Speaker 1: 1:25

Welcome to the show everybody. I'm Dr JT, I'm your host of the Next Level Human podcast and today we have Juliana Tafour with me. Today she is the director of the Bridging Differences Program at UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center and her research and her focus is really on social connections, especially across the lines of race, religion and yes, politics. Obviously, we're coming up here in the United States on our 2024 presidential election. This is one of the reasons that I wanted to have Juliana on the program. Juliana, I'm just going to set us up really quickly with the first question and comment From my perspective, and I'm just going to set us up really quickly with the first sort of question and comment.

Speaker 1: 2:11

But from my perspective and I'm just wanting you to educate me on all this and all of us on this from my perspective, it does seem that a lot of people are a little bit more afraid, a little bit more in their base level selves. There's a lot of divisive language and dehumanization going on from the political spectrum, and it really is for a podcast and a company called Next Level Human. It's concerning for me because, from my perspective, we are all team human, all humans suffer. This is our common sort of way that we connect, and it really is interesting to me that we continue to struggle with this idea that we cannot just see each other as our fellow humans and accept our differences and move into a place of appreciation and learning the fact that we're different and we have different views. So help me understand.

Speaker 1: 3:07

What does your research say about? Why do we continually run into this problem? Is it getting worse from your perspective? I know I saw a stat from you, from your organization, that essentially says three out, but it seems like we are having a very difficult time doing that, and so get us caught up on. What is this problem? And then I want to just really quiz you and understand what I can be doing better personally to connect to people who differ from me, and what we all can be doing to be better next level humans.

Speaker 2: 3:47

Thank you, dr Jade. All of that was beautifully said. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me on the podcast. So, yes, you said it Three out of four Americans have realized, recognized this is a serious problem and want to do something about it and want to live in a less polarized country.

Speaker 2: 4:09

So that goes hand in hand with, yes, we live in neighborhoods that reflect our political beliefs. We're less likely to marry across political party lines and a rhetoric and narrative that may be common in our own lives. We're even ending relationships over political disagreements. But, all of that said, we like to stay in the hope and we like to talk about the hope. Right, we know that a majority of Americans do value diverse perspectives.

Speaker 2: 4:43

A lot of us three quarters, or it's not three quarters three out of four of us believe it's important to hear different political views, even when they don't agree with all of them. Right, we also desire a shift in political discourse, moving beyond political hostility and divisiveness. As a step forward and, believe it or not, although it doesn't seem like we are many Americans, three out of four Americans, again, are open to learning from others and realize that they can gain insights from conversations with those that have different views from them. So I think both of those things are true and I think we hang on to the. Yes, we know it's hard, but we also know a lot of people are absolutely exhausted and really do want to be the change that they want to see in the world.

Speaker 1: 5:46

Yeah, you know it's interesting and I guess I'll just throw this out to you a little bit. It's funny. When I listen to, I would consider myself politically sort of a moderate. I probably lean a little left, but when I talk to people on either side and have many friends in fact, I feel like more of my friends lately are slightly on the right but they're still more moderate.

Speaker 1: 6:07

But when I sort of see this issue, I see that there's distrust. And when I get on and I know we all do this, but because I'm a student of psychology and philosophy and really I think of politics as the philosophy of sort of how to run cultures, I'm interested in what people are saying and of course social media can be a very divisive place. But I'm struck by the idea that when I read comment sections and things like that, there's this extreme distrust that you seem to see with people on the other side. It's almost just like this profound distrust that is going on and I'm wondering, from my perspective, what is causing that, or what is your research shown is causing that. Is it because of we're all in our information bubbles? Is it because we're all buying into one way of seeing it? How do we make sense of why this is happening. What has started this issue?

Speaker 2: 7:12

Yeah, well, it's a variety of things. As we all know, social media and social media algorithms end up showing us only what we believe, what we want to see, and that ends up informing what we think the world is and how we think everyone thinks, which is a huge problem, because we also know that 10% of the loudest voices on social media are the most extreme, and that's sad because it's only 10% right what happens to everyone else. But those are the ones that end up being amplified and, before we know it, we have this sense of reality that is really not reality. Also, like, demographic shifts in the country, across the the board, in different states, have led people to be fearful of, you know, newcomers of the other, of changing makeups of our society, and that rhetoric of fear, unfortunately, is used by politicians also to divide us. So I think we have to take back the narrative as a society and say this is not who we are.

Speaker 2: 8:35

I rather be a good human, I rather be kind to my neighbor, I rather extend a helping hand to someone who might need me, and I rather work from a mindset that is not a scarcity mindset there is enough to go around and, like you said, we are interdependent and are one. We truly depend on each other, across our differences, all of our differences, because collaboration is needed to reach important or to meet important tasks, to join in common goals and to function Right. So oftentimes we are drawn into these narratives without stopping and really having a moment to understand how interdependent we are and how much we need to work across our differences to function as a society.

