Judy (00:02):
Thank you. Thank you. It's so great to be back in San Francisco. So great to be back at KQED. Thank you so much to the KQED family, to Michael Isip, to everyone who's made us feel so welcome in the NewsHour family. I'm so proud of all my colleagues who've been up here talking with you, leading these conversations. Geoff Bennett, Lisa Desjardins, and what extraordinary conversations they've been with public policy, public figures. It's been a lot to think about, it's been provocative and just a rich day of conversation. What we're going to do now is focus for the next 45 minutes or so on the project that I've been engaged in over the last little more than 2 years, and we've called it America at a Crossroads. It's been our attempt, me working with a team of producers to try to understand why the country is so divided. What is it that has brought us to this place?
(01:06)
And especially this year, we're focusing on efforts being made to bring people together to bridge differences. So we had all over the last 2+ years, we've been to I think 27 states, maybe 28. We've talked to people across America. We've been airing pieces on the NewsHour every other Wednesday. But of course they're always available online, YouTube, you know that. And today in particular, I'm really, really pleased to talk to these two gentlemen because in our effort to understand how people are bridging differences, that's what they are focused on. So I'm really, really delighted to be able to have this conversation with you right here at KQED.
(01:46)
So first, let me bring out Robb Willer. He's going to come out, I'm going to tell you who he is. Welcome Rob Willer. He's a professor of sociology, a professor of psychology, and a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University. He's also Director of the Politics and Social Change Lab at Stanford. You can applaud the whole time. His teaching and research focus has been on the social forces that bring people together, the forces that divide people and the domains of social life that center on the interplay between the two, including politics. Guess what? He's the author of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and academic journals. Robb Willer, we're so glad to have you with us. Thank you.
Robb Willer (02:36):
Thank you.
Judy (02:39):
And our next panelist is Scott Shigeoka. Scott, please come on out. Thank you. Scott is an internationally recognized expert on curiosity. He is a TED speaker, renowned TED speaker. He's the award-winning author of the new book, SEEK: How Curiosity Can Transform Your Life and Change the World. His work focuses on how we can strengthen our well-being and our relationships. He also is a fellow at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. I love that title. Good Science Center. And he's also a playwright and an artist. So these are multi-talented gentlemen. Thank you both for being here, Scott and Rob. Thank you. So I want to start by asking each one of you how you see the personal, the political landscape in this country as it's seen by the American people. Rob, again, you study this all the time, both of you do. What does it look like to you right now, how the American people are viewing politics, what's going on in Washington, and how they are viewing their own lives in that context?
Robb Willer (03:51):
Yeah. Well, political division is by most metrics at an unusual high, I don't want to say an all-time high in American history because we did have a civil war, so it's even better than that. But it is certainly at a quite high level. We found that animosity across political lines has increased for about 40 years, 40, 50 years now. And one thing that we're seeing especially recently is that those political divisions have now reached a point where they're affecting the integrity of our democratic norms and laws. And I think the most intuitive way to understand how the two things become connected, political division and democratic stability is to reflect on the situation of a strong partisan deciding whether to vote for a leader from their party who's broken democratic rules.
(04:44)
Now, most Americans, when you ask them, do you care about democratic principles? They say, "Yes, I care a lot about them." And yet some folks do vote for candidates who've broken these rules. So why would they do it? Well, you might imagine yourself that you're at the ballot box, one of the leaders on the ballot from your preferred party has broken an important democratic rule. You're weighing that against many things, like reproductive rights, economic interests, trade policy, foreign policy, party loyalty, political ideology, values. And you might say, "Yeah, I'm still going to vote for my party's candidate." And that's what tends to happen when we study this in the U.S. And I think that's really the crux of the problem, is that with increased political division, stronger party loyalty, it becomes a lot harder for us to police democratic transgressions at the ballot box.
Judy (05:37):
And to get back to your original statement, this is the most, other than the civil war, this is one of, if not the most partisan, polarized moments in American history?
Robb Willer (05:47):
Exactly. Yep.
Judy (05:49):
Scott, how do you find it? I mean, is it that bad? You're out there talking to people all the time, what do you see? What do you hear?
Scott Shigeoka (05:55):
Yeah, I think the moment we're in right now is an era of incuriosity. I think that we're turning away from people who feel different from us in some way. And the opposite of curiosity, which is a desire to know and understand is judgment. And I think we're in a judgmental moment. Some of us we're, "Oh, you voted for someone that I disagree with. I don't care to talk to you. You're from a place I don't understand. I don't know if I want to get to know you."
(06:22)
But then at the same time, I traveled across the country for 12 months in my little tiny Toyota Prius. And I went to Trump rallies and I lived in the rural south in [inaudible 00:06:31]. And what I learned is there's also another story that's happening too, where people are saying, "Our differences actually make us stronger." And even though you're from a different place or you voted differently than me, I want to understand you in a deeper way. I want to know your stories, your values, what relationships matter to you. So I think we're seeing both and we all get to decide which direction do we want to take.
