I’m fascinated by Minson’s comment about quality of argument and frustration with poor logic. (I study the flip side of disagreement — what new or different ideas require to make aha moments possible). Excited to hunt down that paper and get the book!
Shifting from “people avoid disagreement because they feel threatened” to “they avoid it because they feel right” has completely different implications for how you’d actually approach a difficult conversation. The brewing study detail quietly undermines the ego-protection narrative too: if we preferred high-quality opposing arguments over low-quality ones, we’re not just avoiding anything that rocks the boat, we actually want to be challenged, just not by bad reasoning. Telling someone to “feel less defensive” is useless advice if what they’re really feeling is irritated that the other person doesn’t see what seems obvious to them. Great post!
The naive realism framing lands. In a clubhouse, the most common version of this isn't the star player who won't take feedback — it's the coach who delivers feedback and genuinely can't understand why it isn't landing. Both sides are convinced they're right. The gap between them isn't threat or insecurity. It's two people equally certain they see the situation clearly. Building psychological safety is partly about creating enough trust that both parties can question that certainty.
This is a fascinating topic. Making the effort to engage with those who think differently than I do is very important to me. It can be such a healthy way to broaden my thinking and get out of the echo chamber.
I know I'm not perfect at navigating discussions like this and I've seen first hand what can happen when they go well, and when they don't.
Looking forward to learning more on this subject so that I can learn more from other people.
I’m fascinated by Minson’s comment about quality of argument and frustration with poor logic. (I study the flip side of disagreement — what new or different ideas require to make aha moments possible). Excited to hunt down that paper and get the book!
Thanks Annie. You always have fascinating & insightful guests
Shifting from “people avoid disagreement because they feel threatened” to “they avoid it because they feel right” has completely different implications for how you’d actually approach a difficult conversation. The brewing study detail quietly undermines the ego-protection narrative too: if we preferred high-quality opposing arguments over low-quality ones, we’re not just avoiding anything that rocks the boat, we actually want to be challenged, just not by bad reasoning. Telling someone to “feel less defensive” is useless advice if what they’re really feeling is irritated that the other person doesn’t see what seems obvious to them. Great post!
Speechless. Great article
The naive realism framing lands. In a clubhouse, the most common version of this isn't the star player who won't take feedback — it's the coach who delivers feedback and genuinely can't understand why it isn't landing. Both sides are convinced they're right. The gap between them isn't threat or insecurity. It's two people equally certain they see the situation clearly. Building psychological safety is partly about creating enough trust that both parties can question that certainty.
Instead of a naive realist, I will strive to become a sophisticated realist.
This is a fascinating topic. Making the effort to engage with those who think differently than I do is very important to me. It can be such a healthy way to broaden my thinking and get out of the echo chamber.
I know I'm not perfect at navigating discussions like this and I've seen first hand what can happen when they go well, and when they don't.
Looking forward to learning more on this subject so that I can learn more from other people.
I have many thoughts of my own on this general topic. In the mean time, I've put in a request for my local public library to purchase the book.