Speaker 1: 9:34

Yeah, you know what's funny about that?

Speaker 1: 9:36

When I hear you talk, I mean certainly I share those values, right, I share these values of inclusivity and integration and wholism, and certainly compassion and kindness are high up on my value hierarchy. Certainly compassion and kindness are high up on my value hierarchy than compassion, for example, and so for me, I've found that oftentimes we can get a little bit confused because I might go to my friend Well, you don't have compassion, when it's not that they don't have compassion, it's that freedom comes first and compassion is five steps down on their value hierarchy. It's still a value of theirs, it's just not as high up as mine. And I found that when I'm having these conversations I feel like a lot of it is this misunderstanding of where the values are. I might be talking about compassion and they're talking about freedom, and then we miss each other in this dialogue and I'm wondering if your research has elucidated this or has anything to say about this. How can we sort of talk with people if our value hierarchies are so different, and is this even a thing?

Speaker 2: 13:45

Absolutely, it is a thing and I appreciate you mentioning it, having noticed it right. There is research around this and I just want to say at the Greater Good Science Center, we are translators of the research to practice. So a lot of the research doesn't originate within the Greater Good Science Center, but we are really good at taking the research and making it translatable and applicable to people's lives and for practitioners to use and help others. So this research that I'll mention is Jonathan Heitz.

Speaker 1: 14:20

One of my favorites.

Speaker 2: 14:22

Great, okay, so he came up with a concept, along with other colleagues, called moral reframing. So the idea is that, yes, like you named it, oftentimes we are talking about the issues that matter to us, but from the lens of our values and not the values of the people we're speaking to. Of the people we're speaking to, and we often give our own reasons, but we forget that the people who we're talking to might not share our own values. Right, and moral reframing is all about kind of tuning into the values that guide the other person, or the other group, if you will and then speaking to those values so that what you're trying to say comes across better, is better understood by the other side or by the other person.

Speaker 2: 15:18

And you are right that we value different things across the political spectrum. Right, we know that, for example, republicans or people who are more conservative tend to consider values like loyalty, authority, sanctity more important, whereas liberals tend to emphasize or value more things like harm, care, fairness. And obviously this is not to say that anyone on either side doesn't care about any of these things. So general kind of assumption grouping lots of people into these categories. But in general terms, this is what their research points to.

Speaker 1: 16:01

Yeah, you know. So that's really this, to me, is where perhaps I want to know how to have these conversations. So what would this, what would this look like? So, if I'm talking to my friend, is the way to connect with them to essentially say, oh, I understand, you know. Freedom, let's say, is something that you deeply care about about, and begin to have a discussion around understanding their framing of freedom versus compassion.

Speaker 1: 16:33

I know, for me compassion is a very. It's way high up on my value hierarchy. Right To me, I'm a very. I see compassion. Without compassion I don't know how society functions. But I know that from some of my friends they just don't see it the way I see it. They see it almost like, you know, being compassionate without boundaries, let's say, is foolishness right. And so it's this idea of you know, trying to understand, where they think like they might see compassion as weakness, where I see it as a strength.

Speaker 1: 17:07

And so I'm wondering how do we then have these conversations? What's the first? If we're playing human chess, let's say, not to win, but to connect and just have fun playing the game what's the first move that we make? Is it to essentially say, oh, I understand, you know, you see freedom, as you know, a very important thing. I agree, freedom is important. And then to begin to have the discussion around that? And if that is the way to do it, then do we lose ourselves and our own values by trying to just revolve the conversation around theirs? I'm wondering how we can have these conversations, especially in the next week, as we're all talking politics how we can have these conversations, especially in the next week, as we're all talking politics, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2: 17:55

Well, you would start with simple questions like what values are most important to you, or what experiences have shaped those values right, and then you would understand what and how their values might overlap or differ from your own.

Speaker 2: 18:08

You absolutely do not have to agree and you are not leaving your values aside when you frame things around what matters to them. This is only about you speaking their quote, unquote language right, like using the way they see the world to frame an argument, and this is not to either manipulate the outcome or like right, it's just so they understand that you are doing your best to connect at a deep level with what matters to them and frame ideas around what matters to them. So I think some of those examples that you gave are a good place to start. But this is just one of many skills to kind of start conversations and even to get yourself ready for conversations, so we can talk a little bit more about like different skills at the intrapersonal level, at the interpersonal level and then at the inner group level, if you're actually a practitioner bringing folks together.

Speaker 1: 19:10

Yeah, I love this idea and it strikes me that if you're going to have these conversations and either come into a conversation it's almost as if and please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's almost as if I want to decrease polarization, I have to essentially take that on and almost put that above any other goal, set right when it's like okay, well, I am going to be the example, I'm going to be the next level human in the conversation.