Judy (06:54):
Which direction, and what is it, do you think? And I'm warning Talisha in the control room, I'm hearing a lot of static, so I'm taking this out of my ear, my apology. Somebody can signal me on the front row if you need to tell me something. But how have we gotten from the place where we didn't just disagree? We've had disagreements, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals and everything and everything, and to the point where it's become personal. It's not just that I think you're ill-informed or you don't have the right information, I don't like you if you think that way, I don't want to have anything to do with … How did that happen?
Scott Shigeoka (07:33):
Yeah, I think for me, what I've seen is that we believe so strongly in the stances that we hold and the views and the beliefs that we have, and they're reinforced by the people that we're around. And if those folks are very similar to us and view our stances in a similar way, and we're not exposing ourselves to different views, they become hardened. And it becomes really challenging for us to meet people who have a different perspective than us. And we come into a defensive state versus an open state. And I think that we want to protect ourselves, we feel unsafe because our views feel threatened.
(08:16)
But I think what's important for us to remember is that discomfort that we're feeling sometimes when we're engaging with someone who has a different political view from us or has a different social identity from us, is actually an opportunity for us to learn and to grow and to stretch our understanding of the people around us to see the world in a much more nuanced way. And I think currently in culture, we're in an anti-nuance moment or an anti-curiosity moment. And that's why I'm traveling across the country and doing things like this with the iconic Judy is like, I'm trying to remind us that curiosity is something that we are born with, this practice of turning towards people and understanding them is so, so important to help us in those moments when we're confronted with difference.
Judy (09:00):
What do you see, Rob, in terms of how have we gotten to this point? I know there are many, many different factors, but what do you see?
Robb Willer (09:09):
Well, I mean, I think Scott has this on-the-ground experience that really resonates with these very controlled experiments that we do in my lab. It really dovetails a lot with what Scott's reporting back from the front lines, which is when you actually have a human-to-human interaction, they tend to go decently well. And it's the beginning of some sort of re-humanization of folks on the other side and a fleshing out of what are they really like? And could they be a decent person while disagreeing with me on so many of these things? Do they actually disagree with me on everything or is it just many things?
(09:48)
And so we're not having many of those interactions anymore. We have this phenomenon that's been called the Big Sort, where people with different political stripes have been choosing to live in different parts of the country more and more and more over time, and also choosing different professions, different institutions they work in or interact with. And the result is that you're more and more in this sort of political echo chamber, a term that's very familiar to us. At the same time, the sort of depolarizing shared information effect of reading the same newspapers, watching the same news on television has declined in favor of highly partisan TV, cable news sources, and also our sort of self-selected information environments we get online through social media. And those algorithms have learned that what makes us angry also keeps us paying attention. And the result is these very stereotypical views of our rivals that aren't totally true. They're exaggerated.
Judy (10:50):
So Rob, in your work, and I actually interviewed you for one of the pieces of different Crossroads a little over a year ago. I came to Stanford, sat with you with your graduate students and looked at the work you were doing. What has most interested you in this soup of what we're looking at? And where do you think you've been able to come up with a better understanding of what's going on and how we might try to do something about it?
Robb Willer (11:18):
Yeah, yeah. Well, one of the things I've been very interested in is just partisan animosity, just dislike across party lines and what can be done about it? What can be done to reduce it? And also what are the consequences beyond partisan animosity of reducing it? And probably the two biggest factors that we found are effective for reducing partisan animosity. When we ran this big study called the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, where we crowdsourced as many ideas as we could from activists, practitioners, academics, well, one of those was to try to invoke some kind of common identity. So something that is a bridging identity, brings people together across party lines. Most common one being a shared American identity, but it could also be a regional community identity as well, or a faith-based identity, something like that being invoked can bring people together.
(12:11)
Another thing is seeing examples of sympathetic, respectful, empathetic, relatable people from the other side of the political aisle. We don't get a lot of that because of that Big Sort, because we're in these homogeneous environments, we're not having those interactions. And so even just seeing people having those kind of interactions on video can be effective for reducing animosity. Better would be to actually have them. But absent that, people seeing it, they're like, "Oh, okay. I've seen examples of folks on the other side that are not just evil."
Judy (12:45):
And from your perspective, and again, you've been very, very interested in it, but looking at it from a somewhat different perspective, and it does come down in large part to having curiosity, deep curiosity about the other side. Explain
Judy Woodruff (13:00):
… Scott, why that's interested you.
