Why Are We Yelling? - Book Summary

Dive into the art of productive disagreement!

From an early stage, we're conditioned to believe that arguments equal conflict and that they're better left untouched. However, not all arguments are sources of unrest. In fact, when handled with tact, they can pave the way to some of the most profound insights. A key lesson here is that arguments can be enriching experiences that throw light on subjects that matter to us. They need to be navigated wisely, not completely avoided. Take it from me, respectful arguments can form the very bedrock of successful relationships.

Mastering the art of productive disagreement can be transformative for your interpersonal relationships. You'll find yourself less disturbed by differences in perspective and encounter them less frequently. Above all, the power of embracing different viewpoints will broaden your understanding of the world, even if you don't always agree with them.

In the following narrative, we will reveal

why an unassuming image of a bagel stirred a storm on the internet;

how to distinguish between the voices in your head that should be heeded and those that should be ignored; and

how the classic game of Battleship can be a metaphor for your argument tactics.

Embrace your discomforts.

In a notable event from March 2019, Twitter user @alekkrautman stirred the pot by posting a picture of bagels sliced vertically akin to a loaf of bread, challenging the conventional method of horizontal slicing. The internet broke into a frenzied uproar. Responses ranged from outrage—"First of all, how dare you?"—to sheer disbelief—"Who told you this was okay?".

This light-hearted, low-stakes debate over slicing bagels left us wondering: Why did such a trivial matter spark such a fiery reaction? The answer boils down to one word: anxiety. Anxiety is often the hidden culprit behind disagreements, regardless of how significant or insignificant they might be.

Anxiety creeps in when an opposing viewpoint threatens a perspective we hold dear. Whether it's a bagel slicing preference or a political affiliation, anxiety is the common denominator. But what happens when anxiety kicks in? We tend to rebuke or even attack what's causing us discomfort, just as we saw in the bagel debacle on Twitter. But in doing so, we also forgo opportunities for dialogue, understanding, and personal growth. In essence, we surrender the chance for a fruitful disagreement.

However, anxiety is not just a monolith. Our anxieties are as unique as we are, stemming from a wide variety of sources. In a disagreement, it's not uncommon for the involved parties to bring entirely different anxieties to the same issue. To better understand this, let's sort these anxiety-triggering factors into three primary categories: anxieties of the head, heart, and hands. Anxieties of the head relate to information and logical reasoning, anxieties of the heart involve emotions, and anxieties of the hands are concerned with practical implications.

Picture this: parents of a twelve-year-old kid planning a night out only to have their babysitter cancel last minute. They find themselves in a disagreement over whether they should leave their child home alone. One parent, guided by anxieties of the heart, argues that it's not safe to leave their child unsupervised. The other parent, appealing to anxieties of the head, counters this concern by saying that it's legally permissible to leave a twelve-year-old home alone in their state. This approach, however, overlooks the emotional anxieties raised by the first parent and fails to effectively resolve the argument.

For productive disagreements, it's crucial to recognize our own anxieties and their triggers, while empathetically understanding the anxieties of others.

Listen to the whispers of your mind.

In today's world, debates on significant issues such as climate change, vaccinations, or gun control often appear increasingly dichotomous. Public and private discourses alike seem to skirt around the middle ground. The protagonist behind this divided landscape? Cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance surfaces when you encounter an opposing belief or behavior that directly contradicts your own. The greater the deviation from your point of view, the stronger the cognitive dissonance, consequently leading to heightened anxiety. This anxiety ushers in various "voices" in your head, working to alleviate the discomfort. In general, there are four primary voices that make their appearance during conflicts. Let's use the highly contentious debate surrounding vaccinations as a case in point.

Suppose you are a staunch advocate for mandatory vaccinations as a public health measure. However, you cross paths with someone who firmly believes that parents shouldn't be forced to vaccinate their children. Given the stark contrast between your views, cognitive dissonance is inevitable, which in turn brings about anxiety.

At this stage, your thoughts may channel the "voice of power". This voice seeks to triumph over the disagreement by outright rejecting the opposing viewpoint. It doesn't entertain alternate perspectives. In the context of the vaccination debate, this voice might declare, "Anti-vaxxers are unequivocally incorrect. Period!"

