Your own mind closes you off from accepting new ideas, without you even realizing it. Fortunately, you can take back control and learn to become more receptive.
BARRIER 1: PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS
As members of a majority, we struggle to hear what people like Cheryl have to say because their ideas freak us out a little. Specifically, they prompt what people in my line of work call “anxious uncertainty.” Humans are close-minded by nature. We hold tightly to our belief systems, especially if powerful authorities promote them, because they provide structure and meaning to our lives. When a rebel pipes up with a new and provocative idea, we feel unsettled. That uncertainty causes us distress. Yes, we need to feel unsettled and uncertain at times—that’s how we grow. But it ain’t fun. When adults feel anxious uncertainty about how to handle a situation, they recoil from creativity and cling to the familiar. Teachers say they want creative students, but they far prefer obedient rule-followers in their classes over those unruly creative kids. To make matters worse, new ideas don’t just trigger negative emotions in us—they trigger emotions about those emotions. We feel uncertain about feeling uncertain, fearful of feeling afraid, embarrassed about being embarrassed.
How do we free ourselves from this emotional trap? One solution is to pull ourselves out of the situation entirely and look at it from afar. If we can get outside of our own egos, we might be able to understand an idea more clearly without our emotions coloring it. Scientists have developed and tested a mental strategy for doing this, what they call “self-distancing.”
Rooted in gold-standard cognitive behavioral psychotherapies, self-distancing has us zoom out and notice in a more objective way the big picture of what is happening, including the players involved and their perspectives. The strategy shakes us out of a self-absorbed mindset and helps us take in relevant external information. By freeing our thinking from distortions due to past events, assumptions, or expectations, we gain wiser insights about the challenges we face and the best courses of action available to us.
When listening to the thoughts of a principled rebel, self-distancing has two key steps. First, detail the challenge you face as a listener. A non-conformist questions your viewpoint and offers an alternative. You form initial impressions about this non-conformist based on a number of factors: whether they belong to your in-group, their physical appearance (age, race, sex, gender, height, weight, physical attractiveness), their popularity (power and likability), and their personality (such as emotional volatility, enthusiasm, and politeness). Acknowledge how difficult it is to listen to this person’s message with an open mind given the biases you harbor, as well as the plain old impulse you feel to stick with the status quo.
Second, intentionally adopt a broader mindset. You can do this in one of two ways. First, try talking to yourself in the third person. Instead of sitting in a meeting listening to what a non-conformist has to say, and thinking thoughts like, “I’m not getting this,” or “This makes zero sense to me,” try framing those thoughts in the third person. If an administrator named Brian used self-distancing while reviewing the evidence Cheryl brought against Dr. William Fals-Stewart, his internal narrative might have sounded like this:
Brian read Dr. Fals-Stewart’s statement. Brian wondered why nobody found it surprising that the only building to burn happened to be the one with the only files Dr. Fals-Stewart had. I mean, Dr. Fals-Stewart happened to be nearby when the fire happened. Brian almost raised his doubts to Clarence [another administrator]. Brian never voiced his thoughts because nobody else on the committee expressed skepticism. If he’s the only skeptic, Brian figured he must be wrong.
Crafting an internal narrative like this for yourself might feel weird. Resist the natural urge to recount what happens in an egocentric way. You might try interrogating your feelings. But consider an alternative to asking, “Why do I feel this way?” If your name is Brian, get outside your own ego by asking, “Why does Brian feel this way?” Using the pronouns “I” and “my” doesn’t allow you space to truly question what you believe and think, nor does it keep you open-minded to new perspectives.
To overcome personal biases, describe what is happening in an emotionally charged situation as if you are being observed by someone. An observer would use your name (“Todd, start acting like a professor instead of a fourteen-year-old boy”), second-person pronouns (“You are going to offend someone with this lust for foul language. Are you okay with offending a small portion of readers?”), or third-person pronouns (“To model rebellious behavior, he should gamble on a few carefully crafted linguistic risks”). Try to understand what you think and feel using the pronoun “you” and “[your own name]” as much as possible (“Todd is getting frustrated with a seventh round of paragraph edits. He might illustrate his point better with an extremely candid, self-conscious self-evaluation.”). It’s okay to talk about yourself, but you have to do it as if you are a “fly on the wall” observing; use self-talk just like highly narcissistic celebrities. Unlike narcissistic celebrities, however, you’re engaging in an introspective strategy in the interest of coping with strong emotions and becoming more open-minded when confronted with unpopular, albeit potentially valuable ideas.