Scott (13:02):
Yeah, so I think so many of us are hanging out in the shallow ends. I'm from Hawaii, so I'm always thinking about the ocean, the shallow ends of the ocean, and the waters of curiosity. And shallow curiosity, asking someone what their name is or what they do for work or who they voted for, that gives us a little bit of an insight of who they are. But it's not the full picture. It's not the full story. And so on the spectrum of curiosity, there's a shallow end, but also the deep end. And that's what I really encourage folks to also wade into, to dive underneath the surface, to get to know who someone is on a much deeper level. To ask them about their stories and their relationships and what really matters to them and where those views came from, who inspires the things that they believe in their lives.
(13:47)
And when you start to talk, like Rob mentioned, in a more human way with people, it is much less of a defensive stance, like I was mentioning, and it's much more open. And I think it allows people to actually access connection. And the research supports that as well, that when we have curiosity with our loved ones, they feel closer to us and we strengthen the durability and the longevity and the quality of those relationships.
(14:11)
But the same is also true with strangers, with those that we have not yet met. And even those who are very different from us. If we can approach them with curiosity, then they will open themselves up to maybe ask us questions because in a way, curiosity is contagious.
Judy Woodruff (14:25):
And how are you doing this work? I mean, how are you drilling down and asking people to be more curious? What does it look like?
Scott (14:35):
Yeah. I think a big point that Rob was saying about finding commonalities, oh, you can find that you're both voting in different ways, but are both parents or you both really care about the community you're living in. You both love soccer or you both are immigrants, but just from different parts of the world. There's all of these commonalities that we actually share. And I think something, a mythology of curiosity is that we, I'm not saying you have to erase your differences or you have to flatten them, it's not even about giving up your stances or your own beliefs, it's instead about how do I turn towards this person who's very different from me and try to ask them the questions that help me to see them in a much more whole way? And through that process, I'm actually going to find a lot of similarities. I'm actually going to see this person as very similar to me, even though we disagree on certain points.
Judy Woodruff (15:28):
And I mean, you've worked on this in different parts of the country, right?
Scott (15:32):
Yes.
Judy Woodruff (15:32):
I And you're able to get people to participate and to do what you ask them to do is I guess what I'm asking?
Scott (15:40):
Yeah. I mean, I went to a Trump rally in Minnesota. And it's like Rob says, when you just go up and you introduce yourself in a non-confrontational way and you say, "Hey, I voted in a different way than you, but I'm here just to understand and I want to understand why you're here, who you are." And you just have a human conversation. And they eventually start to ask me questions about myself, and I bring up my family, my queerness, being from Hawaii, and we have this exchange of information and stories that I think gives us the best chance of actually transforming our views of one another.
(16:16)
And I think if the goal is to get towards acceptance and celebration and love of one another, because I think curiosity is a channel for love, then starting from that place gives us our best chance of getting there versus coming from an incurious place of judgment and saying, "You voted a certain way, I know everything I need to know about you." Or "You look this way, or you are queer. I know everything I need to know about you and your people." It's about decoupling someone from the group identity that they hold and seeing them as an individual instead.
Judy Woodruff (16:44):
And this, in a way, gets to some of your work, Rob, in that, and you and I have talked about this, that you found that we often have an exaggerated idea, in a wrong way, about what the other side thinks, believes, is passionate about.
Rob (17:02):
Totally. It's actually one of the most robust findings in polarization research is that Democrats and Republicans have these really, really exaggerated, overly negative views of the folks on the other side, in the mass public, in the general public. We'll set aside politicians. We can come back to politicians. Setting them aside for a second.
(17:20)
But one example of this would be that American partisans on the left and right, they overestimate levels of support for political violence among their rivals by three, 400%. Just massive overestimates. When you ask people, how comfortable with political violence do you think folks on the other side are? And as an example as well, Republicans, after the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump this past summer, showed decreased support for political violence in surveys. So they kind of responded to that with… Already those levels were low and overperceived by rival partisans, they actually went down when that norm got surfaced of like, oh, this can get really bad. S.
(18:04)
O we find if you correct these misperceptions by just giving people accurate polling data on what their rivals think, it's effective for lowering the temperature and people's already low levels of support for political violence or anti-democratic attitudes, they'll level them down even further. Because part of the level that they did have was reciprocal. They were sort of thinking, oh, this is a knife fight. I need to bring a knife to this thing. And it's actually a fist fight, which is much better.
Judy Woodruff (18:34):
And how do you do that research? I mean, what does it look like?
Rob (18:39):
Well, we do polls, like pollsters, and we embed experiments in them. We do other things too. Sometimes we'll put people in real interactions. But what we'll do is we'll ask people a bunch of questions about how much they support political violence, and then we'll ask them to guess, how much do you think your rivals do? And then we'll say, "Well, actually, you guessed this, but these are the true levels." And compared to a control condition, people will say, "Oh, that's surprising. I believe you because you're some kind of university person." And it still seems credible with most Americans, kind of amazingly. And so I'm going to actually ratchet down my own views, my own support for political violence knowing this.