Speaker 1: 19:36

I want to set the example that I am going to take on polarization, because I think it is a major problem, let's say, and therefore I put that goal. If I put that goal set as number one, then I am going to be far more likely to remember, when I'm in these conversations, to connect with that goal in mind versus connecting with the goal of winning in mind or proving my point being in mind. It's almost just like if I want to decrease polarization, from my perspective, the first move always is to not divide, degrade, dehumanize the person I'm talking with or make them seem or put them in a combative mode. I want to listen to them first, which seems like what you were saying, so that I can understand where they're coming from, so that I can have a far more impactful and useful conversation.

Speaker 2: 20:27

Yeah Well, I want to give in kind of your audience as well. I want to stress that we know that bridging differences is good for health and safety. We know that prejudices about the quote, unquote, other end up elevating stress and can compromise immune systems. So if you took it from, like the health perspective, this is good for you, right. So it's one thing to make like a rational decision about thirst polarization. I want to do something which which seems like a like a civic orientation right to me, like this is what we must do as a society.

Speaker 2: 21:07

But if you want to take it from like a more personal, um and maybe selfish reason, right, it's not good for you, um, so, so, what are strategies? Uh, to be able to live, coexist, um, collaborate, cooperate with people who are different from you, and and then, and then you, you set an intention and go for it. So there's that. And then there's also, like what is bridging differences, right? Which is like an important framing definition to get to as well. So, from a more spiritual side, it starts with kind of acknowledging and recognizing that another person has their own needs, values, goals, just like you do. They're just different from you, right.

Speaker 2: 22:00

And it comes with, again this recognition that without that constructive dialogue, problem solving is just not possible. It doesn't happen without it. And knowing that when you are entering a conversation to bridge differences, you are not trying to convince the other person of your viewpoint necessarily, um, you're kind of walking into the conversation with the intent to build consensus, right it? This is not synonymous with compromise, and I think it's really important for people to understand that. And it's also important to understand back to your point um about like, do I have to leave my values aside? Absolutely not. Um, we start off from the place of who we are, what matters to us, what identity we represent or right to exist is being questioned, then we wouldn't recommend that you enter a conversation or collaboration where you are attempting to bridge differences.

Speaker 1: 26:23

Okay, yeah, so this might be the one of the most important things you've said so far, then. So I just want to repeat sort of where we are. Like, what I heard you just say is that you should never go into these conversations with the idea of convincing or trying to win. So this might be, you know, one rule that we could put down right now, and that to me seems pretty striking, because I do think that most people who are not being fully aware will have the natural default to pull the trigger of I will defend and convince, and so this is one of the first things that I've heard you say. That's most important we have to put aside the need to convince other people. We also said we have to make sure we know our values, but we don't need to for lack of a better term shove them down other people's throat. We can be firm in our values, and by understanding someone else's values doesn't mean we are giving up our own values. And so there's this idea of these seem like priming steps, almost, where it's like okay, I'm going to enter into this conversation, I know my goal set isn't to win and convince, and if I'm going to enter into this conversation, I know my goal set isn't to win and convince, and if I'm going to end up, and my goal set isn't to make someone take on my values and certainly I don't need to give up my values, I can simply just walk in and be able to connect. And what would be the goal then Is it just to learn.

Speaker 1: 27:49

And you know, from you, know you, you talked about this idea of like from an individual sort of perspective. Yes, it's healthier for us, but are there other ways that we can frame this Like? What are we gaining from this? Uh, you know, from my perspective, I go, I love to learn, I want to understand, so you know that that's going to help me, certainly go, I'm not here to debate and win, I'm here to learn and connect, and so it sounds like there's a whole set of a whole bunch of goal sets and orientations that we can enter into conversations with other people with.

Speaker 1: 28:23

That are very different than you know. The other thing where I'm going to try to win. There is this thing, though, that I want to ask you about, because that's very different, I think. Anyway, and maybe you'll educate me on this, that's very different. If it's me and you, juliana, right, I meet you, we're talking, we're sitting, find commonality with and you can have a nice conversation one-on-one. But it seems to me that as soon as we get into the social media realm, we forget ourselves. As soon as we get into group think, we forget ourselves. And so is there any additional things we need to think about when we start to dialogue in groups or when we start to dialogue within social media?

Speaker 2: 29:14

Yeah, social media is a whole different ballgame. I just want to acknowledge that, as you probably well know, it is much harder to have constructive dialogue when we have a screen between us and when we're hiding behind those screens, sometimes with names and pictures that don't represent us.

