If RGB and Antonin Scalia could get along marvelously, why can’t the rest of us? There are psychological factors that make it difficult for individuals and groups to get along.
Confirmation bias is when we look for evidence of something we already believe and, as a result, dismiss information that doesn’t fit. To put it more plainly, people see what they want to see.
Attribution error is when we consider the actions of others as a reflection of their character, while we consider our own behaviors in a situational context. In other words, you cut yourself some slack while assuming something negative about others.
With either (or both!) of these factors in play, other people can easily be viewed as unlikable, difficult, and undesirable to work with.
At the same time, there are methods to mitigate bias and error. The easiest way to build rapport between conflicting groups is contact. Just being around other people (except in cases of hostile or dangerous circumstances) can grow understanding and empathy.
Psychologist and contact-hypothesis theory researcher Thomas Pettigrew explains, “Your stereotypes about the other group don’t necessarily change, but you grow to like them anyway.” Building trust and a safe environment to be open to others takes time, but are the bedrock for high-functioning, collaborative groups. I have seen these mitigation strategies be wildly successful. In a previous blog post, I shared how bringing people together made a huge difference in their relationships, which is a game-changer for getting things done.
So, the question “why do these methods sometimes fall short?” has reverberated in my head and I’ve been seeking answers. I’ve read extensively and listened to a myriad of podcasts (recommendations below) to inform my thinking. I’ve evaluated my facilitation methods and consulted others for feedback. And I’ve talked to lots and lots of people about their experiences with individuals and groups that have just never meshed. All of this has been extremely insightful and thought provoking. Yet, none of what I found was quite satisfactory in answering my question.
The answer came to me in an unexpected place – in a marriage counseling session (my side gig is as a therapist). The pair seemed reluctant, albeit for different reasons, and each person identified the other as “the problem.” I heard myself saying, “unfortunately, we won’t be able to make progress until you both take accountability for how you’ve contributed to the difficulties and are open to making changes in yourselves.”
AHA!
When we say we want something to change, we often mean that we want other people to change. What we want is to maintain our position. How is it surprising that other people might not want to go along?
So how can we get unstuck?
As a start, when dialogue starts feeling like tug-of-war, I suggest that each person must deliberately decide to put down the rope. The Better Arguments Project (https://betterarguments.org/) calls this “taking winning off the table.” By suspending our desire to “pull” we open ourselves up to listen and consider more than our own arguments. It shows respect for others and creates space to open up.
While we’ll never be able to confirm it, it seems clear that RBG and Scalia decided to like each other. I think if they could do it, so can we.
***
Suggested Reading
How Minds Change by David McRaney
Think Again by Adam Grant
Crucial Conversations by an army of authors)
Recommended Podcasts
Hidden Brain
No Stupid Questions
Freakonomics Radio
Work Life with Adam Grant