Scroll down for a transcription of this episode.
Episode Summary
When we internally acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, we create space to engage with other points of view. Allowing new perspectives in can help us better assess arguments, and decrease hubris. We will hear from psychologists Tania Israel and Daryl Van Tongeren about embracing opinions different from our own.
How To Do This Practice
Reflect on an issue you feel strongly about. Ask yourself the following questions when listening to someone’s opinion that differs from your own:
- How can other people help me to develop a broader or deeper understanding of this topic?
- Whose story isn't being told here?
- What's the perspective I'm not seeing?
- Check in with yourself as you're reading the news, are you just saying, “I agree with that perspective” or are there moments in which you can say, “This challenges me.”
This episode was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, as part of our project on “Expanding Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Humility.” To learn more, go to ggsc.berkeley.edu/ih.
Today’s guests:
Our guest host today is Allison Briscoe-Smith, a psychologist and Senior Fellow at The Greater Good Science Center.
Tania Israel is a psychology professor at UC Santa Barbara and author of the new book Facing the Fracture: How to Navigate the Challenges of Living in a Divided Nation.
Daryl Van Tongeren is a psychology professor at Hope College and author of the book Humble: Free Yourself from the Traps of a Narcissistic World.
Science of Happiness Episodes like this one:
A Way to Make Work More Meaningful: https://tinyurl.com/mtpay9jw
The Questions to Ask Yourself in an Argument: https://tinyurl.com/3uajhp4t
When It’s Hard to Connect, Try Being Curious: https://tinyurl.com/nhzj52vc
Making Difficult Interactions More Respectful: https://tinyurl.com/bddafcrw
Happiness Break Related Episodes:
A Meditation For Connecting In Polarized Times, With Scott Shigeoka: https://tinyurl.com/y6e4vdsd
Direct message us or leave a comment on Instagram @scienceofhappinesspod. You can also e-mail us at happinesspod@berkeley.edu or use the hashtag #happinesspod.
Help us share The Science of Happiness!
Leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts or share this link with someone who might like the show: https://tinyurl.com/2p9h5aap
Transcript:
TANIA ISRAEL Back in the 1990s, I had started a group to bring together pro-choice and pro-life people to have dialogue with each other. And it was truly a transformational experience for me. It didn't change anything about. My views on abortion, but it changed so much about my views of people who disagreed with me on the issue. And so I knew that there were ways of connecting across the divide.
So I developed a skills building workshop and I offered it to hundreds of people. And you know, they engaged in it and they learned a lot of things. You know, listening skills this is how you, allow somebody space to speak. This is how you reflect back what they've said. This is how to ask an open-ended question,
But what I heard from people was there are people who, for whom dialogue was not the greatest challenge. Uh, people who either didn't have anyone in their lives who were on another side, they were in such an iron clad bubble, or who said, you know, I don't wanna talk to those people. And when I would delve into that, you know, like, what, what is it that keeps you from wanting to talk to them? What I heard was, a lot of their cognitive biases about those other people, about who they were, about the kind of threat that they were. And so I started to realize the things other than, or in addition to, or proceeding dialogue that were needed.
No one's going to use any of these skills if they aren't interested in where another person's coming from, if they don't have that curiosity.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH Welcome to The Science of Happiness. I’m Allison Briscoe-Smith, a psychologist and Senior Fellow at The Greater Good Science Center, filling in for Dacher Keltner.
Today, we're exploring how embracing being open to people who are different from us can enrich our lives—and why it's so important to make that effort. I’m joined by Tania Israel, a psychology professor at UC Santa Barbara and author of the new book Facing the Fracture: How to Navigate the Challenges of Living in a Divided Nation.
Tania explores how we can reframe our thinking to become more open to differing views, making us more effective advocates for change without compromising our values.
And the science bears this out — Studies show that recognizing that our knowledge has limits helps us better assess the quality of an argument, reducing hubris while increasing openness, assertiveness, and pride. Later, we’ll hear about the science behind all of this from intellectual humility expert Daryl Van Tongeren.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN What's your why? Is it that you wanna have an accurate view of the world? Is it that you wanna have better relationships? Is it that you're really just genuinely interested in appreciating the perspective of other people?
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH More, after this short break.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH Welcome back to The Science of Happiness. I’m Allison Briscoe-Smith, filling in this week for Dacher Keltner.
If I were to ask you to have a conversation with someone you disagree with about politics right now … how would you react? How would you feel? I’m willing to bet …. not good. According to the Pew research center, more than half of Americans feel angry when they even think about politics.