Speaker 1: 29:35

You know names and pictures that don't represent us, so sometimes we're not even talking to a human, which I just read. You've all know Harari's new book, nexus, which is fantastic for anyone, and he goes through a lot of this. Right, we're not even, sometimes we're not even dialoguing with humans and these bots are antagonistic, almost trying to stir up. You know the flame and you know, obviously the algorithms are such that they want people's attention and certainly creating divisive, dehumanizing sort of actions can do that. But I'm just wondering if the Greater Good Science Center has, you know, has looked at any of this science and is seeing a different way of handling it, or do the rules still apply? You know, go in with a charitable mindset. You know, go in with the idea that I want to connect. Go in with the idea that I want to learn something. Go in with the idea that I'm not trying to win an argument.

Speaker 2: 30:25

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, all the rules still apply and the work that we put out a lot of it is to allow individuals to decide for themselves that they want to be better, that they want to do better, that they want a better society, right? So I also want to emphasize this notion of humility, which I know is a value that a lot of people do appreciate as well. Right, like this idea that we can't go about the world thinking that no one can teach us anything, that our view of the world is so right and they are so wrong, right, and so just an invitation to accept that we don't have all the answers or a monopoly on the truth. Like how can you hate when you get to know someone? How can you hate when you understand that they are a product of their lived experience that is maybe very different from yours? And when you get down to stories and personal narratives, then you're connecting with what matters, and I think Brene Brown said it best. She said you can't hate up close, and I was honest too, even in social media interactions, to attempt to get to the story under the story. Right, what we see typically in social media is the issue like right on our face right, what this person believes, or the new story that the person is sharing, or emoji or not, emoji, gif or whatever, and sometimes that comes across as in our face but we really have not had the opportunity to get to the story under the story to understand why does this matter so deeply to them? What is it that they may be fearful of Like fear is at the core of a lot of this or distrustful towards right.

Speaker 2: 32:25

I know you mentioned trust at the beginning of our conversation. Like trust is hard to win over, especially when we're starting from a very polarized place, and sometimes when we do this bridging work, we also have to acknowledge and recognize that getting to liking might be enough and okay, right. Like, maybe we don't get to full trust and that's okay. So also recognizing that this work is also about small shifts over time, even if you're starting with I may like you now, right. And then maybe you get to know the person better over a series of encounters and maybe you get into a place where you can actually trust them. But don't expect that to be the default and what happens from the get-go.

Speaker 1: 33:13

Well, and the other thing is and you kind of alluded to this, but I do think, what people need to understand, and I think any human, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, you know, maybe, barring the absolute extremes of people who, you know, just really want to cause distress and dysfunction in society, served by tearing other people down. Eventually, that's going to. It's like we live in. People like to think about our society and tell me what you think about this, but people like to think about our society I see it as they like to think of it as a hierarchy, right. It's like we're climbing ladders, and what happens is I call them the base level extremes on either side, what they seem to want to do is, when they're on this ladder, they want to kick the people who are below them down, and they want to pull the people who are above them down, and so it's just sort of like this motto that seems to be like me against the world, but I would call that the base level type of approach, and I don't think most of us are like that. I do think, though, that most of us are a culture level approach, where we're climbing the ladders and we see all the people with the red shirts who are on our team and we go, I'm going to help them, or you know, and I'm going to pull the people down from the blue side. It seems that this, once we get in groups, we do this. I think the next level human approach is to stop seeing ourselves on a hierarchy of ladders and instead to see ourselves as an ecosystem. It's like the lion is not the king of the jungle, because he or she cannot survive without the bees and the beavers, and if we destroy the bees and the beavers, we end up ultimately destroying ourselves, and I feel like humans have not yet figured this out.

Speaker 1: 34:50

This divisive, dehumanizing type of language that is being used on both sides, from my perspective, is not good, but I do have a question here too. First, I want to see if you agree with that sort of. Is that a better framing from your perspective? And then, two, an immediate question comes up, though.

Speaker 1: 35:08

That goes well, this idea of moral equivalency that people really get caught up on and they just go well, as soon as you say it's on both sides, you're negating the fact that perhaps it's worse on one side or the other, and I want to know how you handled this idea of moral equivalencies, where people tend to go well, it's just because we're hearing someone. We don't have to see this as a moral equivalence. What happens when it is, you know, essentially one side, you know quote doing more to harm the ecosystem than the other? And how would we even determine that? Because I know people get caught up on that where they're like I have to stand up for this because it's destructive and one side is worse than the other. This is the mindset that we get in.

Speaker 2: 35:55

Yeah, well, a lot to cover there, it yeah.

Speaker 1: 35:59

Well, a lot to cover there.

Speaker 2: 36:00

Yeah, a whole lot.

Speaker 2: 36:02

Yeah, I just want to say yes.

Speaker 2: 36:14

To address your point on kind of the groups that we create, I just want to acknowledge that, developmentally, right, we used to be in tribes, in our own groups, and anyone who was an outsider was a threat to our group and we needed to be fearful of them for survival, for protecting ourselves and our kind or our kin.