Typically, psychologists ask people using self-distancing to check in with their emotions in the third person, and then go deeper, probing into the underlying reasons for the thoughts or emotions. When we interrogate our reactions in the third person, we suspend the ordinary judgments we make about ourselves, freeing ourselves from prejudices. You’ve probably noticed that you solve problems much more effectively when a friend asks you for advice than when you face the same problems yourself. Now you have a tool to help unleash your best creative thinking when in the heat of a sticky situation. That’s right, you can become your own problem-solving friend, just by modifying self-talk!
Scientists from Northwestern and Stanford University explored what happens when couples deploy self-distancing. The answer: good things. Couples in the study were asked to think about how they communicate and behave from the perspective of a third-party observing them (like a videographer sifting through surveillance footage). The couples were to imagine what this observer would think, what suggestions they would give, and then write down the imagined advice. This exercise, lasting only a few minutes, led couples to experience greater relationship satisfaction over the course of two years, irrespective of how much they fought. Soldiers in the military also adopt self-distancing when debriefing successful and unsuccessful missions—because it works.
A second way to self-distance is to broaden your time horizon. Here are some guidelines for doing this during an emotionally charged situation:
Close your eyes and try to imagine what your life will be like five years from today. Consider how you will feel about this event in five years. What emotions and thoughts, if any, might you experience as you reflect on your problem in the distant future? If you did not have to worry at all about social approval, what would you be saying or doing today that would make a positive impact in the distant future? How will you judge yourself in the distant future based on what you decided to avoid out of fear, and what you were courageous enough to do despite fear? By contemplating these questions and your answers, be willing to make decisions that might feel uncomfortable today but that in the distant future, you will appreciate. Minimize decisions that you will later regret.
When we encounter challenging ideas, we often react in ways that make us feel better in the short term without thinking of a longer time frame. We must overcome the impulse to reject the new, and the way to do that is to evoke a vivid image of an alternative future. Naysayers often get stuck pondering the minutiae required to put novel ideas into action, which pushes them toward inaction. We can avoid that trap by thinking ahead to an imagined future when those same novel ideas gain traction. Rather than getting bogged down by the burdensome reasons why we can’t do something, we can produce a concrete vision of the potential benefits of novel ideas that might prompt us to choose action (over inaction).
Whichever technique you choose, self-distancing is a promising strategy for interacting with insubordinates. Linguistic shifts in self-talk cost little in terms of time and effort, and they offer a substantial return on investment. Research has found that the shift in perspective this strategy brings helps people deal better with emotionally intense events, leading to less distress, lower cardiovascular activity and blood pressure, more insight, and a greater ability to take positive action. People who self-distance become more comfortable feeling uncomfortable. They also become more intellectually humble and more receptive to the ideas of people who hold opposing ideological beliefs.
The simple act of self-distancing has a lasting effect. Studies have shown that days and weeks after adopting self-distancing, people cope better with psychological and physical pain, helping them derive a greater sense of meaning in life after making hard decisions. Studies have also suggested that self-distancing allows people to separate their judgment of ideas from the source articulating them. One recent study found that when asked “Who am I?” participants thought about their identity differently than when asked to think in the third-person: “Who is Todd?” Asked to describe themselves using “I am” statements, participants produced a long list of concrete group memberships (such as “liberal,” “atheist,” “Jewish,” and so on). When asked to describe themselves from a distance using third- person statements (such as “Todd is . . .”), people responded with more abstract personality descriptions (such as “emotionally stable,” “assertive,” “purposeful,” and “imaginative”).
Something similar happened when participants evaluated their friends. When asked to judge their friend Juliana with the prompt “Who is Juliana?,” people described her by the presence of personality and character traits as opposed to the mention of exclusive group memberships. Self-distancing thus seems to make us obsess less about the demographics of non-conformists, cueing us in more to their individuality and the merit of their messages. With distanced self-talk, we mentally represent ourselves and judge other people in more nuanced ways. We become more open-minded and more amenable to what dissenters say.
THE BIG IDEA
New ideas can cause unnecessary psychological distress. Use self-distancing to short-circuit this problem and render yourself more open to novelty.
