Sometimes, it cannot be avoided, people come across each other who lease their respective truths from competing providers. Those involved then perform automated behavioral sequences, go on air and try to exorcise the evil views from each other’s minds with loud words. However, the recipients of these persuasive efforts react stubbornly to such speeches. Because, firstly, they are convinced that they are in possession of the truth themselves, and secondly, they are motivated to get the person who is currently babbling at them onto the right path. A situation arises that certainly cannot be described as a conversation or a debate, but rather as ritualized shouting. In the end, everyone is outraged, insulted, feels attacked, treated unfairly, ignored and – this is the crucial point here – entrenches themselves even deeper in their version of the truth.
There are a large number of reasons for this game, and the list of polarizing topics is getting longer and longer. So what to do? Behavioral scientist Guy Itzchakov from the University of Haifa has a suggestion that he and colleagues are making in the form of a study Journal of Personality and Social Psychology submitted: listen and just, that’s paraphrased, keep your mouth shut. Yes, the suggestion is to let others speak, even if they have an outrageous position. The researchers’ experiments, in which several hundred test subjects took part, suggest a beneficial effect: the speakers do not get into a state of indignant stubbornness and instead start to think at least a little about themselves and their attitude. In this way, doubts may become attached to certainties and beliefs may begin to shake.
When the scientists around Itzchakov talk about listening, they mean a kind of premium listening. For the experiments, the team trained some colleagues in this skill. It sounds strange, but it’s not: the usual reflex in the face of provocative lectures is to immediately come up with arguments for the counterattack, to signal non-verbal disapproval and to interfere with the other person’s explanations at the first opportunity. The premium listener avoids all of this. He diligently maintains eye contact, refrains from giving signals of reprimand, occasionally hums encouragingly and, if necessary, asks (during a break in the conversation!) whether he has understood this or that correctly.
In this way, according to Itzchakov’s researchers, a closeness is created between ideological opponents who, in the best case scenario, become conversation partners. And the speaker’s posture is obviously moving closer to the silent listener. At least this was observed in the experiments in which the test subjects debated or listened to each other about the deportation of migrants who had entered the country illegally, the Covid-19 vaccination or the unconditional basic income.
Sure, keeping your mouth shut constructively takes energy. If you can’t muster this, you could heed another tip and refrain from insulting people with different opinions. This is definitely counterproductive.