Speaker 2: 36:37

And that is no longer the case. Right, we are no longer in those groups, but the mentality of protecting your own and fear of the other perseveres and we need to shift that. We are no longer those people who we were, right, we are evolved, um, hopefully more evolved, uh, beings, and, and on the path, uh, to compassion, uh, to love, to acceptance, to care, despite our differences, right, um, so just want to acknowledge that, right, so, just want to acknowledge that. And you also named like our group versus the other, and kind of like pushing one down and the other one up, like it doesn't have to be that way, right, so a really good strategy or skill science based skill for beginning to tap into what unite us is finding shared identities, so looking beyond our differences and really doing our best to identify larger and kind of inclusive connections that we might have with others.

Speaker 2: 37:53

So the idea is that. So the idea is that we are more likely research points to us being more kind and more understanding towards others when we see them as part of a larger group, and I'll talk a little bit about the science around this to give you a concrete example. So there's a study out of the UK that was researching Manchester United fans and the Manchester United fans in the first part of the study were asked to think about their group as Manchester United fans, so the winds of Manchester United, the fandom of Manchester United, etc. And then they were sent across a parking lot where they had to, or they came across with someone who was apparently injured and this person was at times wearing a Manchester United jersey and at times they were wearing a Liverpool jersey, the rival team's jersey.

Speaker 2: 38:58

And then the study was repeated and the study was repeated taking again Manchester United fans and in this case they were made to think about soccer fandom. So what they had in common with other soccer fans their appreciation for the sport, et cetera. And the same thing happened. They were sent across the parking lot, a person injured, sometimes wearing a Manchester United shirt and sometimes wearing a Liverpool shirt. And what's interesting in what happened was that, um, in the first study, uh, when they were sent across, they helped. Um, let me, let me pull up the science. I just want to make sure I I say this, uh, correctly, so pause me there for a second.

Speaker 1: 39:51

Yeah, and it's making sense to me because I my guess would be that that in the first condition, where they were primed to think of themselves as Manchester United fans, they would be more likely to help the Manchester United jersey wearing person. But it seems to me that when you're primed to think of yourself as a soccer fan, that is no longer going to become an issue. You'll probably help at an equal level, no matter what soccer jersey they're wearing. So that's what I would guess the hypothesis would show. So am I right? Close on that?

Speaker 2: 40:23

No, you're absolutely right. I just want to give you the exact numbers. So it turns out that the Manchester the when there were four times more likely to help the person in need if the person was wearing a Manchester United jersey than if they were wearing the jersey of the rival team Four times more likely. So this just goes to show that finding shared identities can truly dictate how well we treat people. But it also goes to show that this is an internal shift that we can all do when we try to understand. What is it that we might have in common with folks that may be more important than this difference that is made so apparent and so threatening, right? So I just want us to remember that, because at the end of the day, as we kind of move towards the election as well, are there things as Americans that we value, that we can kind of rally around, like our belief in service to community, our belief in belonging in the spaces where we are, our belief in service to community, our belief in belonging in the spaces where we are, our belief in democracy and that's actually one latest finding from research that we can all get around, regardless of where we stand politically.

Speaker 2: 41:51

We value democracy. That is something we all value and so, yeah, just an invitation to see beyond and that's like at the macro level. But then we can connect with. Are we fans of a soccer team? Right, we can connect with. Do we go to the same church? Do we serve in the same food pantry, whatever? It is right, like there are these smaller kind of everyday connections. Or can we connect as parents with similar experiences with raising kids? So there are so many things that we can find that we can connect with others on, and from that shared identity we begin to work backwards.

Speaker 1: 42:34

Yeah, you know what it reminds me of too. If you look at these big movements in history, it makes me think of Nelson Mandela, makes me think of Martin Luther King, makes me think of Mahatma Gandhi and some of these big movements that were up against incredible odds. It seems to me what they did was, you know, martin Luther King did not necessarily focus on black versus white. He focused on agape love. We're all human, you know. Let's all love each other. That was sort of the message. Nelson Mandela wasn't talking about black and white South Africans, he was talking about South Africa. He even used the rugby team as a way to unite all South Africans. And so this to me we have evidence for this in very big movements across the world. And I love what you're saying as aspiring next level humans this idea that we need to learn the skill of connecting on sort of micro levels, where it's like you know, me and you are both interested in psychology, research and that kind of stuff, and we can vibe on that Right, and we can vibe on different areas, and we need to understand that. But I think we lose that. We need to keep going up the level when we are dealing in bigger groups. And to me, one of the things I focused on is I just go, we all suffer like this is a Buddhist principle, right? It's like you know, if there's one thing that we can say, I know this about Juliana, she knows it about me. We've never met before. I know it about all you listeners. You know it about us. Every single human has a story of suffering. You know it about us. Every single human has a story of suffering. And so, from my perspective, when I think about loving my fellow human, I go. I know you talking to an American. Sure, I can vibe, and don't you love being American? Yes, I love being an American too. But if I'm talking to someone outside of America, instead of othering them, I can just essentially go oh, we're all now human.

