These are my notes about "How to have impossible conversations", by Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay. After reading Boghossian's previous book, I had no doubts that this one would be useful, and I wasn't disappointed!

It is full of practical tips and examples and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys discussing controversial subjects. The notes are for personal use, they make sense to me, they may not make sense to you. Read the book to make your own impression.

p.s. this was written on a phone, so there might be typos or short-hand notation that doesn't make sense.

---

Basics

Build rapport

1. Prioritize friendship above scoring rhetoric points
2. Don't parallel-talk (if they say "I went to Cuba", ask them about their impressions, instead of telling them how you went to Cuba)
3. Don't start a deep conversation if you are not ready to invest time into it. If you know you don't have sufficient time, use it to build raport or catch up
4. Be ready to talk about something else

Listen

• If you can't listen, you can't understand
• If you start talking simultaneously, don't continue, let them go ahead
• Eye contact
• Do not finish their sentences [unless they are looking for a word and you know it]
• Pause
• Do not rush to fill silence with words
• See it from the other perspective - it is hard to antagonize someone who is a good listener
• If you are distracted by something in your environment, turn your back to it, or explicitly tell the interlocutor that X is distracting you. This might form a bond, if they too are distracted by it.
• When something is not clear, say "I do not understand X" instead of "what you said is unclear"
• When resuming your sentence after both started talking simultaneously [and you paused to listen], use different wording as opposed to saying the same phrase - this might be perceived as "everything that was said in the meantime went to /dev/null"
• If you get tired or are distracted: ask them to repeat
• If you feel you can't handle it anymore - end the conversation
• Don't use your phone when having a conversation, even if you want to look up some facts

How and when to end a conversation

• When you mainly experience anger or frustration - stop the convo
• When you sense they want to stop - don't force them to go on
• When you see that you have succeeded in instilling doubt - that's enough, do not try to do a "fatality" right then, right there
• Thank them for the convo [unless you were harassed]

Chapter 2

The gift of doubt. You gotta have it yourself before you attempt to give it to someone.

Modeling

Model the behaviour you want to see in your partner (i. e. Do it yourself and set an example). This implies being open to changing your own mind.

The example where the Muslim community leader would dodge the question "do you believe that women should be stoned to death for adultery?". The approach was to make them ask {me} the question, hear me say "no", then asking them to provide an analogous answer.

Ask them to ask you.

Ignorance of ignorance

The "unread library effect" = illusion of explanatory depth.

Examples: Explain how a toilet works. Draw a bike schema.

Experiment:

1. Before asking the question, ask them about their confidence in knowing the material
2. Ask the question
3. Ask about their confidence again (-:

Usually after step 3 the confidence drops significantly.

How to apply this:

• ask someone to talk in depth about the subject
• let them reach their own limits and realize that actually they don't know the subject well
• the benefit is that they don't feel pressured, because they did the talking themselves ;-)

In this case you modelled ignorance and lead them to exposing the "unread library" effect themselves.

Definitions of words

1. Define words upfront
2. Beware of the context in which the word is used
3. Use their definitions. If you cannot accept their definition - move on to another issue or end the conversation (I disagree: why not settle for a definition that all accept?)
4. Beware of the moral implications of the word. Someone might fall into a trap - start with a moral position, work backwards from it in order to establish a position (the moral mind overrides the rational one). Example {I believe good people believe X. I think I am a good person, therefore I must believe in X. Now I will cherry-pick evidence for X}
5. Ask questions [the socratic method].
6. Rely on open-ended questions that invite conversations. "calibrated questions", usually start with how/what, thus they cannot be answered with a simple yes/no.
7. However, keep in mind that sometimes yes/no questions are very useful (see the example about stoning women)
8. Avoid "loaded questions" (one with a hidden agenda), like "how do you think the Republicans ended up disregarding the poor?"
9. Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care. Care not only about the subject, but also about your conversation partner
10. Identify extremism and detach yourself from it (if there are extremists on your side, you might be seen as one of them). Refrain from pointing out extremists on their side, let them do it themselves.
11. Never defend indefensible behaviour

Whataboutism

This can happen when you blame someone specific. That's the problem with blame.

Instead, think of it in terms of contributing factors (as there are usually more than one).

Example: what factors in the strategy of the democrats lead to a defeat in elections? (vs. It is Clinton's fault). This invites the Republicans to provide an outside perspective, and invites the democrats to reflect.

