen more constructively, we must take the time to learn about the people we disagree with: the stresses, anxieties and grievances they experience, the injustices they see, the values ​​they try to live and the stories that inspire them.

When we strive to learn about someone’s life beyond politics, we will almost always find a common experience or shared value, something we can understand and affirm, even with people whose political opinions are antithetical to ours. When we listen in this way, we take several steps away from repetitive, unproductive arguments and toward a new form of conversation: we have started a dialogue.

It is helpful to understand the difference between a dialogue and a debate. The goal of a debate is to win an argument, based on the assumption that there is a right answer (and I have it). In dialogue, we recognize that someone else’s thinking can improve our own and that a new solution can emerge. We seek to discover new possibilities, without trying to change anyone’s mind.

Political arguments are usually presented as a forced choice between opposing opinions. However, in a dialogue, it is much more important to understand someone’s concerns and then, in response, to express our concerns. A conversation about concerns is very different from a conversation about opinions. We debate opinions; we discuss our concerns.

When we talk about problems in this way, we may find that even if we disagree about the causes of problems or what steps should be taken to solve them, we often share concerns. Even if this is not the case, most of the concerns are likely to be understandable, something we might share in other circumstances.

We must also view the ideas of others with more charity and view our own with more humility. Humility requires us to accept that there are facts we don’t know and perspectives we may not have considered on a policy or political issue. Charity and humility are antidotes to certainty and are too often absent from political debates.

Our best discussions then move away from ideology and toward pragmatism, which is about what works and what doesn’t. The language of pragmatism is conditional, not absolute. To turn an ideological statement – ​​a statement of conviction or belief – into a pragmatic question, we can ask: “in what cases, under what conditions, to what extent?” Pragmatic arguments also reduce our tendency for personal attacks, causing disagreements about how to solve a problem, not who you are.

These changes — from debate to dialogue; from opinions to concerns; from certainty to humility; and from ideology to pragmatic solutions – allow for much more fruitful discussions within families and political opponents.

Of course, constructive political conversations are not always possible. Dialogue requires both a will and a degree of discipline that is difficult to maintain. In politics, we sometimes need to argue and debate. And even when dialogue works, despite its many benefits, it is only a first step.

However, we can start with a small change. Brief moments of empathy and acknowledgment of someone’s concerns reflect a willingness to listen that almost always leads to some softening of our defensiveness and harshness of our judgments, on both sides. Small changes can trigger a positive cycle of listening and understanding: listening begets listening, empathy begets empathy, and the next conversation will be a little easier.

As citizens, there is little we can do to change the way politicians speak except through our votes. But we can change the way we listen and talk to each other.

Kenneth Barish is the author of the forthcoming book “Bridging Our Political Divide: How Liberals and Conservatives Can Understand Each Other and Find Common Ground,” from which this article is adapted. He is a clinical professor of psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York.