Speaker 1: 44:30

Sometimes I wish, juliana, that we would just get contacted by aliens or something, because I think that might be the thing that might make us go. You know what? We better get on board that we're all humans, we're all in this together, but right now we don't sort of have that. So let me just catch up where we are and then we can kind of begin wrapping up. But it sounds like a couple of things that now I've learned from you. Number one, this idea that we're not trying to win when we're having these discussions. Number two we really need to develop a sense of humility.

Speaker 1: 45:05

Another thing I've learned is that this idea that guess what? Most of us don't want this polarization that's a way that we can connect right. That alone is a way that we can begin to connect with each other. And then this idea of finding these commonalities and realizing that that is going to be the thing that tears us apart. Why can't we find, instead of searching for, what makes us different? This is just a mindset of going where are we the same? How can I connect in the same? I know you guys have sort of a whole set of things that you do and teach, and I know you're, if I'm right, you're doing a challenge on this to help people understand how to be better with this. Do you want to walk us through, like, some of the things that we can do and what this challenge is all about and some of the steps that we can take on an individual level? Because I know from my perspective, I would really like to practice this, especially, you know, during this time where we're seeing all these differences between us.

Speaker 2: 45:59

Yeah, absolutely yes. So one that you can do individually. A science-based skill that you can apply more easily is seeing the person, not the label is what we're calling it. So when we learn personal details about others beyond their labels all labels, but yes, in the context of politics, it's also their political labels Research points to us viewing them with more warmth by tricking your brain, by asking yourself simple questions like do they like broccoli or carrots, or do they like cats or dogs?

Speaker 2: 46:51

And what this does is that it allows us to truly take a step back and understand that people, even people who are different from you, have individual qualities and individual traits, and they are more than the category right. And then, if you want to take it a step further, then you would try learning something more personal about them, and this could be something about their family or hobbies or, if you're in the same company, something that they like about the job. Right. And again, science shows us that when we learn personal details about those who may seem different from us, we are feeling more warmth and connection towards them, and so that's an easy one, honestly, that anyone can start today. You know what?

Speaker 1: 47:38

that makes me think of. It makes me think of this idea. You know, like when we watch TV like sometimes you watch the you'll even watch like a movie about like a serial killer or a show about a serial killer, and you'll watch these shows and you'll develop some sense of connection to that because you deeply understand the story. It just makes me think that you're basically saying here that understand people's stories. And when you understand people's stories it's going to usually help you connect. I also like this idea that we can connect on the fact that we both like dogs, or we can connect on the fact that you can teach me about cats. So it's like this idea of you and me. Let's say we both like dogs. I'm like, cool, I love dogs. We start talking about dogs, but let's say I love dogs and you love cats. Then I get to connect on you, with you, to teach me about cats and you know. So it's like it sounds to me like we're just trying to connect and go deeper with that.

Speaker 1: 48:29

Yeah, what else, what else?

Speaker 2: 48:36

I'm curious, so that's, that's a good one. Or sports team lovers, um, and then. And then you were pointing to perspective taking, also with like, you know, when you, when you see a narrative, um, even on television, and understand where the person is coming from, right, like that is perspective taking. You are taking their perspective, um, and and even if you don't engage directly with the other person, research shows that we can broaden our perspective when we just ask ourselves what experiences might have shaped their views, right, so it's not rocket science, it's very common sense, but it allows us to take some distance and to understand that maybe they're not the monster we're making them out to be. Another really good one, that's a more kind of one that you can do on your own.

Speaker 2: 49:30

Is self-distancing, really bothering you about something someone said to you or on social media? You could take a moment and notice your emotions and instead of asking yourself why am I so angry, you would ask yourself why is fill in the blank your name, in my case Juliana, why is Juliana so angry? What makes her so upset about this? You talk to yourself in the third person and using her and she pronouns, and it allows you to take some distance again and to understand from a little bit of a distance what you're feeling, and it allows you to almost, like, re regain your composure, uh, so that you can again, uh, engage in conversation or approach the person for conversation, but it it kind of it stops you in your impulses.

Speaker 1: 53:18

Um, so I love that one. I love that one. I'll tell you I I train coaches, that we have human coaches as part of the next level human and one of the things that we found most powerful in working with our clients is dimensionalizing their consciousness by either saying, hey, let's talk to your little girl, or let's talk to your little boy, or let's talk to your adolescent self, or let's talk to your future self, and then even let's talk to that emotion, so internal family systems and some of these things. We use this technique and it's highly effective at getting people to understand themselves a little bit better ready to engage.