• Leverage calibrated questions: what factors lead to...?
• Avoid blaming a specific actor or saying "X caused Y", as there are usually multiple factors involved. Besides, proving causality is difficult, and it becomes your burden.
• When you are tempted to blame, refrain from doing so, however you can: "because I feel strongly tempted to blame X, can you explain to me the logic X uses to justify their actions?"
• Focus on epistemology, how they know what they know

Probing one's epistemology is perceived less threatening than directly challenging their beliefs

Chapter 4

Let people be wrong, don't necessarily try to make them right

1. Say "I hear you" and let them speak, don't interrupt
2. If you don't understand, pin it in you and say "I don't understand" instead of telling them "you are not making sense"
3. If there are some hot, irreconcilable topics, that is an invitation to a conversation
4. "You can be right XOR you can be married" :-)
5. Build "golden bridges" - a way for someone to change their mind without embarrassment. Don't make them "pay" when they cross the bridge (for example, by saying "it was about time!")
6. Reference your own ignorance: "I used to believe x, but when I learned y..."

Language aspects

1. Avoid "you", refer to "one can..." or rely on 3rd parties
2. Avoid "you", say "that belief" or "that statement" instead of "your statement"
3. Use collaborative language, leverage "we"
4. Avoid labeling a person based on a single belief
5. Reframe the matter on the common ground: "ultimately, we both aim for world peace, but we have some differences when it comes to achieving those goals, can we talk more directly about the ways we can achieve a balance?"
6. Change your mind on the spot - be ready to do that, when it is relevant. This signalizes the partner that it is OK to do that.
7. Use scales, figure out how confident one is in their belief. "on a scale from 1 to 10, how confident are you that belief is true?"
8. When they answer say, 8,ask "what would it take to bring it down to 6?", then ask about something bigger - "why not a 9?"
9. If they're above 6 on this scale, ask "I'm 3 on this scale, I'm not sure how I would get to where you are, at a 9. I wanna see what I'm missing, Can you walk me through it?" (and let them do the work)
10. Keep a log, note down what worked in raising doubt, and what didn't

Outsourcing

Focus on what source of info we can both rely on, to have a common ground. This might make the partner think about matters of reliability and trustworthiness of information sources.

1. Make them look for evidence supporting their claim. If they will fail to find any - it could raise doubts.
2. How would an external observer determine what source of info is reliable?

Chapter 5

These are Rapoport's rules:

1. Understand and express the partner's point of view in such a clear manner, that even they say "I wish I thought of putting it that way!"
2. List points of agreement, especially the non-mainstream ones
3. List everything you've learned from the partner
4. Only then can you express any form of rebuttal or criticism

Avoid facts when dealing with people who say "nothing will change my mind" or "no evidence will change my mind".

If their beliefs were formed without taking evidence into account, no amount of evidence will make them change their mind. They simply operate in another dimension.

• Only present facts when the partner explicitly requests them
• and when you do so, encourage them to independently verify that information
• model intellectual humility, "I could be wrong about this" or "to the best of my knowledge"
• be ready to say "I don't have that information, but I will be glad to get back to you when I do"

disconfirmation: under what conditions would you say the belief is false - an effective way to take a step towards doubt. Basically, it is "falsifiability" in science. If something is unfalsifiable, it is regarded as the absolute, unconditional truth.

Types of disconfirmable beliefs

Not at all

• This claim makes an absolutely certain statement about the universe. This is epistemic/doxastic closure.
• Don't deal with it by bringing counter evidence. Form a question about how the belief could be an error.

Disconfirmable under wildly implausible conditions Example: in what circumstances would you reject the belief that Jesus was resurrected? The answer might be "show me the bones of Christ"

Disconfirmable, here's what it would take

• Clarify, to make sure you really got it.

Techniques to use at the end

• epistemology: then the belief is not held on the basis of evidence, right? Are you as closed to revising other beliefs, or just this one? What makes this one unique? What are examples of other beliefs you are not willing to change?
• morality: how is it a virtue not to revise this belief? Would you be a good person if you didn't hold this belief? Are there examples of those who don't have this belief and are good people?
• think back N years ago. Since that time, have any of your beliefs changed? Are all of your beliefs identical now to what they were 10 years ago?

• If yes, go back to N+delta and repeat
• if no, N years ago you had some beliefs that you don't hold now. Wouldn't it be possible that N years from now you will look at today and say the same thing?
• use "untrue" as a softer version of "false"

If they say they've had the same beliefs forever, they are either lying to you, or to themselves or are über doxastically closed. Consider closing the conversation, you did what could be done at this stage.