On the other hand, your thoughts might resonate with the "voice of reason", striving to win the argument with evidence and rationality. In this vaccination debate, the voice of reason would challenge, "Provide empirical proof to support your claim that vaccines are harmful. I wager you can't!"

Alternatively, your thoughts could embody the "voice of avoidance", preferring to sidestep the conversation entirely. This voice would simply shrug off the issue, saying, "Whatever. I am keeping myself out of this!"

However, the issue with these three voices is that they all aim to terminate the disagreement instead of progressing it constructively.

Fortunately, there's a fourth voice, known as the "voice of possibility". This voice views disagreement as the start of an enriching dialogue. It is open to exploring new facets and perspectives. It might question, "Why do you feel so strongly about this?"

Activating the voice of possibility does not require you to endorse your opponent's argument or alter your stance. However, this voice creates room for dialogue and comprehension. So, take a moment to familiarize yourself with the voices whispering in your mind. And when the voice of possibility emerges — lend it your ear!

Confront your innate biases!

Visualize yourself standing at a gelato counter. You pick chocolate over pistachio and it's absolutely delightful. Great choice!

However, you've never been a fan of pistachio gelato. Could this have influenced your decision? Absolutely! This is a bias, but it isn't necessarily negative. Biases can actually assist us, conserving our cognitive energy and helping us navigate through a deluge of information. For instance, instead of being overwhelmed by the choice between pistachio, chocolate, or any other flavors, you end up with a gelato you truly enjoy, thanks to your bias.

However, biases can also result in undesired consequences. Here are two ways biases can obstruct productive disagreements:

One manifestation of bias is a cognitive shortcut termed the availability heuristic by psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Essentially, when faced with a decision, we only consider the options we can readily recall. The dilemma lies in the fact that everyone has distinct availability heuristics. What seems like an easy solution or strategy to you might appear challenging, disadvantageous, or even treacherous to another person, and vice versa. When multiple availability heuristics clash, disagreements are bound to ensue.

Another example of bias is in-group favoritism. We are predisposed to give more credit to individuals we perceive as part of our "tribe" — be it someone who graduated from the same university or someone who shares our political beliefs. This bias can wreak havoc during disagreements. While we may entertain the arguments put forward by members of our group, we are prone to disregarding the opinions of those outside our group. This not only results in unproductive disagreements but also significantly narrows our worldview.

Both these cognitive shortcuts have developed to save us time and mental effort, and they indeed could in the right context. However, they sometimes fill our mental gaps in hasty, poorly considered ways, bypassing the opportunity to consider alternate perspectives and arguments. Being entrenched in a single perspective hampers open-minded and productive disagreements.

Cognitive bias isn't a switch you can turn on and off as per your convenience. To engage in constructive disagreements, it's essential to candidly acknowledge your personal biases. Furthermore, it's crucial to recognize that, if left unchecked, your biases can preclude you from effectively interacting with other viewpoints. Ensure that your biases aren't commandeering your judgment. Strive to comprehend the reasoning that leads others to their arguments, and keep a check on yourself when you instinctively disregard opinions coming from an unfamiliar group.

Embrace your viewpoint, but refrain from guessing others'.

We've often heard the advice, "Play to your strengths," in the context of our professional lives. The same wisdom applies to how we tackle disagreements. One of our strengths during a disagreement is our ability to inhabit and comprehend our personal viewpoint.

Conversely, making assumptions about our opponent's perspective is a pitfall. When striving to grasp our opponent's arguments, we unfortunately tend to either oversimplify or vilify their standpoint.

Let's illustrate this with a hypothetical scenario involving two friends, Bob and Sofia, who found themselves in a disagreement over the 2016 US election. The election was one of the most fiercely contested and narrowly clinched in the history of the United States, yet numerous eligible voters chose to abstain. Upon learning that Bob was one of these non-voters, Sofia was livid. She had a firm grasp of the reasons for her vote — passionate support for one candidate and strong opposition to the others. She believed she understood Bob's choice not to vote just as clearly — according to her, it was due to his selfishness, indifference, and refusal to fulfill his democratic responsibilities.