Speaker 2: 53:49

Then we talk about listening with compassion and the importance of and power of listening with compassion. Because we may enter a conversation wanting to honestly serve the other person as we listen and help them make meaning of the story and almost co-create with you, and I would hope that that's the intention of entering a conversation when you're trying to listen with compassion. But then science tells us that when we listen, just the act of us listening makes us be perceived by the other person as more trustworthy and it also encourages our conversation partners or the people who are listening to us be more open minded and less defensive. So just like stopping there to think and realize and recognize the power of listening and really making people see you differently, just by you stopping and giving them the time of day and recognizing yeah.

Speaker 1: 55:07

Can I comment on that? Because I think this might be the most powerful thing that you've said, at least for me. I don't know what you listeners think, but at least for me, because the idea is that we have this idea that we can convince and we want to convince, and we oftentimes get caught in that. And to me, what you're saying, Juliana, is so powerful. You're essentially saying that if when I know this research as well, but correct me if I'm wrong on this what I think a lot of people don't understand is, the more you try to convince and tell someone they're wrong, the more they dig in their heels. What Juliana is so, in other words, you actually are defeating your purpose of convincing anybody of anything when you tell them they're wrong.

Speaker 1: 55:52

But what Juliana is pointing us to is this idea of we don't actually have to do anything but listen, and this makes someone more likely to change their mind. What she's telling us is that when we listen from a compassionate place, people become more open and they become more. You have the ability to influence and inspire simply by your presence of listening. I find that such a simple, powerful, beautiful aspect of being human. We don't have to do. It's almost like we can change people in the idea of just acting and being present, versus being in people's faces.

Speaker 2: 56:20

A hundred percent, yeah, I love that. That's all people need. There's a quote I love by David Augsburger, who's a theology expert, in his book Caring Enough to Confront. He says being heard is so close to being loved that for the average person they are almost indistinguishable. And I just want us to sit with that for a minute because it's so powerful. That's all we want. Being listened to is one of our most fundamental needs.

Speaker 1: 56:49

I think I may have lost you, Juliana, but if you can hear me, you may want to come off and log back in. You're quiet.

Speaker 2: 56:57

It changes the game.

Speaker 1: 56:58

You look like you're locked up on me. See if you come back. So we'll see if, uh, if juliana pops back in um, because we just lost her on the feed, but hopefully she'll, she'll uh, come back in. But I loved essentially what she was saying there. You know, in regards to this idea of listening and compassionately listening, and I do think if we're going to listen as humans in this way, we do have to come at it from a place of there's something here for me to learn rather than there's something for me to teach. That's where the humility piece sort of comes in. For us. It's really powerful.

Speaker 1: 57:46

And then just realizing that there's a story here from this person and stories are interesting, I mean there's no better way to connect with someone in my mind than to say to them tell me about your story. I mean, who doesn't want to share their story? Right? And I think that is a big piece of this and this idea that when we are in this place where we have somebody sharing their story and we're listening from that perspective, there's deep connection. There's deep connection there. So Juliana's coming back in. I was just telling him, juliana, that, just filling him in on this idea.

Speaker 1: 58:24

I love this idea of just listening, because one of the things I think that's important is there's nothing more connection oriented than saying, hey, juliana, tell me your story, where are you from, what are you doing? There's nothing that opens people up more than that, and so I love that aspect of things a lot and, I have to be honest, it's something that I'm not necessarily great about. I'll tell you a secret I'm really good with, like, if I meet Juliana or if I meet any of you listeners. I'm really good at compassion and listening, but you know who I'm not good at it with is my family and my brothers and my sisters and my parents and my cousins and my aunts and uncles. It's like somehow with them, I guess, because there's more history there, I can easily go back into my base level self. But yeah, julianne, so now that I got you back, what else besides? Well, you were going to tell us about this favorite quote of yours. Times is by David Augsburger.

Speaker 2: 59:28

He's a theology expert. In his book Caring Enough to Confront, he says being heard is so close to being loved that for the average person they are almost indistinguishable.

Speaker 1: 59:41

Oh, wow, yeah, that is super, super powerful. And how many of us can relate to that Like 100%? You know it's funny, super, super powerful. And how many of us can relate to that Like a hundred percent? Like you know, it's funny sometimes that I, when I used to date a lot right, and I would go on these dates with individuals and this, this would make itself known because I'm just someone who, when I meet someone for the first time, I just let them talk and I'm very interested in people's stories and but I, there were a couple of times there where I'm, you know, she's like that was amazing, you know, and I'm thinking to myself, I didn't even say anything, like I don't know why she thinks I'm amazing. I literally said nothing, and so I do think this speaks to kind of what you're speaking about. So, as we wrap up, I guess I would love to hear your final things, and then I want to hear about, you know, this connection challenge.

Speaker 2: 1:00:25

Yeah, absolutely so. Let's see from our other skills that we haven't talked about, I think, identifying common goals. We already touched on moral reframing and kind of connecting with their values and not your values. What?