Eliminate "but" from your vocabulary

For example, "yes, but what about those who buy weapons illegally?" → "yes, and what about those who...?"

Top it up a notch, by switching to "interesting, and what do you think of..?"

Ury Fisher's twist: "I can see how you feel strongly about this, and I respect that; let me tell you, however, how it looks from my angle". Or a more advanced version: "... If you don't mind, let me..."

Chapter 6

Alter casting - cast a person into an alternate role, from which they are easier to be influenced.

• obvious ethical implications, you can manipulate people ore damage them, by casting them into negative or self-destructive roles. For example, when you call someone narrow-minded.
• take their preferred option off the table. For example: "I hear you, I am curious about your opinion. Let's say you're a senator in an immigration committee and you have the task to come up with a solution to our immigration problem. You're there because you are a good problem solver and your opinion is important to the committee. Suppose you know the senate will absolutely not accept the option of deportation, your job is to come up with the best solution you can, except in extreme cases like for murderers. What would you recommend, and why?".

Tips from hostage negotiations

• minimal encourages - "ok", "I hear you" - simple way to let your parter know that you are listening
• mirroring - repeat the last few words someone said. Do not overuse it, no more than 4 times in a 7min conversation. Give it a positive spin, when necessary. Example: "I am just so sick and tired of these people pushing everyone around to have their way → get their way?". Or, "I have to get out of here with the money, it's for my kid, it's not for me. → for your kid; -yeah, he's got a fever and we don't have any money for the pills, and we don't have any...". Don't say "you expect me to believe that it's not for you?". Just use this as an opportunity to build rapport and keep them talking, perhaps they will provide more useful information.
• emotional labeling - use when the partner expresses strong feelings that need to be defused. This recognizes feelings without judging them.
• build golden bridges to allow them to save face
• deal with small issues first - create a climate of success, by dealing with and solving small issues first. Then break down big problems into smaller ones, that are easy to solve.
• use specific examples rather than statistics - stories are vivid and easy to remember, while statistics are raw numbers and are not as impressive.

Probe the limits

• by doing so, you might reveal that they are not actually aligned with what they say they believe.
• humans prefer to stick to their inconsistency even if you point it out to them
• verbal behaviour - what someone says they believe is not what they actually live by.

How to unmask/deal with such cases:

1. Attempt to express their opinion so clearly and vividly, that they say "thanks, I wish I could express it myself that way". (Rapoport's first rule)
2. Explicitly confirm that you understood their belief correctly. Optionally - if the belief is something that targets you personally (e. g. you atheists), ask for permission to ask questions so that you may learn. Example: "I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am curious and would like to ask questions to learn more". Optionally: find out how they came to this belief and how long ago. This will give you clues of what to probe further.
3. Understand the limit of the belief in practice. Ask about edge cases. Example: "if you had an emergency and your doctor was an atheist, would you believe them if they told you that you need an urgent blood transfusion to save your life?" or "if you were after a period of starvation would you be worried if you knew the food you eat was cooked by an atheist?". Or a follow up "if all the other doctors were busy, would you accept to be seen by an atheist doctor?"
4. Ask "is there any circumstances that would push you towards acting inconsistent with the belief?" and have them generate examples. If they say "no", continue with gentle examples like the ones from the previous point, "would you fly on a plane piloted by an atheist?" or further "what if you knew that someone from the design team was an atheist?". Then ask about how they would uphold their rules in practice: "how do you figure out the pilot's religious affiliation when you book tickets?" otherwise if they say yes, ask "can you give me examples of other things that you believe but don't act upon? What makes this special?"
5. At this point it should be established that it is impossible to sincerely hold a belief and actually live by it. If they ACK this is the case, ask them how they decide whether they will act on a belief or not (that is, which ones are enforced and which ones are not? What makes them special?) for example: "If I am hearing you right, sometimes it is OK to take treatment from an atheist doctor and sometimes there are good reasons not to trust their opinion at all. How can we determine which time is which?" otherwise if it hasn't been established, either you misunderstood something, or they are really living in full accord with their belief. Or they are lying or are delusional.

Counter-intervention strategies

Go with it - you are almost guaranteed to learn something new, you might even change your mind. You might see what techniques they apply, how they apply them and thus improve your own skills.

Stonewalling - if there is no reaction or feedback, there is no intervention going on. So you can deflect such interventions on you by not responding. Or by providing closed (not open-ended) answers like "yeah" or "not really".

The remaining sections are about techniques of detecting that someone applies this method on you, and how to deal with it.