Handling a hot topic and heated conversation

Meaningful conversations happen in many ways. But with more sensitive topics, the chat can easily go off the rails. How to manage a testy exchange?

I don’t know about you, but figuring out how to change my own mind (much less someone else’s) is deeply intriguing. For example, I have voted on both sides of the aisle in politics (in the US). The little story in my mind suggests that I might not have a sturdy backbone. If I vacillate on something as important as a political party, is that a reflection on me? Or is a reflection on politics in general? Meanwhile, when I see someone who holds a strong conviction, it can be entirely beguiling. I see in this person someone who is supremely confident, knowledgeable and verbal. It can be seductive, especially if you’ve never had such a strong feeling or belief. On the other end of the spectrum, you’ll hear people who laud the ability to change one’s mind. After all, only dumb people never change their minds, as has been quipped by many on Internet. I marvel at individuals who have changed faiths or have flopped from one extreme to another. When they land on the other side, they can often be the biggest of fanatics, despite — or perhaps because of — having spent a period of time believing the opposite previously. The FEZ trifecta of fundamentalism, extremism and zealotry hold no appeal to me. I’m generally not interested in engaging with blindly faithful people. If you’re reading this piece, I’m guessing you likely feel the same way. Yet, if you never hold a strong belief it can feel rather de-stabilizing, if not unfulfilling. I’d be kidding myself to say that I have no beliefs; and I’m aware that I too can be stubborn. This piece — and my mindset in general — is about building bridges and having strong conversations with people who sit within the extremities. And the main question — and injunction — is all about seeking self-knowledge. If I don’t know myself, how can I truly believe something profoundly? My desire here is for us to get in tune with ourselves, understand our own history and motivations, and tap into what really counts. And then, as you militate and/or argue about a cause, remember what’s the big picture and what you’re trying to achieve. If you breathe into that, maybe you can find ways to relate into the others rather than only pushing back and trying to take them down.

---

Truth be told, I’ve spent most of my life trying to avoid arguments. That’s why my personal mission is all about elevating the debate. I have attempted to turn a weakness into my force. However, I recognise that I have a lot to learn about engaging in argument. Despite my advancing age, I am an eager student. I love to observe others in action. Have you ever been surprised, for instance, to see someone you know get hot-headed, almost out of nowhere? It seems to come out of the blue, but there’s bound to be a reason in that ‘blue’ space. When I see someone get awfully worked up about a topic, I tend to want to find out why they feel so excited, enraged or engaged. That’s often more interesting to me than the topic itself. Why are they getting so upset about this particular issue? Sometimes I am genuinely mystified since there is no apparent personal connection. Sure, any injustice or tragedy is important in its way. But, we can’t spend our lives being outraged about every injustice or donate all our money to every just cause that comes around. Here’s what I’ve determined: there is most likely a proper reason. The question is, for the person who gets upset, are they aware of that reason? What was their experience and/or what are the underlying beliefs that created this point of view?

If and when you feel your blood boil, can you trace the root cause? Chances are it’s not quite as easy as all that. Take the Ukraine War. Yes, it’s a misery to hear about how much the civilians are suffering; about the war crimes and daily list of casualties; and about the threat of the war spilling over into either a multi-nation war or, more spectacularly, a nuclear war. But, if you are getting all up in arms about it, is it because you have Ukrainian attachments or roots? Do you speak Ukrainian? Have you been there? If none of these apply, what is it then that drives your concern? There’s no doubt that the media play their part is fanning flames of fear. But behind our interest and sense of engagement lies perhaps something else that’s deep within us. It could be, for example, a fear of loss or of loss of control. Somehow, it may well boil down to a personal existential threat.

Without checking in on what that link is, though, it will surely remain elusive. One thing seems clear: by being enraged, it is enlivening. It makes us feel alive. It can make us feel perhaps less powerless. Fear has a way of making us impulsive and susceptible to strong emotions. However, before getting excited, it’s best to be well informed, ideally with a balanced set of inputs. If you’re too emotionally attached to the topic, you’re bound to have less objectivity and less good reasoning in your argument. And if you’re not personally related into the topic, then there’s a further chance that you’ll go off the rails. Rather than jumping onto causes and getting distressed or excited about external events as a way to bolster an identity, I suggest applying greater introspection within oneself.

Know thyself

In this article, we’re going to look at some of the keys to tackling those trickier, more sensitive subjects. This won’t be the definitive, all-comprehensive post since there are entire books dedicated to the subject (see below for the best recommendations). However, I want to at least stimulate the desire to dig in on handling these more difficult situations. It strikes me that — starting with myself — we could do with a bit of honest introspection as to how we are part of the problem and figure out how we can also be part of the solution.