Judy Woodruff (19:23):
The term moral reframing, I don't know if you used it a moment ago, but that's something that is part of your work, empathy. Explain how that comes to play in all of this.
Rob (19:32):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So for about a decade, the folks in my lab, we've been working on this technique of moral reframing, a way to articulate your political views in terms that can resonate with people who don't share the views. And here it's useful to know what our default approach is, which is basically to talk about our own reasons for holding the political positions that we do. That's the default. But when it comes to political issues, most people have heard those arguments before, and if they're not agreeing with you, it's very, very likely that they didn't find that appeal persuasive, maybe because it didn't resonate with their values. And so if you can figure out a way to articulate your position on some issue in terms of values, identities, interests of the folks you're targeting for persuasion, it can be much more effective.
(20:25)
So an example could be we were doing a lot of research on support for same-sex marriage about a decade ago and gay rights more generally, and we were interested in is there a way to make an appeal that would be more effective with American conservatives? And what we crafted was an appeal that said things like gay Americans are proud, patriotic Americans who contribute to our economy and society. They serve in the military, they lay their lives down for this country, for your community, and they deserve the same rights, freedoms, and liberties as all other Americans.
(20:59)
Now, that's an appeal that's specifically targeting what a conservative really cares about. The military as an institution, traditions, patriotism, pride, and community. And these values, they resonate more, and indeed, that kind of an appeal is substantially more persuasive than the appeal that maybe persuaded me to support gay rights. But yeah. But we're targeting a different audience.
Judy Woodruff (21:25):
But reframing is when we speaking of…
Scott (21:29):
Yeah, reframing.
Rob (21:30):
Exactly.
Scott (21:30):
Yeah.
Judy Woodruff (21:31):
You thought of it even before we did. Okay. And Scott, this again, this is what you were talking about a moment ago, but your book, Seek, and there are very specific formulas in the book for how people should work their way through moving to more curiosity and to a better understanding of somebody's position on the other side. Give us a glimpse of how that would work.
Scott (21:59):
Yeah, absolutely. And just building on what Rob's saying, in order to reframe your language, you really need to start with curiosity to understand what are the values and interests and the language that they're using to operate through the world? And then it's not based on your own assumptions of them, but actually what they're telling you.
(22:16)
And for deep curiosity and how to access it. I mean, curiosity is a muscle just like any other muscle in our body. And so just like we'd go to the gym to pump up our weights, if we do that, you can also do the same thing with curiosity. And it takes continual practice. And I'm not saying that you have to go to a political rally of the opposing political party in order to practice it. You can start a little bit closer to home with your partner, your children, your families, your friends, your neighbors, by just asking them a more daring question. A question, instead of, "What's your name," you might ask a question like, "What's the story of your name?" Or instead of, "What do you do for work?" "What's really exciting you right now? What are you getting curious about right now?" And when you shift the quality of your questions, it also changes the quality of your relationship.
(23:03)
The dive model is the main focus of the book, and it's really about detaching, intending, valuing and embracing. So how do we detach from our assumptions and our biases and certainty? How do we really set the conditions in a physical space and in our mindset for curiosity? So there's some practices there. How do we value people? Because the minute you devalue and dehumanize someone, you cannot access curiosity. And then how do you embrace the hard times, which bring up uncertainty and anxiety? How do we actually use our curiosity in those moments?
(23:36)
And I learned that last piece the most from end-of-life doulas actually, palliative care physicians who I interviewed who share in this moment of death. One of the best things that we can do as an end-of-life doula is to use our curiosity, to use our curiosity towards a person who is dying and their loved ones. What they've found is that reduces their end-of-life anxiety. And also to get them to be curious about the life they've lived and the relationships they've had and how they want to die. Do they want to be cremated or buried? Things we might gravitate a little bit away from in our society, but those are so important if you're able to have those conversations for folks to really relieve themselves of their anxiety.
(24:15)
So a lot of what I say is that if you're feeling anxious, which I think a lot of people are feeling in this moment, curiosity is such a powerful superpower to unwind that anxiety. And the research also supports that too.
Judy Woodruff (24:26):
Do you find that people get it when you explain to them what this is and the dive concept and so on?
Scott (24:33):
Well, I think I heard this quote, which is that "the heaviest weight in a gym is the front door," which I totally understand because I'm just like, I don't want to go to the gym right now. This is like, I'm feeling like I know it's good for me, I know I should do it, but it's so hard to get there. But once you get there and you start working out, you're like, "Oh, this feels good. Oh yeah, I'm so glad I did this." And curiosity is very similar. Actually, curiosity releases dopamine, the happy hormone. It's actually something that feels good for us when we are curious towards other people or even more curious about our own beliefs. And I think it's so important, especially in today's moment that we're in for us to find solutions that feel good, that feel joyous, that feel human. And I think that's why I'm such a huge proponent of curiosity.
Judy Woodruff (25:25):
I want you to respond to what he's talking about, because the two of you, you work in separate tracks, but your work overlaps.
Rob (25:33):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, and this is very validating because-
Scott (25:35):
Same-same.
Rob (25:36):
It's very similar to what we found. So when we put Democrats and Republicans into interactions where they're total strangers, they say that it's going to go very badly, that's their expectation. They're like, "I'm going to do this because you're offering me money and I don't want to do this, and I expect it will worsen my views of," let's say, "Republicans," if you're a Democrat, vice versa if you're Republican. And
Interviewer (26:00):
We find it's very much the opposite that Democrats and Republicans, after having a 15 minute conversation about politics, will report warmer feelings towards rival partisans three months later. So it's really a striking effect. But also, with the big sort, you can imagine how that would happen, right?
(26:18)
That you're like, well, you're asked three months later, you're like, "How much do you like people from the other party?" And you're like, "Well, I had one interaction with someone from the other party," and so that's going to be the information I draw on.
(26:30)
But people also report more curiosity too. We find that, just like you said that after you've put yourself out there, it not only goes better than you think, but you come away more intellectually humble and open that you might want to revise your own beliefs a bit.
Scott (26:45):
Well, it's so interesting because even when you're going into a conversation saying, "This is going to be horrible." That is a perspective of our mindset of in curiosity, right? Are you truly being open to how this experience is going to be?
(26:58)
And if you're truly curious, you are genuinely unsure of what's about to happen in this interaction or meeting a person who's very different from you and so a curious person wouldn't necessarily say that, right? They wouldn't say, "This is going to be a bad experience," right? That's when you've already made an arrogant assumption about something that has yet to happen.
(27:18)
We're very horrible future predictors usually, unless you're Octavia Butler. I mean, I think she's great at everything. But if you're not Octavia, I think most of us are bad future predictors.
Rob (27:28):
So, one of the reasons I'm asking you, of course, how are people receiving these ideas that you're working on? And you're out there pushing, you're giving Ted Talks and the rest of it.
(27:39)
Because the signals people are getting from Washington right now, and that's on so much of the news, News Hour accepted because we try to be as not just balanced and centered as we can, but we try to tell the whole story and not just focus on the fight every night, every day, all the time.
Scott (28:01):
That's why I'm always watching news there. I'm like, "Yes, yes, more of this."
Rob (28:05):
But so much though of what is happening in the country right now is hostile, it's negative. The language is, it's more than critical, it's demeaning. How do you push an ideal like the one ones you're pushing, Rob, when the signals coming from the nation's capital are what they are?
Interviewer (28:29):
Well, it's really, really hard. I think, a few thoughts. So one, starting interpersonally is helpful. I think also trying to build back civic organizations and local politics, investing more in that.
(28:44)
These are places where people are actually meeting, interacting, cooperating, often across party lines. Meeting politicians from the other party that care about and know about their neighborhood and so on. That offers some opportunity.
(28:58)
I think the nationalization of American politics has been a problem, but I don't blame people for being really angry about what's happening right now. And at the same time, I think that having some curiosity, doing some perspective taking for the people that disagree with us, that's going to be critical to getting out of this moment.
(29:24)
And so, it's hard when things feel like they're falling apart and you're constantly under threat, which is how I feel now, to tap into that. But at least the folks doing politics will need to in order to succeed and regain ground, because real political persuasion begins with getting out of your own head and into the heads of the folks that aren't on your side yet.
Rob (29:50):
And people also need to believe, I think this is implied in what you're saying, they need to believe that eventually things are going to be different. That there will be a time when we can have productive conversations again. Not all agreeing, but at least able to respect the other side.
(30:09)
How do you see it, Scott, when the signals coming nationally are so negative? How do you see your work fitting in?
Scott (30:15):
I think it's reminding people of their agency. That, I remember when I was in Minnesota, I was at a concert and I was with my then partner and a group of guys who I'm assuming were very intoxicated, came up to us during a love song during the concert, and we were holding hands like all the other couples were.
(30:37)
They told us that we need to knock that S out or something was going to happen. And they were physically threatening us if we didn't do something. That wasn't the moment for me to be like, "Well, let me get curious about this. What's going on here? I want to better understand you," right?
(30:52)
I think it's so important to remember that we have agency and we have boundaries, and we can say, "I don't feel safe in this moment, and therefore I do not have to bridge." I think it's ethically dubious to expect that people who are most threatened to be the ones that are doing this work.
(31:07)
I think it really involves everybody to do the work of curiosity so that we have less of those moments happening. And also, shining a light on people who, despite that fear and the real threat against their bodies and against their lives, continue to do this work and actually do transform people. I write about those stories in the book like Daryl Davis and-
Interviewer (31:34):
Yeah, give us some examples.
Scott (31:35):
Yeah. Daryl Davis is a Black man who uses the power of music and he's de-robed hundreds of people from white supremacist groups as a Black man.
(31:47)
I think about the work of faith leaders and LGBTQ leaders coming together. Sometimes they share both of those, they're clergy doing the work in their congregations even when their positions or their stance in their congregation might be at risk because they see the benefit that it can have to create a more celebratory, more open congregation.
(32:09)
And there's many, many people in every community that I've been to that are leading these kinds of initiatives. And I think that's why I really love this kind of work because it highlights these stories that we don't often get to see on social media or in the news.
(32:23)
And young people, I go to high schools all across the country and they're really craving this. They really want the tools and the practices that they can use in their own lives to navigate this really hard moment and they feel they're not always getting that.
Interviewer (32:40):
Rob, what about you, in terms, who do you see out there at the national or the state or local level who are modeling some of these positive healthy behaviors?
Rob (32:54):
Yeah. Well, I can think of some folks on the left that are trying to build out a bigger tent like Bernie Sanders and AOC have been out on the road trying to get out into communities that don't just have existing supporters and trying to rally support for defending democratic rules and laws.
(33:16)
Then on the right, I think Spencer Cox, the governor of Utah, has done some really good work through the Disagree Better Campaign that he created when he was heading the national-
Interviewer (33:28):
We profiled him. Remind us what that is, the Disagree Better.
Rob (33:29):
Yeah. So, Governor Cox, when he was the head of the National Governors Association just last year, pioneered this initiative called the Disagree Better Campaign, where he would get pairs of Democrat and Republican governors to film public service announcements.
(33:43)
Where they basically sit at a table, break bread, rib each other a little bit and say we disagree about a ton of stuff, but also when it came to disaster relief, we pitched in and helped you and we know that you'd help us.
(33:59)
And also we can sit here and we can have this conversation. We can rib each other and have a relationship. And that's the beginning of cooperation, or at least understanding and lack of demonization across party lines.
(34:14)
And we've tested these ads and they are effective in improving people's receptiveness to having conversations across party lines. If people view this, they say, "Oh, I see these leaders including one from my party, I mean, that's a way I should perhaps be." And more support for bridging initiatives in civic society and so on.
(34:38)
So I think, that's good work. That's important work. And a subtle thing about that as well is that he's maintaining a center-right moral leadership on at least partisan division that is scarce right now, but has persisted a bit in Utah. It's been tough for folks who wanted to do it that way. On the center-right electorally, there's been a lot of pressure to not be that way to fall in line with Trumpism, and he's done about as much as anybody. And I think that underrated aspect of how we get out of this moment is going to be that faction of the Republican Party regaining control.
Interviewer (35:22):
If I'm not mistaken, it was he and his opponent when he ran for governor the first time. This was several years ago. They came up with the idea of appearing together in a television spot saying, "Whatever the results of this election are, we are going to honor the results."
(35:38)
So years ago, that wouldn't have been a remarkable thing at all, but it was remarkable at that moment in time for the Democrat and the Republican to say that.
Rob (35:48):
I mean, it was really remarkable. Yeah, Cox and Peterson, they're running-
Interviewer (35:51):
Yes.
Rob (35:51):
… against each other. They do these ads. I should have highlighted this. They really inspired the Disagree Better initiative. And Governor Cox was telling me that Peterson, when he got the call was just like, "Wait, you want to spend your ad dollars on spots with the two of us saying, we'll honor the election results? Sure, I'll do that."
(36:10)
But tough thing for a Republican to do in the fall of 2020 and specifically saying, "We'll honor the results of the presidential election too,"-
Interviewer (36:19):
Yes.
Rob (36:20):
… which was just beginning to be intoned as a controversial point where it hadn't been before.
Scott (36:27):
I do want to say-
Interviewer (36:28):
Yes, yes.
Scott (36:28):
… that I think there's also just examples in our own personal lives and locally of folks who are doing this. I think about the curiosity that I gained as really being so lucky to have been born and raised in Hawaii and being around a culture of people who are so generous and want to include all and want to better understand the stories of everyone around them.
(36:48)
Seeing my parents really model that through their charisma and also through who they are as people and their curiosity that any person that you meet every day is someone that can teach you something and is someone that you can learn from.
(37:02)
And so, I am glad that we have these examples nationally, but I also would just welcome folks to think about their own personal lives, of the coaches and the family members and the friends who model that. And that is just as important.
Interviewer (37:15):
For sure. For sure. And I do, I mean, and I want to get to that, but I want to ask both of you, because people do worry about the country and where the country is. Is any aspect of the work you're doing scalable? I mean, do you see it something that could be taken to a broader, wider level? What do you see?