But what if I told you there’s a lot we all can, and maybe should do, that doesn’t require us to engage with other people at all … at least, not at first.
I’m joined by Tania Israel, a psychology professor and author of the new book Facing the Fracture: How to Navigate the Challenges of Living in a Divided Nation. Tania joins us to discuss the many things we can do to individually reframe our approach to the political division in our country.
Tania, we are so excited to have you here. I've been following your work for a while and can't wait to talk to you. So welcome to the Science of Happiness
TANIA ISRAEL Thank you so much. I am delighted to be here.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH Well, we wanted to kind of start off to get a sense of your before picture, like what was your relationship to politics growing up? What was your political community like before 2016?
TANIA ISRAEL So my parents were a mixed race couple who married in the 1950s, protested the Vietnam War and hosted ACLU fundraisers in our backyard. Sort of surrounded myself, I would say, with, much more progressive people in my life. I had been hearing in the lead up to the election from, you know, people around me. Everybody I knew was voting for Hillary and you know, no one would even have considered, voting for Donald Trump.
I really just had so much trouble even conceiving of the fact that, Hillary might not win. And when she didn't, I realized. Some of that bubble that I was in and I was like “I have missed something major here and I'm not the only one. And we're clearly having trouble connecting across this divide.”
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH So we've been, you know, in the space since 2016 to 2024. In that span of kind of eight years, what were some of the things that kind of emerged to you? What did you find out?
TANIA ISRAEL So, when that, awareness came to me that I was missing so much, and I thought, well, what can I do to bridge this divide? The, one of the first things that I started doing was making resources because as a counseling psychologist, that's what I've done my whole career, is try to make resources to help people.
I remember in one workshop, someone told me that what they got out of it was recognizing that they're a really bad listener and in exploring that some more, you know, like what, what's going on for you when you're trying to listen. She said, you know, I, I really want to get my views across. I want somebody else to understand my views. And what I recognize is happening sometimes in a dialogue kind of situation is that people have in their mind, the idea of debate that what we're supposed to be doing is articulating our views, and it can be stories or data studies that are supporting our point
But, even in a debate, we don't think that people on the other side are going to recognize that we're right and come over and be on our team behind our podium. We're thinking that what we should do is lay our ideas out there. So, bringing in this piece of “Why is it that we are listening?” rather than just diving into how to listen, becomes really essential.
So I started to realize the things other than, or in addition to, or proceeding dialogue that were needed.I really try to give people a little bit more of an individual path that involves, you know, turning down that polarizing input, building the individual capacity, and then if you want to, you can engage with other people. But there's a whole foundation that needs to come before that.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH You also write about this notion of intellectual humility. Can you help us understand what that really means?
TANIA ISRAEL So intellectual humility, it's really about recognizing the limitations of our own beliefs, our own worldview, even our own values. And in recognizing that having an appreciation for what others might bring in terms of their knowledge or their perspective. Like, “Okay, I don't have the full picture of this issue or this stance, or these people. And how can other people help me to develop a broader, or deeper, understanding of it?”
That doesn't mean you need to disavow your perspective. You can say, “You know, I think that what I see and what I believe is true, and there may be other ways of viewing this.” So it's not necessarily about changing your mind about an issue, but I think that, um, that's something that keeps people from wanting to be more open to hearing other perspectives. And you can actually have very strong convictions and still be respectful of and curious about another viewpoint. And so I think that there's a sweet spot there. I often say, you know, intellectual humility helps us to be righteous without being self-righteous.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH You tell a story in your book about how you are thinking about the January 6th riots expanded when you found out there were some things you hadn't known when you were reading the news about the riot at the Capitol. Can you tell us a little bit about that story?
TANIA ISRAEL Well, January 6th was such a shocking day. I was, you know, getting calls from friends and family and seeing what people are posting on social media and watching the news myself, it was so upsetting and it was really shaking. It was scary.
And one of the things that was really mystifying was how it was that not everybody was feeling the same way about it. How could there possibly be people who were not seeing this as a threat to our democracy? You know, there are these violent protestors and they're attacking law enforcement and targeting our federal government. And how could all Americans not feel the same way about this?
But then I took that on, you know, not just as a, “How could people possibly not see it this way?” But an actual question, “How could people be seeing this in a different way?” And I started wondering, “What's the context through which people might be viewing this incident? What are people on the right looking at in terms of news and media?” And what I discovered is in just days before the Capitol insurrection, there had been a violent riot in Portland, Oregon. So there had been rallies going on for months in Portland, and it led up to this incident on New Years in which protestors firebombed a federal courthouse building. They set fires, they threw dangerous objects at police. And so I was watching the footage of this and there were masked protestors, hurling things at police, and it looked scary and it looked like it really could easily get out of control. And the most surprising thing about this is I knew nothing about it before this point.