“There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond and to know one’s self.”

- From Benjamin Franklin’s 1750 almanac

My conviction is that if we get a better handle on ourselves, including our deeper fears and imperfections, we’d be better off as well as being better at conversing with others. Some of you reading this may do hot-headed conversations much better than I do. I’m less interested in preaching to the converted. I don’t want to preach at all, in fact. What I’m hoping to do is reach out to those who are less good at holding robust conversations and provide a stimulus as to how to get better at it. Along the way, I intend to improve myself as well.

The subject matters…

What do you consider to be a meaty topic worth debating? I suspect that you, like me, have a specific list of weighty subjects. That list will likely vary, based on our experiences and current context. Just because your topic isn’t on my list, doesn’t mean that it’s not worth discussing. I know that meaningful conversations can actually happen with any topic, if both people engage and are prepared to venture down unexplored or raw paths. The key factor is really about connection and growth. How are both of the parties growing through the exchange? Some conversations are made meaningful because of the depth of sharing, around something personal. There are certain ‘hot button’ topics that are more charged, involving moral, religious, political or identity issues, such as abortion rights, right to bear arms, freedom of expression, or any number of perceived injustices. Or it might be a hurtful statement, perceived as an attack and/or an existential threat, that is taken personally. Of course, I’ve seen some people able to get super excited about something as innocuous as their sports team or car. At all times it’s worth remembering which and why a subject really matters to you.

Check in

Whenever you embark on a touchy topic, where you know that it might get someone started, the first port of call is to check in with yourself and assess your own link into the issue. Is it something that riles you up? If so, why? How do you relate into the topic? Why is it important to you? By doing some soul-searching you will hopefully find yourself more grounded in and by the topic. You may even find out that you don’t really know or have a real reason. By checking in with yourself, you will be better able to manage your own emotions. One of the keys in entertaining more problematic conversations is modelling the behaviour that will make for an optimal exchange, in the hopes that the other will follow suit.

Factfulness

In a hat tip to Hans Rosling, the second component to take into consideration at the outset of a difficult topic you have chosen to fight for or against: factfulness. Rosling’s central point is about gaining perspective, through the use of proper research and facts. How informed are you truthfully about the topic? For starters, if you’ve not done your homework, how can you be sure of your position? Secondly, in order to mark your ground, it is important to have documented facts and reliable sources. If you’ve ever observed or participated in a proper debate (e.g. in a formal university setting), you will notice that facts and references are a healthy portion of the presented arguments. But, outside of that formal setting, citing facts and sources may not be helpful. I am far more focused on how well informed I am or not. When researching a topic, it’s useful to consider any inherent or commonly understood biases in the sources. Think: The Guardian and The New York Times on the left or The Telegraph and Fox News on the right. Just because you “feel” that something is true isn’t sufficient in the real world. Spouting off facts and figures about ‘your’ truth is only marginally less irritating than name-dropping in the midst of a heated argument. Ideally, you can formulate the epistemology (i.e., the sources and method) behind your own beliefs. Similarly, it can be useful to understand how the other person came to their beliefs. If facts don’t convert, hot-headed feelings are no better alternative. Unfortunately, in many of today’s hyperbolic discussions, we’ve let feelings be a satisfactory validation, as in, “it’s my truth.” Not only is such an argument untenable, it’s no way to win over someone else, should that be your intention. What really matters is how you came to that “truth.” My encouragement is to put things into perspective. Of course, that’s something that applied empathy is designed to help bring. By learning about someone else’s experience, you’re expanding your repertoire. And, in a future discussion on the same topic, you’ll be a tad better equipped for having listened thoroughly to the other person’s reasoning.

Intention

The third consideration is to assess the scope of the argument and your intention in holding the conversation. A good Socratic practice is to agree together on the specific question at issue. If it’s not clear, define it explicitly together. What do you hope to achieve in holding this argument? To what extent does it really matter? Is it your objective to win over the opponent? Is this subject core to your identity? Are you trying to establish your credibility? Or is it merely to explore the topic? Perhaps (and I’d suggest this a good starting point) you genuinely wish to understand the other person’s point of view? One stance that I found particularly effective is to consider the person with whom you’re engaging as a partner, as proposed by Boghossian and Lindsay in their book, How to have impossible conversations. It means pre-supposing that the other person has just as decent intentions as you and recognising that you are both looking at this exchange as an opportunity to learn from one another. Having observed and participated in many heated conversations, I’ve come to identify different profiles in a conversation. Some reflect our systematic approach to conversation. But it can also be a profile you adopt according to the subject. I categorised thirteen different types of conversationalists. The point here is first to attempt to pin yourself down. Secondly, try to figure out how the other person operates. Which are you (most of the time)?