Rob (37:35):
Well, I mean, we've learned a lot about the kinds of content that turns the temperature down in the country. Seeing sympathetic, relatable folks, having your stereotypes corrected, seeing leaders from your side saying better pro-civility, anti toxicity things, the Disagree Better initiative.
(37:56)
A great difficulty is getting eyes on that content. And we have PBS, we have Judy helping us with this, but it's very, it's very, very difficult. I think, one of the biggest problems is social media. There is a sense that there's no slack in the system.
(38:14)
That if you're not pushing this polarizing content that makes people angry, that people tend to attend to, if you're not pushing that, you're not maximizing engagement. And then social media platforms, they'll tell you, "If we don't maximize engagement because we're trying to do the thing you want us to do, we just get displaced by the next social media platform. We just bleed users to that other platform."
(38:35)
And I think that this is a bit incurious. I think that there is some slack in the system. I think it is possible to turn the temperature down on the content and lift up some of the content that's helpful rather than divisive without a massive trade-off on engagement.
(38:51)
But I also think it would be really helpful, especially in this moment where people are thinking very seriously about turning off social media or regulating social media or
Rob Willer (39:00):
… restricting phone use by age to see if we can build up platforms or options on platforms for people to have a little more control over the content they see. Maybe that market can emerge first with teens, parents of teens who would like the social media feeds that the teens tap into to not just be toxic wastelands of depravity, but instead … It's a scientific term of art. But instead be positive. There's been a movement towards that. Maybe that's the foothold that we get, that we can start to make those environments better.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Yeah. So you've seen some evidence that that may be out there brewing.
Rob Willer (39:42):
I think we could get there, but it's going to be an insurgency against the market right now. Also, the EU may help us because they're open to regulating their platforms and pushing the platforms to either open themselves up to be rigorously studied in terms of the consequences of engagement on their platform, or at least do self-study that's rigorous. That's a big thing, because we can't even do the quality of research that would inform engagement with these platforms because the platforms don't let us.
Speaker 1 (40:14):
Huh.
Rob Willer (40:15):
Very convenient, yes.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
That's something to be sober and think about for a moment. Scott, what about you in terms scaling it up, or is that even the right question?
Scott Shigekoa (40:25):
Yeah, I just want to build on … I totally agree with everything Rob's saying. The perspective I would just add on to that is at the Greater Good Science Center, we're really researching how to … What are the components of living a meaningful life and well-being and positive relationships. They're all things that we have inside of us, awe and generosity and compassion and curiosity and love.
(40:45)
That is something that we all have access to. These are all wonderful muscles that are in our body that we can all exercise and practice. I've seen principals really bringing this into schools and really creating a culture where if you see someone who is sitting alone on school grounds or during lunch go up and ask them a question and have a conversation with them. I see workplaces that are encouraging people to bring a spirit of making others successful and being generous with your time and supporting others. I think that if we can see this as a cultural moment where we can really tap back into these really human values and virtues, it's totally scalable.
(41:28)
Fun fact about curiosity, it's not only for the young. People get that wrong. The meta-analysis of the research actually shows that we get more curious over time. So the older adults in our country are actually the most curious. And so, when I go to high schools, I say, "Who's your council of curious elders?" and write those down and, "What are the questions you want to ask them?"
(41:47)
Sometimes I get added onto that list, which I'm like, "Okay. Well, I guess I am your elder." But it's just this idea of how do we continue to create groups of connections that are multiracial and intergenerational and come from all different parts of the country and the world, and use our curiosity to connect with them and learn from them. I think that is scalable.
Speaker 1 (42:11):
I have a question for the audience, and I can see you out there. But raise your hand if there's someone in your life, whether a cousin, uncle, I don't know, neighbor, a colleague who you-
Rob Willer (42:22):
It's usually an uncle.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
You give uncles a bad name.
Rob Willer (42:25):
I know. Yeah. I am an uncle. We need better PR.
Scott Shigekoa (42:28):
Same. Same. I will join with you on that as a fellow uncle.
Speaker 1 (42:32):
Somebody in your life who you could imagine having a difficult conversation with about where you are politically. Yeah.
Rob Willer (42:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
Look at that.
Scott Shigekoa (42:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Okay, all of us. So what advice would we … I mean this is what you've been talking about for the last 30, 40 minutes. But what advice would you have?
Rob Willer (42:52):
Well, I mean … Well, I don't want to scoop the curiosity thing, but I do think it's a really-
Speaker 1 (42:56):
Do it.
Rob Willer (42:57):
It's a really, really good point, because if you don't open yourself up to the potential to have your view changed a bit, at least about the group that the person's a representative of, which is like that we should be open to such change, people can pick up that you're not open to it and they're not going to change.