However, as time passed, the voice of possibility began to whisper in Sofia’s mind. She had always admired Bob’s intellect and had never considered him to be selfish. Could there be a reason behind his decision that she had overlooked? She initiated a conversation with Bob who then explained his perspective. Unlike Sofia, Bob didn't feel any of the candidates were worthy of the office. Voting for someone he sincerely didn't trust to perform well was against his principles. Hence, he chose to exercise his right not to vote, viewing his non-participation as a form of protest.

Sofia may not concur with Bob's decision. But by listening to the voice of possibility and extending the conversation, she now understands his rationale was far more nuanced than she initially acknowledged. Most importantly, their friendship remains unscathed.

The takeaway here? Express your own views! But invite others to do the same. You don’t have to agree with them, but it will help you comprehend their stance better.

Questions are the keys to unlocking productive disagreements.

Do you remember the game Battleship? In this board game, you and your opponent place toy battleships on a grid, hidden from the other player. The objective is to guess your opponent's battleships' locations by asking pointed questions.

What do you do when you locate their ships? You torpedo them, of course!

Questions are critical tools in navigating fruitful disagreements. They act as gateways through the maze of disputes. They can open up new perspectives, unravel concerns, broaden understanding, foster empathy, and occasionally, lead to acceptable resolutions. Yet, in our disagreements, many of us misuse questions. We opt for closed-ended questions, designed to smother the discussion, or we question with the sole intention of reinforcing our own viewpoint rather than exploring the other person's. In essence, we employ questions in disagreements the way we do in Battleship. To obliterate arguments. To claim victory.

For a healthier approach to questioning, consider borrowing a page from another popular game, Twenty Questions. In this game, your opponent thinks of a person, place, or thing, and your objective is to decipher what they're thinking of using twenty questions or fewer. Playing Twenty Questions nudges players to ask open-ended, imaginative, and unforeseen questions. Additionally, it dissuades players from asking questions with predetermined answers in mind.

When we unleash Battleship-esque questions in a disagreement, we maintain a stranglehold over the dialogue. But when we imbibe the ethos of Twenty Questions, we let go of the reins of the discussion, creating room for unpredictable revelations.

Consider this: You're a staunch skeptic, and one day your friend divulges that they believe in ghosts. You could launch a question designed to "sink their ship" — something along the lines of, "What proof do you possess of the existence of ghosts?" Alternatively, you could pose a question that invites them to shed light on their perspective, such as, "What experiences led you to this belief?"

Sometimes, such disagreements can even nurture closeness and connection between friends. Imagine having a friend you always disagree with about films. The lively debates you have after a movie can be entertaining. Even disagreements on serious topics like politics can become the heart of a friendship. The secret to having such engaging disagreements? Posing the right questions.

Pick a formidable debating partner for fruitful, progressive disagreements.

Are you keen to emerge victorious from a debate? The simplest way to do so involves a tactic called nutpicking. Seek the person on the opposition with the most preposterous, outrageous arguments, and systematically dismantle them. Victory is yours!

However, while you may win the argument following this approach, you miss out on chances for self-development and forming deeper connections. In essence, by resorting to nutpicking, you forgo the opportunity to engage in beneficial disagreement.

If you aspire to participate in fruitful disagreements, you'll need to follow a different strategy. When selecting your debate adversary, don't be tempted by the easiest targets. Choose the most intelligent, trustworthy individual who disagrees with your opinion, and engage them in a discourse. You'll find that partaking in this high-level debate tests your own argument in unexpected ways. You may consequently adjust your viewpoint. Or, the challenges to your argument might solidify your stand further. Regardless of the outcome, your perspective will have broadened.

Better yet, immersing in this level of debate can reveal the loopholes and blind spots in your own thought process. Consider the famous short story "The Monkey's Paw" by W.W. Jacobs, which demonstrates the importance of guarding against loopholes in one's logic. A couple is granted a mystical monkey's paw that is promised to fulfill any wish. The catch? The paw always finds a loophole that enables it to grant the wish in an unintended manner. Ignoring this caveat, the couple wishes for sufficient money to settle their debts. The next day, their adult son dies in a gruesome industrial accident, and they receive a compensation that exactly matches their debts.

So, when you're choosing a debating partner, aim for the person who can serve as your "monkey's paw" — someone who can highlight the gaps and imperfections in your reasoning that you might overlook. Winning against an opponent with ridiculous arguments might be easier — but selecting a wise sparring partner ensures more significant gains!