I hadn't heard anything about it. It wasn't in my social media feed, it wasn't in any of the news that I was watching. So I started asking around, I started asking my friends, Hey, did you know about these riots in Portland? And many of them were unaware, or they said, well, yeah, “I knew about that, but that's really different.”
You know, and so kind of dismissing that, but, I looked into, this issue and in, in learning more about what had been going on. Sure, there are differences, but there's also some similarities that make me think, okay. If I had been exposed to this nightly footage of the Portland protests for months leading up to January 6th, and there had been this violence in Portland just days before, I might have seen similarities in the chaos. In civilians being embattled with police, in attacks on federal property. And in fact, I might have been really confused about Democrats suddenly lauding law enforcement. So I could then see how people from coming from another perspective and coming from a different kind of immersion in media, might have not only seen what happened at the Capitol on January 6th, very differently than I did, but might have been very confused about how people on my side, people on the left, could be so shocked and appalled at this, but having no response whatever to what was going on in Portland.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH So, I mean, it sounds like what you just did in that example, is actually give us a couple steps to think about how to engage in intellectual humility. One of which is to actually turn that question of how could other people feel differently into, well, how could they, and then you moved into kind of taking a look at the stories that people have, perhaps the media stories or other stories.
And then that sounded like it kind of expanded your sense about how people could have come to those conclusions. But in the end, I am curious because it is a kind of a place of a push around the intellectual humility concept, after you went through that process of connecting, getting more kind of understanding, did that change your mind about, or change your views about January 6th?
TANIA ISRAEL It did not, but it did change my views about people who were not having the same reaction to it that I was. And I think that that's actually really important. You know, I hear so many people say things like, “I can't understand how people can think that way or vote that way or behave that way.” But it's said almost as a badge of honor, like, “I am so moral and so well informed that I cannot possibly understand how people could see things that way.” And I thought, “Well, when did our inability to comprehend other humans become something to be celebrated?”
If you can't understand, then that opens up such a possibility, to be able to broaden your understanding of other people. Lean into this curiosity about where other people might be coming from, where a contrasting view or value or perspective might be. And if that's something that helps to broaden your view, then maybe you were a little too, self-righteous, in how you were viewing that before. But if you recognize yes, you know, I recognize that other view. I understood that and this is where I stand, then I think that that's a little bit more of a righteous perspective of feeling strong in your values, even when you recognize and can be respectful of another view.
And, I think it's made me actually a more effective advocate. So, you know, there's a righteous self-righteous anger, you know, like, the slogan, if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. And then, you know, you can be very upset at the people who aren't outraged because you can see all of these terrible things happening in, in the country, in the world, in your community, and. Recognizing that the other side might not have such negative motivations for their lack of outrage or for their perspective, helps me to be able to frame things in ways that I can draw more people into the cause rather than pushing them away by, through my anger at them and, and also through seeing them in a way that is so different from the way that they're seeing themselves. So I think that that's been very helpful, in terms of the kind of work that I do and the kind of advocacy that, that I want to do.
ALLISON BRISCOE-SMITH Beautiful. Well, thank you for your time. And Tanya, I wanted to say that I was like snapping and welling and as you were going through, really enjoyed that.
TANIA ISRAEL Well, thank you so much. I. I know that people are feeling distressed and disempowered these days, and stress, particularly around political conflict, is, ramping up so much. There's something that we can do as individuals. And everything we've been talking about today, especially intellectual humility is such an incredible tool that will help to get us there.
SHUKA KALANTARI Hi, this is Shuka Kalantari. Coming up, we further explore what happens when we recognize the limits of our knowledge, with psychologist Daryl Van Tongeren.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN The more that you do this, the more you realize, I'm probably wrong, a little bit wrong about almost everything, and I could be pretty wrong about a few things. You start making that existential anxiety, your friend, you become more comfortable with it, less reactive.
SHUKA KALANTARI More, in just a few moments.
SHUKA KALANTARI Welcome back to the Science of Happiness. I’m Shuka Kalantari. Adopting a more open-minded approach to information we get from the news, or other people’s opinions, make us better agents of change in the long run. But it’s also not easy.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN Part of the cultivation of intellectual humility is realizing, first of all it's a hard process.