1. The devil’s advocate.

2. The lecturer (or the professor).

3. The plant. At best provides oxygen. But basically known for sitting pretty.

4. The spectator (from the peanut gallery).

5. The sponge.

6. The interrupter.

7. The storyteller.

8. The sage.

9. Yesser.

10. The conductor.

11. The connector.

12. A live wire.

13. Canned (or empty).

Hopefully, you’re not the unlucky number 13. But for the rest, I’ve probably felt that I’ve embodied each of these roles at different times in various conversations. It will depend on the topic, the context and the individuals present. Being a conversationalist is one thing. Being that person in the middle of a heated debate is another. If you have ever used the Insights personality profiles (i.e. yellow/red/blue/green), you will know that there is always another side to our projected selves that tends to come out when we are crossed. Here is a non-comprehensive list of personality types that might crop up in terms of your argumentative style:

On the left, we have the less effective approaches in the midst of a heated exchange. On the right, we have elements that lend themselves to better outcomes. Of course, going back to intention, it depends on what you’re trying to achieve. To the extent you find yourself on the left-hand side of the above figure and you’re really only interested in winning arguments, let’s just say you’ve got work to do. One of the wishes of this Dialogos is to rein in our impulses and improve our ability to hold more meaningful conversations and debates, including those more feisty discussions.

Context

Once you’ve thought through those three elements (self-knowledge, perspective and intention), it’s now time to work on how you’re going to tackle the conversation. It might seem obvious, but what’s your mood? Are you straight (i.e., not intoxicated)? What’s the surrounding environment like? In other words, is this a private discussion or on show with others around you? Can you express yourself freely or are there guardians and gates around? Do you feel safe enough to express yourself as you would like? The context of an argument counts. Ideally, you’re in a place where you both can express yourselves without fear that others around will interfere. For example, it’s best not to engage in any such encounter on public transportation, in a restaurant or in a crowded bar.

Boundaries

Setting boundaries is a concept that I’ve never been particularly good at, but I do recognise it has its benefits. From experience, the best time to set the boundaries is up front. In the heat of the moment, any form of retroactive rule setting can feel more like rule breaking. In the case of arguments between a couple or long-standing work associates, it can be useful to set up a formal list of what constitutes appropriate manners. For example, no name calling or insults. Express your feelings. Be honest when you’re not sure. Use facts, not hearsay. Etc. In the case of the arguments I have with my wife, we’ve agreed to stick to English, because I tend to get triggered by some of the French expressions; for example “t’es con, ou quoi !?” Most experts in the field of conflict resolution will suggest you set boundaries that are important to you and don’t volunteer them for the other person. For example, explain what you are going to, how you intend to behave, and what are your limits. The trickier situation is when the argument is ad hoc and arrives unexpectedly. A couple of things come to mind though. First, as soon as you see the conversation is moving toward a conflict, identify it. Then adjust the context if necessary in a mutually acceptable manner. For example, change rooms where there is greater privacy. Check to see how much time each of you has. If you don’t have the time, park it. Such arguments should not be ended artificially with a time limit. If you have the opportunity, it can be useful to determine together the scope of the debate so that it doesn’t spill over into other areas. When either person sees the boundaries being compromised, it’s important to interject while being fair and firm in order to reset. Of course, there may be the need to pause or walk away from the conversation if it’s going nowhere or verging on hostility.

The power of questions

In all the literature about engaging in meaningful conversation, there are many chapters dedicated to the types of questions you should consider. Just as in brainstorming, it’s useful to use open questions as you engage with someone. If you want the conversation to continue on, the better questions will invite further explanations and not end with a yes/no closed response. Rob Volpe, a fellow empathy activist, wrote a book, entitled, “Tell me more about that,” where he encourages our inquiry into their story. Technically, the book title and this technique isn’t a question, but a conversation expander. It invites the one talking to provide more colour and nuance. Why…? is a great fall back question. Surely some questions are better than others. Some can be more incisive and help lead to more gritty areas. Beware of questions that are too leading or spark defensiveness. And watch your tone. The wrong tone, no matter the words used, can scream all sorts of alternative sentiment. The key to asking questions is your intention. If you are genuinely interested in understanding the other person’s perspective, lean in. Repeat back what you hear. Continue following them down their reasoning. Expand on this, please. Tell me more about that…!

Before getting into the thick of how to kick off and hold a difficult conversation, there are a good number of books that deal with different techniques to handle tough conversations. I highlight five that I recommend:

• How to have impossible conversations, a very practical guide, by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay.