With what has been happening in the world over the past few months I’ve made a concerted effort to expose myself to people who have different views than I do. I’ve followed new Twitter accounts, discovered new conversations, and expanded my news sources. Through this experience, I’ve come to a conclusion that is already well-known: the world is becoming increasingly polarized.

This polarization is touching all facets of life where nearly every viewpoint has become political. Every opinion you hold comes with vitriol attacks from someone on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube. You want to increase access to affordable healthcare? You’re a communist. You appreciate what Donald Trump has done for the economy? You’re a racist. 

There is seemingly no middle ground; half the world loves you and half the world hates you. The dangerous aspect of this is that some people wear that hate as a badge of honor. The belief that since the other side is wrong, then their hate is evidence that you are doing something right is dangerous and toxic. 

I think that most people would agree that political discussions and debates are more important now more than ever. However, those conversations are difficult to have. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to make these conversations good experiences for both parties. I’ve come to the realization that it’s not what I say during the conversation, but how I think about the conversation. I think there are 4 models that can accurately describe how we approach difficult discussions.

1. You vs. Me

With this model, beliefs and values are binary. I believe one thing, you believe the exact opposite. And in all cases, I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m good and you’re evil. This is where most Facebook conversations are.

This week I spent an hour watching mainstream TV news with some older family members. We watched a very popular network TV show where all the discussions were “us against them”. The other side was “evil”, “completely idiotic”, and “full of horrible people”. There was no middle ground, there was no debate, there was only good and evil (with their side being good, obviously).

This is unfortunately where most media thrives. People don’t like to think, they like to be told they are right. That’s why putting yourself in an echo-chamber where the only conversation happening solidifies your beliefs is so appealing. And when media is incentivized to keep your eyeballs glued to their content as long as possible, guess what they do. They feed you what you want to hear.

2. You and Me

This model is different from the first model in two ways. 

First, it shows that we share at least some beliefs and values. We probably both like ice cream. We can agree that unnecessary killing is bad. And while most discussions occur regarding the things we disagree on, acknowledging that the middle exists is powerful.

Second, it shows that beliefs can have a spectrum. Beliefs and values are complex things. We sometimes juggle which values we hold at higher priorities based on circumstances. We don’t have to be for or against, we can be somewhere in the middle. 

3. Community and Group Thought

This third model recognizes that while you and I may be on different sides of the spectrum, it is likely that the middle ground between us is generally accepted. This is one of the beautiful aspects of a democratic system filled with diverse people, backgrounds, and beliefs. While we all may believe different things, through checks and balances we will end up somewhere in the middle which will theoretically represent and benefit the majority.

4. Truth-seeking

With this model we see the introduction of a fourth circle – what is actually right (hereafter WIAR). This circle makes a large assumption that you believe in objective ethics and you believe in an objective “truth”. Even if you don’t believe in an objective truth, please just bear with me as we explore.

Now this WIAR exists in the previous three models, but isn’t visible because it is the same circle as the “What I believe is right” circle. We think they are the same! What I believe is obviously what is right. After all, why would we believe in something that we knew wasn’t true?! 

The existence of a separate WIAR circle shows that we acknowledge that what we may be wrong. It may be because we have false information, or because we are missing information, or because there are some additional points of views we haven’t explored before. We no longer become interested in trying to sway the other person to our side, but in pursuing truth.

The conversation is no longer one of convincing and debating, but one of exploration. We begin asking questions instead of telling each other what we already believe. What do you believe? Why do you believe that? What experiences do you have that led you to that belief? What do you think of my belief? Is there a different viewpoint from which I should consider this issue? Should I reconsider my stance on this? We become more concerned with what is right rather than with who is right.

This isn’t to say that we should only ask questions and not defend our current viewpoint. There absolutely is value in picking a side and arguing for that side. It forces us to understand not only the other side’s holes and shortcomings but also our own argument’s holes and shortcomings. However, we should be approaching debates not with the purpose to win, but with the purpose to learn and grow.

One of the benefits of exploring viewpoints rather than debating is that you set the stage for a safe space. It is only when others feel they are in a safe space and no longer feel threatened that they may open up to the possibility that they may be wrong. Asking thoughtful questions allows the other party, if they are willing, to join the exploration with you. They are no longer fighting against you but with you! This will show an immense amount of trust, confidence, and love that you have for the other person. People who feel loved are much easier to influence as stated by C. Terry Warner: “When we criticize people, their consciences console them. When we love them, their consciences indict them.” If you want to influence someone, don’t debate them, explore with them.

Unfortunately, thinking like this during tense conversations is extremely difficult. Our primal brains are wired for fight or flight, and this mindset is neither of those things. It takes a lot of practice and consistent effort in order to rewire our brains. We can’t think this way only when it is convenient for us or when it doesn’t hurt our pride. It needs to be a constant, conscious endeavor. 

Conclusion

I served a two year proselytizing mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in East Los Angeles, California. For two years my goal was to convince people that they should set aside their current religious beliefs, try living the Mormon belief system while asking God if it was the belief system for them, and then commit to live that belief system. Embarrassingly, it wasn’t until long after I returned from my mission that I recognized the hypocrisy of me never challenging my own belief system before asking others to challenge theirs. How can I expect others to change if I am not willing to change? I have since repented and try to constantly challenge my own beliefs, both religious and political.

If you’re reading this and thinking to yourself “I wish my republican/democrat friends/family understood these models, they are so closed-minded” you’ve absolutely missed the point. This isn’t about changing others, it’s about changing ourselves. You only have full control over what you believe, not what others believe. Each one of us has a personal responsibility to constantly and consistently search for truth, which is difficult to do if we are so preoccupied with what everyone else believes.

I’d like to end this essay with a sincere question: When was the last time you changed one of your beliefs? The likelihood that every belief you hold is perfectly correct is pretty slim! If it’s been a long time, or you can’t remember ever changing your stance, start by picking a belief and asking yourself “If I were wrong, how would I be wrong?”

It doesn’t have to be completely switching from Republican to Democrat or from Catholic to Protestant. It can be smaller beliefs within each of those larger belief systems. While strength is found in continuity of thought and commitment to what you believe, greater strength is found in growth and recognizing truth.