Tips for bridging the political divide: Listen to learn, not to teach

Ben Tamblyn says we’re not as divided as we think.

A communications professional who spent 16 years at Microsoft and now works for the security company ADT, the Seattleite volunteers for Braver Angels, a national group that tries to bridge political divides. In the past four years, he has moderated some 50 discussions on controversial topics, including reproductive rights, gun legislation and, one April day on Whidbey Island, conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Most assume that people are hyper-polarized on these issues and more. “The truth is they’re simply not,” Tamblyn said.

People just don’t realize it until they engage with each other in ways that force them to examine their beliefs as well as those of others.

But how do you do that? And are such conversations always worthwhile? We asked Tamblyn in an interview, which was edited for length and clarity.

Why start a conversation if you’re just going to disagree?

“I think we have this assumption that disagreement is bad,” he said. But delving into disagreements can be productive, allowing us to pinpoint where we differ as well as common underlying beliefs, he said. Looking for those commonalities is “almost like a treasure hunt.”

Tell us about your techniques.

“For me, it starts with listening to learn, rather than listening to teach. And this is where I think some people get caught up. They’ll sort of say, ‘If I can just convince them that the way they think about the world is not satisfactory.'”

Instead, Tamblyn recommends listening without judgment, to understand the values that are driving their beliefs.

“The second thing is just simply sharing stories,” he said, explaining that personal stories help people understand who you are as an individual.

That gets to a subtle difference in approach, he said, between expressing what you think and what you feel. Stories reveal feelings. Facts and data relate to what you think. Starting with that creates “this sense of conflict that is very, very hard to unravel.”

People often talk about searching for the truth. “The reality,” he said,
“is there’s your truth, there’s my truth — and the truth. We’re never going to quite get there, but it’s probably somewhere in between.”

A lot of people would push back at that, like those who point out the truth isn’t in the middle about whether Joe Biden won the presidency in 2020. He did.

Regardless of what you say, a lot of people will never believe it, Tamblyn said. “So in that moment, you have a choice. You can continue to hit them over the head and go ‘No, no, no, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.'” Or, he said, you can start to work out what both of you do believe to be true.

And if that common ground, despite your best efforts, doesn’t emerge, Tamblyn said it’s OK to say: “Hey, it was really nice to speak to you.” And then, “you can just walk away.”