I'm Aisha Roscoe, and this is a Sunday Story from Up First. Every Sunday, we do something special. We go beyond the news of the day to bring you one big story. Now I don't need to tell you that there is a lot of disagreement in this country at the moment. Donald Trump has been elected as the 47th president. A lot of people are elated. A lot of people are upset. And soon, a lot of people who disagree will be sitting across from each other at the holiday.
dinner table. We've dealt with a fair share of disagreements in my own family. I won't go into all, you know, the bloody details, but generally someone will start talking and then I will realize that they're wrong. I start delivering the facts. My brother likes to argue.
So whether he really believes it or not, he'll start being contrarian. And, you know, other members of the family, aunts and uncles, they'll jump in and they'll have their opinions. And it'll all be going well. We'll be all loud and stuff. then, then it'll go too far. And I don't know if anybody else has this. I should stop, you know, arguing the point, but there's a part of me that goes, keep going, keep. talking because I'm right.
Sometimes when you get that last word in, that's what ends up tipping just a disagreement and to an all out emotional fight and tears are flowing. things like that. And that's what you don't want. But one thing I've always felt in all my kind of arguing my points and trying to get the last word is... I have never really been able to convince anyone of my rightness. And I do wonder, like, why is it so hard to convince people of things, to persuade people?
And is there maybe another way that I should be approaching these conversations? Which is why I wanted to share this episode from NPR science podcast, Shortwave. Turns out they... been asking basically the same thing. I wanted to know, what does science have to say about how to manage conflict well, political or otherwise? That's producer Rachel Carlson in an episode hosted by Emily Kwong.
This week, NPR is exploring America's divisions and sharing stories about people who are trying to bridge their divides. So today, we're following Rachel on her scientific pursuit of this question. And that's how I ended up talking to two people who've been disagreeing with each other for almost 45 years. Jeannie Safer is a psychoanalyst, she's liberal, and she's married to Richard Brookhiser, a conservative Republican who works for the National Review.
And he's adorable. So he's like 92 feet tall. I asked them how they met. We met in a singing group. So that was good because we shared an interest that was not political. It's not important, actually. It was also an unusual singing group because it was Renaissance religious music, not for religious purposes, but for singing purposes. When did we meet? 1977.
You know, they say singing like syncopates your heartbeats. So maybe that worked out in bringing them together. It's the Renaissance music. Absolutely. And they told me they sang with this group for like six hours every single week. So they were spending... so much time together yeah they eventually got married and when they first got married they talked through and
ultimately disagreed on a lot of things. They said there have only been a few times where they voted for the same people. And over time, they've set some boundaries with each other. talk about really was abortion. We both had strong opinions that were opposite. And so we realized we can't talk about this. So we didn't. We won't.
Then you also figure out ways that you can talk about other stuff. This was so striking to me, Emily. Like they're really reflective about each other's opinions and about each other as people in general. It really opens your mind. To think that somebody that you disagree with takes care of you, helps you, is there for you. It was really a revelation to me, actually, how much that means.
Well, and not just me. I mean, you met colleagues of mine that you like, and I met your mentor who was a communist. But he was a good boss. He treated you very well. He was a wonderful boss. Wonderful. But we also were able to join each other's worlds. And this joining of worlds was proof that these kinds of conversations can happen. Yeah. Jeannie and Richard have been married for...
really long time and they have so much mutual respect for one another. That's a really key baseline component of these conversations and it's not a given for everyone you meet. Absolutely. These conversations aren't always possible because there isn't that baseline of respect or even safety. But presuming both, presuming the person you're talking to has those qualities towards you and you towards them.
How do you have a conversation? It's not easy, but we're going to try to work through it. So today on the show, the neuroscience of disagreement. When we have the opportunity to engage with someone who thinks differently than we do. What's going on in our brains? And how can we make the most of those conversations? This message comes from NPR sponsor, the NPR Wine Club, a place to explore the exciting world of wine, including wines inspired by popular NPR shows like Weekend Edition Cabernet.
Whether buying a few bottles or joining the club, all purchases help support NPR programming and fund quality reporting developed to connect people to their communities and the world they live in. More at nprwineclub.org slash podcast. Must be 21 or older to purchase. This message comes from Lady Mafia. This is the story of the glorified loan shark swimming in the murky waters of fast money and shady deals. Did she blow 10 million dollars of other people's money?
Lady Mafia is available for listening now on The Binge, wherever you get your podcasts. On the embedded podcast, every Marine takes an oath to protect the Constitution. Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is the story of a Marine in the Capitol on January 6th. Did he break his oath? And what does that mean for all of us? Listen to A Good Guy on the Embedded Podcast from NPR. Both episodes available now.
