Why We Need To Complicate The Narrative
In a world brimming with complexity, why would we want to complicate it more? Here’s why.
This essay follows last week’s essays about the political-industrial complex and epistemic commons.
Last time, I told you how our system doesn’t represent us; instead, it focuses on the extremes, sensationalizes conflict, and highlights our differences. It’s no wonder we feel so divided and at odds when it’s what the media has been telling us for decades. Still, we’re not as divided as we think, and we have a lot in common. But how can we contribute to a democracy that excludes us?
For us to be able to play a part in our democracy, we need deliberative conversation. By thoughtfully engaging with diverse perspectives, we can generate solutions that create win-win outcomes. I know that sounds like something from a fantasy world, but it can happen. Here’s how.
Deliberative dialogue works
James Fishkin, Larry Diamond, and the Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy have been deep in research. They created a process called Deliberative Polling, which is mainly a research tool.
They have a project called “America In One Room,” and they’ve done a couple of iterations. They get a representative sample of the population, a random selection of Americans from across the country with diverse demographics. Then they take them through a process and find out if they can get people to shift their opinions and come to a mutual understanding. Guess what? They can!
Their research shows that people can move towards at least a majoritarian consensus. People just need to discuss the big issues to get accurate information. Engaging in thoughtful conversation with people with different perspectives is incredibly powerful.
People can arrive at a consensus, and anyone can change their opinion. It doesn’t matter what state they’re in, rural or urban, left or right. Anyone of any race, gender, or age can make shifts with accurate information and thoughtful conversation.
Their most recent deliberate dialogue study was about climate change and energy. They did two processes online with 962 folks from all across the United States. One group had a discussion that went on for a weekend, and another group did it in four weeknights spread over two weeks.
So, how did it work? They started with a poll asking 72 questions about the issue they were going to discuss. They logged everyone’s answers and give them an information packet. This information packet had all the different perspectives and information about the issues. After this, they broke them up into small groups, which I recommend often.
In this case, they broke them into 104 groups, 9–10 people in a group. In these small groups, they talk about the information in the packet and come up with some questions. After that, they have a plenary session to ask a diverse panel of experts any questions they generated in their groups. At the end of the process, they get polled again on the same 72 questions.
They had a control group of 600 people over the same period. The group didn’t get the packet, have the conversations, or ask questions. Then they compared them.
The group with all the information moved towards consensus, regardless of their backgrounds. They all supported action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All they needed were the facts and an opportunity to discuss the issue with informed and diverse people.
Similar processes can move us towards making decisions together. Even in the simple America In One Room process over a few weeks, we can see that correct information moves people towards agreement. Our division is mainly because we aren’t using the right processes or getting the facts. We don’t have the right relationships, and that’s undermining our decision-making.
The media is playing a massive part in this. They’re trying to grab everyone’s attention by sensationalizing conflict. By looking at an issue, taking one side, and demonizing the other, they play heavily into the binary dynamic. We need to break away from this-or-that and right-or-wrong thinking. But how?
How can we complicate the narrative?
I really want to lift up the work of a journalist, Amanda Ripley. She’s beautifully written a book called “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out.” She tells the story of various folks with different experiences: People in Colombia, people living on the streets, politicians, and more.
It’s a great narrative, and she has a revelation that journalists are exacerbating the problem and need to do better. That they can apply the tools of conflict resolution and conflict transformation to media.
Amanda came up with an amazing concept that she calls “complicating the narrative.” It’s a way of breaking people out of this-or-that thinking. She’s come up with 22 interview questions (full article here) that journalists can use to complicate their narrative and break out of binary thinking.
One of her ideas is to amplify the contradictions and widen the lens with questions that help people understand what’s dividing them on this issue. She asks people to think about where they’re not totally sure that they got the answer right and where they’re torn.
“What part of the other side’s argument do you find compelling?”
Another layer is to ask questions to get to people’s motivations. These are some questions about underlying needs and interests that I’ve written about in my essays.
Why is this important to you?
How has this experience changed your life?
What do you want to understand about the other side?
What does the other side need to understand about you?
The aim is to get people thinking about why they care about something instead of just the position they’re taking or the slogan they’re using.
The next set of questions is about effective, reflective listening and trying to learn more:
How do you feel telling me about this?
What are the questions nobody’s asking?
I love this one: “Can I interrupt you? I just want to make sure I have everything right.”
Honestly, this is so powerful. Repeating what someone has just said helps them feel understood — it kind of calms everything down. Real magic can happen there. There’s also the ability to make sure that you’re getting it right. Sometimes, people change their perspective when they hear their words reflected back.
Her last group of questions is a little spicier, and I find them really interesting. She’s asking people to get into the mind of the other side and go against confirmation bias.
What do you think the other group thinks of you?
What do you think the other group wants?
Is there any way the media portrays you or people with your views that feels inaccurate?
These tools can help us understand what’s happening and get out of taking one side over the other or seeing them as something very different. Of course, you don’t have to be a journalist to use these questions. It’s a great way to understand the other side.
Again, I encourage you to check out High Conflict by Amanda Ripley. In my next essay, we’re focusing on an awesome resource from Peter Coleman for personal ways to overcome polarization for an Omni-Win future. Be sure to check that out if you want to know how you can make a change for the better.
If you prefer to watch your content, here’s a video on the topic of this essay
You can find more information about the work I do in conflict transformation on my website: http://www.omni-win.com
You can schedule a call with me here: https://calendly.com/duncanautrey
Don’t forget to check out the rest of my posts as I discuss how we can work together to ensure we all win.