BARRIER 2: OVERCONFIDENCE
We must do more than transcend our initial emotional reactions to engage well with principled insubordinates. A big reason we dismiss people like Cheryl too quickly is that we think we know more than we do. This problem becomes especially pronounced if we’ve either received specialized training on a topic or, conversely, are grossly ignorant about it. Adding alphabet soup after our name by getting a degree, license, or professional certification makes us feel overly competent, in turn obscuring our intellectual shortcomings, whether it’s limited knowledge, blind spots, partisan bias, luck, or failure to account for the specifics of a situation. We also become entrenched in ideas because we identify with what we think we know, and feel close to members of groups with whom we affiliate. In studies, participants reminded of their political affiliations or other social identities showed stronger overconfidence in what they knew, making it harder for them to consider new arguments and ideas. Meanwhile, other research has found that the less someone knows about a topic, the more likely they are to hold strong opinions about it. We become close-minded when we possess either too much or too little knowledge, which often leaves us overly confident in existing knowledge.
THE BIG IDEA
We won’t learn much from principled rebels if we think we know enough on our own to arrive at competent judgments and decisions. Fortunately, we can shrink our big heads by cultivating that most precious of virtues: curiosity.
Curiosity helps in all kinds of ways, leading us to superior intelligence and growth. The highly curious among us not only persevere longer during difficult tasks, but perform better and tire less. In one study, having a participant merely describe a past experience when they felt curious led to a 20 percent bump in mental and physical energy as compared with recalling moments of profound happiness. Intelligence, tenacity, and energy all matter when we’re trying to overcome resistance and listen to principled insubordinates. Curiosity also helps us to listen better to others. Often, we fail to truly understand the rebels among us because we spend more time confidently explaining our positions than we do thinking about what they have to offer. Curiosity wrenches us from our self-absorption, leaving us more receptive to new, useful ideas.
It’s not hard to cultivate more curiosity—just ask more and better questions. When you encounter an opposing or unfamiliar viewpoint, begin from a place of open skepticism about your own beliefs, asking: What does this principled insubordinate know that I don’t? What can I extract from their unique knowledge to improve my life and thinking? And if you’re participating in a conversation with someone else, rather than trying to show how smart or competent you are and detailing a rationale for why you’re so unmistakably right and your interlocutor wrong, try asking that person to reflect on and explain how their preferred ideas work. Say the following: “I am interested in what you’re saying. Can you tell me more about how you reached that conclusion?”
So often, we react to new ideas defensively in an effort to shore up our own arguments. But that’s hardly the path to a productive encounter. As philosopher Alain de Botton observes, the exceptional conversationalist is not a good listener but rather a “skilled interrupter.” They don’t “interrupt to intrude their own ideas,” as most people do, but rather “to help the other get back to their original, more sincere yet elusive concerns.” Science bears this out. In one study, researchers had one group of participants focus on their own arguments when hearing someone present an opposing viewpoint, while other participants posed open-ended questions of the speaker designed to help them understand why they believe what they do. “The mere act of formulating elaboration questions was sufficient to change their reactions,” said the study’s lead researcher. Researchers found that when people let go of trying to persuade conversation partners and instead approached time together as an opportunity to learn something new, this led to greater enjoyment, more positive attitudes, and a greater desire to see each other again. Improve civil discourse by clarifying that the goal of conversation is learning, not persuading. Showcase your interest in what someone says with visible gestures such as head nods and tilts, directed gaze, squinted eyes in concentration, and mm’hmm noises. Being a learning- instead of a persuasion-oriented listener might be the difference in being able to profit from the liberating opening of the mind that dissenters stimulate.
In another study, posing a single curious question—an open-ended query posed with the goal of better understanding why someone feels or thinks as they do—altered debates between two people holding opposing views. With a single curious question, the questioner became more receptive to the other person’s views, more eager to continue the conversation, and more likely to view the opposition as warm, open-minded, intelligent, reasonable, objective, and moral. The average person asks no more than six questions during a fifteen-minute initial one-on-one online chat with a stranger. In an online chat, all you can do is write, read, or think. Six questions in this venue offers an opportunity to get to know someone’s personality, interests, and values. Yes, asking more questions helps. But what kind of questions you ask is far more important. Across two studies, researchers found that asking a high rate of follow-up questions led to greater friendliness and a greater desire to learn more about a conversation partner. The partners, meanwhile, found responsive questioners more likable and viewed them as more caring.