Okay, Rachel, you have ventured into the world of disagreement, like the neuroscience of, and retrieved some info to help us have better conversations. Let's start with what happens in our bodies when we disagree. What goes down? Okay, Emily, imagine that you and I are about to have a disagreement. So our pupils might dilate, our heart might start racing, and we might start to sweat a little more. And that, of course, just breeds, guess what? Mistrust. That's Rudy.
Mendoza Denton. He's a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley. Rudy co-teaches a class from Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center on Bridging Differences. He says we might not even notice these things while they're happening to us, but on top of all of them, we start making these split-second decisions about whether or not we trust someone.
just by looking at their faces. Those decisions, though, aren't always accurate. There's lots of research showing that there's this discordant perceptions of trust and how trustworthy people actually are. And so it takes getting to know someone and... Who's that? That's Oriel Feldman-Hall, a researcher and social neuroscientist at Brown University. And she says when we interact with someone we've decided is untrustworthy or even someone who just belongs to another group than us.
our amygdala starts to respond. Yeah, our amygdala. That is like our brain's threat detector. It's like a smoke alarm. Exactly. Activity there increases. So if we're disagreeing and our amygdala is going off... What else is happening in our brain? I found a study from 2021 looking at exactly that. So I called up the lead researcher, Joy Hirsch, to talk about it. She's a neuroscience professor at Yale School of Medicine. And the beauty of this study is that Joy and her team...
monitored the brains of multiple people at once while they talked to each other, which is so, so cool because it's pretty new in the neuroscience world. Usually you're just looking at one person's brain at a time. Right. You're just like slid under an MRI machine. Exactly. And in this case, people...
wore these things that looked like swim caps on their head and they have these little thingies all around the caps. What is little thingies? What's that for? It's literally the term that Joy used when we were talking about it. She told me they're technically called optodes. So some of these are like little lasers that emit light into the brain and then some detect that light. So researchers like Joy can then use these measurements to look at neural activity. So in Joy's study...
She just had people sitting around having a conversation like one might at family dinner, except her research participants are wearing these swim cap things. Yeah, it's a really interesting family dinner. They surveyed a bunch of people on Yale's campus and the New Haven area on statements that people tend to have strong opinions about. Like, for example, marijuana should be legalized or same-sex marriage is a civil right.
And then they specifically paired people up so the partners were strangers, they didn't know each other before, and also so that they agreed with their partner on two topics and disagreed on two other topics. Joy told me, These people were not... pretending. They were not like debaters that take, you know, a negative side and a positive side. No, they're just people out here living their lives. And she's looking at their brain activity. What did she find?
During agreement, Joy says they saw activity related to the visual system and also in the social areas of the brain. But Emily, it wasn't just activity in these places. These areas were also more synchronous when people agreed on the topic. Okay, their brains were more synchronous. What does that mean? So Joy says that when two people agreed, their brain activity looked pretty similar, so certain areas lit up in similar ways while they talked. And her working hypothesis for what this means is...
The sharing of information involves higher levels of communication, that people are learning, so that there's a consensus. of what is being shared, what's going on. Versus when participants disagreed with each other. In those cases, people's brain activity wasn't as synced up. It was kind of like a cacophony instead of a harmonious duet. And, as they disagreed, Joy says it seemed like each brain was engaging a lot more emotional and cognitive resources. The amount of territory.
that the brain has devoted to disagreement was astonishing to me. And this is beyond the data. The observation that so much... neural energy is consumed by disagreement. And there are so many areas that are coordinated during disagreement that... tells me that this is a very important behavior. Huh.
Others might have other interpretations. So Joy is hypothesizing that disagreement might be really taxing on us. Like you're expending more energy when you disagree with someone than when you agree with them. Okay. So... Clearly, disagreement sets off a waterfall of reactions and behaviors that lights up all these parts of the brain. When that is happening to us, which seems fairly inevitable, how can we approach disagreement?
Better. What does the science say on that? First, kind of like we said before, we decide if we want to have a conversation with someone and also if that person is going to be receptive. You can always walk away. Yeah. I hear often.
If I talk to that person, am I subject to violence? That's clinical psychologist Allison Briscoe-Smith. I am not inviting people to have a conversation with people that are violent towards you or dehumanizing towards you. That's not a requirement, like actually you're...