(43:16)
And so, I think that's a compelling thing about these face-to-face interactions is that you really do have to show some curiosity of your own. Then I guess I would try out moral reframing and think seriously about what's this person really care about? What are their most deeply held moral values? What would they fight and die for? How can I connect this to be consistent with that when they might assume that there's an opposition there? I think we can find those kinds of appeals, and they certainly work better. It's funny because it's not intuitive. Like we-
Speaker 1 (43:50):
It's not.
Rob Willer (43:51):
No.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
No.
Rob Willer (43:51):
No. If we try to sell a car this way, it would involve telling somebody how excited we were to get their money and all the things we were going to spend it on, but we would never sell a car that way. You would talk to them about what's in it for them based on what they value. We should think a bit like that when we have a political-
Speaker 1 (44:09):
Like a car sale.
Rob Willer (44:09):
Well, it doesn't sound as good [inaudible 00:44:11].
Scott Shigekoa (44:11):
[inaudible 00:44:11].
Speaker 1 (44:11):
I like it.
Rob Willer (44:11):
Yeah, yeah, because I work in persuasion maybe too much. But that perspective-taking is also a humane thing to do. It's a way to show some respect for our fellow citizens.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
So, Scott, he stole your curiosity.
Rob Willer (44:25):
Sorry, [inaudible 00:44:27] so right.
Scott Shigekoa (44:28):
No. Hey, [inaudible 00:44:29].
Speaker 1 (44:29):
What would you expand on to say to folks if they're going to have a difficult conversation?
Scott Shigekoa (44:33):
Yeah, I think that there are so many ways to exercise that muscle of curiosity. Rob gave some great suggestions. You can go on a curiosity stroll around your neighborhood and just be really curious about what you're seeing, the people that you're seeing on your walk. Maybe introduce yourself to neighbors you don't yet know. It doesn't have to be directly entering the arena, like the first thing you do to exercise your curiosity.
(44:53)
Then the other thing I would say is, remember the phrase tell me more. I think that's such a great, easy phrase to put in your pocket. When your loved one comes home and they share something that's exciting, you say, "That's great, babe." Maybe instead build on that and say, "And tell me more," like, "Tell me more about why you were so excited about your day. Tell me more about who you got to meet during this fabulous day," and thinking about the quality of the questions we're asking.
(45:18)
I actually have on my phone a list of powerful questions. And so, I like questions like, "Tell me about a belief you've had that you held strongly but you changed your mind on in the last year," or, "Tell me about something that made you laugh this last month," or, "Tell me about someone that you're really missing right now."
(45:39)
I think that just changes that you can feel the atmosphere of a conversation and relationship changing when you come from that place of courage and ask a different quality of questions. So those are the tips I would give.
Speaker 1 (45:51):
We'd like you to share that list on your-
Scott Shigekoa (45:54):
Oh yeah, sure. Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
All right. So we only have a minute left. That was such a great note to end on. But I'm going to ask one more question. What is the next thing you want to explore in your field? What would you say? What do you work-
Rob Willer (46:09):
I guess for me that rule-breaking, democratic-rule breaking is happening so fast right now that it's hard to focus the energy against it to defend democratic norms and rules. I want to try to very systematically study which of these things really resonate with people. Which ones can you create larger consensus around and how to be persuasive about that so that we can hold ground?
Speaker 1 (46:40):
What's the next you want to … Or next couple of things you want to look into?
Scott Shigekoa (46:42):
So I'm actually buying the school bus and I am … No, this is seriously happening. I'm transforming it to go on a road trip next year. It's an encore of my Toyota Prius journey that I did a year around the country, but with way more height clearance, which I'm very excited about. But the idea is how do we showcase stories of people who are coming together across your differences, not just to dialogue and talk but to actually do something that makes this country better for all?
(47:08)
I think that's such a great gateway to this work, because sometimes it feels really scary to meet someone who's different from you and engage in a conversation. But if you're doing something together, you're volunteering or you're participating at the next food drive, that's such a great way to meet people who might be very different from you and a place to exercise your curiosity to learn and grow. So see you all on the bus tour.
Rob Willer (47:31):
[inaudible 00:47:32].
Scott Shigekoa (47:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:32):
What's more receiving than a school bus than a yellow school bus?
Scott Shigekoa (47:36):
Yeah.
Rob Willer (47:37):
Right.
Speaker 1 (47:38):
Shigekoa, Rob Willer, thank you both so much.
Scott Shigekoa (47:42):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
Thank you, thank you.
Scott Shigekoa (47:42):
[inaudible 00:47:43].
Speaker 1 (47:42):
You both were great.
Scott Shigekoa (47:42):
[inaudible 00:47:43].
Speaker 1 (47:42):
It was great, really great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, yeah. Yeah.
Scott Shigekoa (47:42):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
[inaudible 00:47:43].
MUSIC (47:42):
So much pain inside.
(47:42)
But, baby, it ain't over 'til it's over.
(47:42)
So many years we've tried.
(47:54)
And kept our love …