SHUKA KALANTARI That’s Daryl Van Tongeren, a psychology professor at Hope College, and author of the book, Humble: Free Yourself from the Traps of a Narcissistic World.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN It's a funny thing writing a book about humility because, first of all, people might naturally presume that you're a personal expert in it. And try as I may, the people I love the most will be quick to tell you that I still have a lot of work to do in this area. It’'s really, really hard, but. It's very much worth the effort and it's, and it's worth the investment.
SHUKA KALANTARI But why is it so challenging, even when we genuinely want to approach things with an open mind? To answer that, he goes into the heart of our most profound, and often subconscious, fear: the fear of death.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN There's been hundreds of studies done in dozens of countries that suggests that. The human awareness of our own mortality motivates us to construct and adhere to these cultural worldviews. And when we interact with someone who holds an opposing cultural worldview, the first thing you try to do is you try to convince or convert the other person to your perspective.
SHUKA KALANTARI And when that doesn’t work, because it almost never does, things can get ugly fast.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN Then you start denigrating that person, suggesting that they're, unintelligent or maybe even dare I say, inhuman. People say, “Oh, Daryl, that's all great. That's all pie in the sky. But you don't realize that the other person that I'm talking to. They're absolutely morally wrong. I couldn't even imagine someone holding that perspective.” And one of our current problems in our society and in the cultural moment is that we've elevated almost every ideological disagreement to that type of moral status.
SHUKA KALANTARI But Van Tongeren says the best way to cope with a fear … is to face it. In this case, he means our unconscious fear of people who are different from us.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN So one of the best ways to kind of overcome your fear of flying is to eventually just, well start flying, right? And you have to kind of work your way up to that.
SHUKA KALANTARI One way to ease into other people’s perspectives, with the goal of being more open minded, is Tania Israel’s approach — try taking in some new sources of news.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN I had signed up for an email that kind of provides two perspectives on the same issue. And it would say, here's what people on the left are thinking and concerned about. Here's the people on the right are thinking and concerned about. And it kind of just was a nice introduction, for like, okay, every day I'm thinking a little bit about what the two perspectives might be.
Then, ask yourself these questions when reading the news – regardless of where you get it. “Whose story isn't being told here? What's the perspective I'm not seeing? Can I take a moment and ask myself what voice isn't being represented or what perspective isn't being highlighted here?”
And finally – notice how the news you’re reading is or isn’t impacting your ego when you're reading it, are you just saying, “Oh yeah, that feels so good, because it's already what I thought. Yep, yep, yep. That's what I thought.” Or are there moments in which you can say, “Ooh, this challenges me. I'm not quite sure what I think,” but not dismiss that and say, “Let's push into that. Where's this discomfort coming from? What might that mean?”
SHUKA KALANTARI Van Tongeren says it’s not about changing your mind, that’s not necessarily a marker of progress. It’s about being able to tolerate your own discomfort … and being open to the possibility of changing your mind — if, and only if, you think the evidence supports it.
DARYL VAN TONGEREN So the more that you do this, the more you realize, I'm probably wrong, a little bit wrong about almost everything, and I could be pretty wrong about a few things. You start making that existential anxiety, your friend, you become more comfortable with it, and then the more comfortable you come with it, the less reactive and defensive you get when that existential anxiety surfaces.
And so rather than feeling this panic, or rather than being completely unaware of what's motivating your responses, you start becoming a little bit more inoculated to this feeling of discomfort. I really do firmly believe that our culture needs humility and intellectual humility now more than ever. We're at a time in which we're unwilling or unable or under practiced in having relationships and discussions with people with whom we disagree. We need to do a better job of being able to civilly, kindly, and lovingly engage with people who are ideologically dissimilar from us.
SHUKA KALANTARI Next time on The Science of Happiness… What would you do if you had a magic wand and could better the world in any way? How would you change it?
SELINA BILAL When I talk about my ideal world, it really centers around compassion and the expression of love and trust. And thinking about its implementation without a magic wand, I began reflecting on how I can bring about this change.
SHUKA KALANTARI We explore what happens when we think about our own greater purpose in life.
Thanks for joining us on The Science of Happiness. This episode was produced by Haley Gray. Our research assistants are Dasha Zerboni and Selina Bilal. Our Associate Producer is Aisha Wallace-Palomares. Our sound designer is Jennie Cataldo of Accompany Studios. I’m Shuka Kalantari, and earlier we heard from Allison Brisco-Smith. Have a great day.
Comments