Humanness is there. We can all kind of discern and bridging differences actually doesn't require or ask us to do that. So that's kind of like step zero. Decide, do I want to have a conversation with this person? Yeah. But if we do decide to engage with that person, the first step in a... potential disagreement is simple. Focus on your breathing. Can you take a breath? Can you slow this down?
just a little bit so you can kind of come back into yourself, your butt. Can you take a breath and then align with the intention? Allison co-teaches that Bridging Differences class with Rudy I mentioned earlier. She told me that this moment... slowing down, breathing, can help us move into step two, which is coming back to our goals for the conversation. Right, like she described it as an intention?
Yeah, why we're having it, what we're looking to get out of it. Because research shows it's not super easy to change someone's mind. And it can be pretty ineffective to spout facts at someone to try to do this. Yeah. But Allison and Rudy both told me we can find more common ground with someone when we try to understand their perspective instead of trying to convince them that they're wrong. I'm not talking about persuasion, debate. I'm not even talking about...
Having my mind changed. When I talk about bridging differences, I mean about the mere connection with another person and the space around. seeing that person as a human. This absolutely reminds me of Jeannie and Richard. They are not trying to change each other's minds. They're trying to create space for each other to talk about
what they feel. Yeah. And they're ultimately putting the good of their relationship first. And it kind of seems like they have the right idea, at least from a scientific perspective. Research shows that people who engage in dialogues or conversations to learn, rather than to win, come away from those conversations with a more open perspective. Okay, so arguing to learn helps us keep an open mind about the topic at hand.
But you mentioned earlier, Rachel, how we're often making judgments about other people, not just their opinions. So how do you navigate those feelings that can kind of obscure your ability to fully listen to someone? Yeah, that's a great question, Emily. And it's our third step, empathy. So that includes asking the person you're talking to questions about themselves, trying to humanize them.
to learn more than just their opinion on whatever topic it is that's bringing up these feelings. I think this is why things devolve on social media so much, because people are not...
Asking questions of each other. They're just, like, leaving these pronouncements in the comments, you know? Totally. No, I think so, too. I mean, it's a whole other rabbit hole. But it is kind of like how Jeannie and Richard met in their singing group. Like, they got to know each other's hobbies. They learned about their families.
careers. And knowing these details about a person can help us be more open to them. In other words, it's about seeing the person and not the label so when we learn personal details about others details about their job and their family and even what they'd like to have for breakfast what science showed was that immediately people were able to view them with more warmth. Just knowing those details made them change their perception and made them see the other person less not like them.
That's Juliana Tafor, the director of the Bridging Differences program at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. That's where Rudy and Allison teach their class. And these tactics can help us be more charitable towards others, like by looking at the strongest parts of their arguments instead of the weakest. And more humble, just understanding where we might need more information or circumstances where our own beliefs might.
Yeah, humility seems like an important way forward. Yeah, like I know I don't know everything. And even the things that I think I know well, like there's always more to learn. So it's not really that any one of these things or even all of them together.
Is a magic wand that's suddenly going to help us all agree? Yeah. And that doesn't seem like the goal. No. Like, for Jeannie and Richard, they both told me neither of them have really changed any of their opinions in the last 44 years of marriage. But it was... clear to me just by talking to them. They really admire each other. They respect each other's beliefs. And I think what's most important here is they try to understand why they each hold the opinions they do.
how many thousands of years that we have, you learn that some of the things that you thought were wrong, maybe weren't. And, you know, if also, if you really care for somebody and admire them. If they have certain opinions, it slightly changes how you feel about it. Rachel Carlson, thank you for giving us a toolkit for moving forward in these divisive times. Of course. Thanks for having me, Emily.
That was Rachel Carlson for Shortwave. This episode was produced by Hannah Chin and Kim Naderfang Petersa. It was edited by Rebecca Ramirez and fact-checked by Tyler Jones and Rachel Carlson. The audio engineer was Patrick Murray. I'm Aisha Roscoe, and this is a Sunday story from Up First. We'll be back tomorrow with all the news you need to start your week. Until then, have a great rest of your weekend.
Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Up First sponsor-free through Amazon Music. Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Up First Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org. On the TED Radio Hour. Clinical psychologists John and Julie Gottman are marriage experts. And after studying thousands of couples, they have found... Couples who were successful had a really different way of talking to one another when there was a disagreement.
or a conflict. How to be brave in our relationships. That's on the TED Radio Hour podcast from NPR. On Shortwave, we know the human body is this amazing singular thing. Capable of facing down all kinds of infection and disease, from managing UTIs to cancer to long COVID, our show is dedicated to destigmatizing our relationship to our bodies. Listen to the shortwave podcast from NPR.