Following up on what someone is interested in shows that you are paying attention and seek to understand them. Increase your social attractiveness by asking a high rate of follow-up questions (they say, “I’m craving a freshwater eel sushi roll,” and you respond, “Now, if you could only consume one food forever, what would it be?”). Contrast this powerful conversational tuning with strategies that are less likely to predict likability such as a high rate of topic switch questions (they say, “I regret buying a hedgehog” and you respond, “But do you read graphic comic books?”), mirror questions (they say, “What do you do when someone trolls you online?” and you respond, “I usually send a video of my dog sleeping on a hammock. What do you do?”), or rhetorical questions (they say, “When was the last time you felt really embarrassed?” and you respond, “I accidentally sliced off 22 percent of my tie with a guillotine paper trimmer. Isn’t that a great name for an office product?”). Show you care. Show you are responsive. Let them know you want more information because you feel inspired or intrigued. Signal that what someone cares about is interesting to you. With frequent well-deployed follow-up questions, you give conversation partners an opportunity to flesh out their stories and thoughts with greater depth, and they will appreciate you for it.
Disrupt overconfidence with curiosity. Misconceptions about what makes for a great conversationalist prevent us from connecting with principled rebels, and indeed, everyone else. Most people experience conversations as fraught with decisions about what to say and how to act. Relying on instinct, we admire people who seem witty, tell intriguing stories, and are “smooth” in answering questions. We assume others will view us as great conversationalists if we’re witty and smooth. No, no, no, says modern science.
Most people—ourselves included—crave conversation partners who show interest in what we feel or think—what bothers us, intrigues us, excites us. Be the highly skilled partner you crave by diving deeper into what other people are interested in. Ask questions such as, “What’s on your mind?,” “I want to know more about . . . ,” “What initiated your interest in . . . ,” “Why did that happen?,” “How did you feel when . . . ,” “And what else?” To excel in conversations, stop being so damn egocentric.
Redirect your attention to what others offer. Talk less and ask more. When talking to someone and you follow up their comments by asking “why,” do so with curiosity, not judgment. The curious “why” tries to explore what another person is saying or doing in the present moment for the sole purpose of understanding it. The judgmental “why” criticizes the statement or behavior, pushing it away. If you ask why in the spirit of “Why are you even here?” or “What’s wrong with you?” you’ll not only come across as an asshole—you’ll fail to draw out people around you, including those immensely valuable non-conformists. Curiosity is an antidote to defensiveness.
When it comes to dealing effectively with non-conformists or whistleblowers, asking questions and staking out a posture of curiosity makes all the difference. In Dr. William Fals-Stewart’s case, Cheryl lodged a number of allegations. Although the good doctor had published an article referencing 120 couples participating in a therapy program, Cheryl perused the files and found only three. As Cheryl also noted, Dr. Fals-Stewart preferred not to use checks or credit cards but instead paid work-related expenses in cash, even though funding from government grants requires careful receipts and records. This alone, she felt, was highly suspect. Unfortunately, administrators failed to show a comparable level of curiosity in their evaluation of the facts. Not only didn’t they probe these two issues; they didn’t query the credibility of Dr. Fals-Stewart’s witnesses, nor did they ask why Dr. Fals-Stewart was more credible than Cheryl. At key points, they felt overly confident in the information presented and therefore failed to ask follow-up questions.
Asking tough, even dangerous questions rarely feels good in the moment. A preference for cognitive simplicity leads us to fall back on assumptions. We generalize unduly, thinking that all African Americans are politically liberal, or that all Republicans unthinkingly support Trump. We assume that complex issues revert to binaries. You’re either for open borders for immigrants or against them. You’re either for freedom of speech or against it. And so, we decline to ask certain questions because we presume to know the answer.
To engage better with principled rebels, we must resist the urge to paint everything as either/or. There are few inherently good or bad people. Many of us are a blend of values and a wide range of ethical, unethical, and morally ambiguous decisions that make little sense when pulled out of context. Let’s show some curiosity, people. Let’s explore the novel, complex, ambiguous, and mysterious elements of our world. Let’s embrace complexity and resist the temptation to categorize people or their views in an overly simplified way. Let’s spend more time asking. You can’t always be happy, but you can nearly always be curious.
BARRIER 3: INTOLERANCE
A burglary has taken place at a suburban home, and the police have apprehended three suspects. As the investigator in the case, you have a photograph of each suspect and you know their name, occupation, alibi, police record, what they had on them and how they behaved during their arrest. Reviewing all of this information below, whom do you most suspect of committing the crime?
NAME
PETER ALLEN
MARK MATHER