Neutral environments enable superior disagreements.

Recall your last disagreement. Now, rather than focusing on the argument's substance, concentrate on the place where it unfolded. Was it indoors or outdoors? Public or private? Virtual or physical? Did you feel secure voicing your thoughts? Did others appear comfortable expressing theirs?

Disagreements don't occur in voids. The environments where our disputes take place can significantly sway their outcomes. For instance, consider a dialogue in a classroom. It's an in-person interaction, governed by established classroom rules that all participants respect, with a teacher present to mediate and moderate the debate.

Now, envision that same conversation playing out on social media. It's more democratic — no individual holds more power than others. Simultaneously, it's more chaotic — no established rules dictate conduct. The context, therefore, profoundly shapes our disagreements.

Suppose you were tasked with designing an optimal space for constructive discussion. What characteristics would define this space?

Regardless of whether it's a classroom, online platform, or elsewhere, the ideal environment for an argument is a neutral territory. This could be a physical locale or a mental state. Diverse ideas and perspectives should be embraced. Everyone should feel at ease articulating their viewpoints and critiquing others' in a neutral discussion space. Furthermore, an open dialogue culture should prevail, enabling participants to recognize and accept the fears and biases underlying their stances.

Importantly, no one should be excluded from the group, even if their opinions are controversial. Censorship is a temporary and ultimately ineffective solution to radical disagreement. Similarly, no one should be compelled to vacate the space, though participants should have the liberty to join and depart from the discussion as they wish, without needing to justify their decisions.

Finally, the space should be adaptable, capable of evolving in tandem with its users. In a physical setting, this might involve arranging the furniture in a discussion-inviting manner. In a digital realm, it might mean developing a shared online language of emojis and internet jargon. Whether it's virtual or physical, the space should be flexible enough to cater to its participants' needs.

Unproductive disagreements can occur anywhere, but a neutral discussion space is far more likely to foster productive disagreements. If you value productive disagreements, the onus is on you to cultivate the neutral environments where they can flourish most effectively.

Ideas we dislike won't just disappear if we ignore them.

Achieving productive disagreement on trivial matters such as deciding on a restaurant for dinner can be effortless. Tackling more complex topics like politics can be challenging but ultimately gratifying. However, when it comes to divisive issues like euthanasia and gun control, productive disagreement implies engaging with notions we may find extremely disagreeable or threatening. So, how can we effectively interact with ideas that we find repellent or perilous?

Often, our initial reaction to a distasteful idea is to block the conversation — a reaction led by the voice of avoidance. We shun from engaging in debate, believing it's wrong to give such ideas a platform, and we would rather deny the existence of those who harbor such viewpoints.

Regrettably, overlooking these ideas won't make them vanish. Suppressing dialogue on sensitive matters often fuels the radicalization of extremists. So, what's the appropriate strategy? We should aim to incorporate these risky ideas into the conversation without condoning them. To achieve this, engage with the unsettling idea using your intellect, your emotions, and your utility, represented metaphorically by your head, your heart, and your hands.

When you ponder over an offensive idea with your head, or your rational mind, strive to grasp the logic that supports it — even if you reject that logic. The goal is to fully understand your opponents' rationale. Aim to empathize with their viewpoint instead of conjecturing about it.

When you contemplate an offensive idea with your heart, or your emotions, you're attempting to pinpoint the root anxiety driving the concept. Questioning is your most potent weapon here. By posing sincere, open-ended questions, you might just uncover the emotional heart of the argument.

Lastly, considering an offensive idea with your hands, or your sense of utility, prompts you to reflect on how this idea might serve you. Perhaps it can reinforce your counter-arguments. Or maybe, understanding its influence on its proponents allows you to debunk its allure.

When you reflect on it, unproductive disagreement poses a grave threat to our society. If we cannot find ways to progress on matters like gun control or climate change, the consequences of our stalemate could be disastrous. The world needs individuals capable of debating effectively. So, get ready to plunge into it!

Concluding thoughts

The principal takeaway from this discussion:

Our ingrained belief systems often portray disagreements as negative encounters best dodged. But in reality, fruitful disagreements are integral to robust communication. We need to revamp our approach to disagreements, prioritizing connection, evolution, and comprehension as our primary argument outcomes. By disagreeing productively, we can all emerge victorious!