Speaker 1: 1:00:41

would that be like, though? What would that be like? Common goals of, like you know, in politics, let's say, maintaining the democracy, or common goals of, you know, freedom of autonomy, and you know what is that. Or is that more more personal and not, you know, sort of political?

Speaker 2: 1:00:55

Yeah, I mean I think we we take it to the personal. Obviously, at the policy and political level there's a lot that politics do to identify common goals to move forward.

Speaker 2: 1:01:10

But at the personal level it could be as simple as do we care about the education system and the quality of education that kids are getting Right?

Speaker 2: 1:01:21

That is a common goal that a lot of us can get around.

Speaker 2: 1:01:25

That a lot of us can get around.

Speaker 2: 1:01:28

And the idea is that when we identify those shared goals, especially one that identifies everyone involved, we end up putting aside our differences and cooperating.

Speaker 2: 1:01:41

And then, once we are cooperating on common goals, it's easier to shift our perceptions or perspectives of people from maybe you know adversaries to simply collaborators, right? So I just want us to think of that too, that sometimes the best way and depending on who you are like, you may be called into a conversation for the sake of listening with compassion and dialogue and getting to know the other person's perspective and way of being in this world, but we won't attract everyone into bridge building and those conversations in that way. So just acknowledging that, you know, for practitioners, executing this work oftentimes a common goal and like what is in the interest of all parties involved is a great way to begin to bring groups together, because it taps to a shared need and it's easy to do, like it boils down to identifying what is a goal that we share and then kind of mapping out ways that we can collaborate and having enough moments of interaction so that we are beginning to see past our differences and are beginning to value what we each contribute to this shared goal.

Speaker 1: 1:03:03

Yeah, I love that idea. Yeah, I love that idea. To me, I can almost see myself in a conversation using your example and saying, instead of saying sounds to me like you don't care about kids, I could say well, it looks like we're both that you're you care, and so now we can continue dialogue versus me. You know, saying you don't care, and all of a sudden there's a record scratch where it's like you know. It turns into an argument I love, I love that idea.

Speaker 2: 1:03:36

A hundred percent. That level sets the conversation and people feel seen, when you acknowledge that you are seeing something that is also important to them, but maybe their approach to it is a little bit different from yours. So how can those approaches merge so that true collaboration and cooperation can happen and so you can begin to change the perspective or perception of who this person previously was in your mind?

Speaker 1: 1:04:01

You know what else I love too, juliana? I love the idea that having a conversation with someone and by me showing up this way, I do think they're much more likely to show up this way in their next conversation. It reminds me of this idea when I'm walking down the trail by my house and I like to smile at people as they pass, and the truth is, most don't smile back. Right, I try to make eye contact, I try to smile at them and most people aren't going to smile back, and I just keep doing that because part of me goes maybe I didn't see him smile back, but I know they're going to feel that and I also know they're far more likely to smile or be in a good mood to the next person that they pass, and I think this is part of that too.

Speaker 1: 1:04:39

I do think that we humans want to matter and make a difference. I think most of us want to matter and make a difference, and this is a very positive way that we can do this without, you know, having to give up our values or be different. I just love the idea of this. It's very simple to do. So let me ask you, with this challenge that you're doing, walk us through how this works? And is it essentially this idea that we're taking these skill sets that you've sort of educated us on and we're just challenging ourselves to use these for a certain amount of days, or how does this work?

Speaker 2: 1:05:13

Yeah, absolutely. So we have a seven-day campaign for connection challenge. So, leading up to the election, we are not campaigning for a candidate, not campaigning for the hatred, division, polarization that is hurting us, but we are campaigning for connection, because we do believe that politics may divide us, but we can choose connection. So we've created seven days of skills that we are disseminating on a daily basis. So when people sign up they will be getting a skill a day and each of those skills is an invitation to practice. So obviously, in a day maybe you won't get to foster a relationship and collaborate on shared goals, so we're very mindful of that.

Speaker 2: 1:06:02

So we have kind of kept it at maybe a self-reflection practice, or maybe you visualize someone in a different light, or maybe you do turn to your partner or roommates and listen to them with compassion not necessarily on politics, right. So the idea is that we're beginning to equip folks, to build the muscles to be able to do this in their everyday lives and incrementally increase their ability to engage across difference, even intense, conversations. So we know that you won't necessarily jump into the hardest conversation or into the longest bridge right, we talk about short bridges also. So maybe it's a bridge with someone you love, that you have a disagreement on something, and then eventually, you can get to someone you don't know that you have a big disagreement on a policy issue, right? So like thinking of it as short and long bridges. And when might you be ready to engage in that long bridge and understanding that it is truly like exercising it is a muscle that can be worked out so that you can be prepared to have those harder conversations when the time comes.

Speaker 1: 1:07:24

Yeah, I love this Kind of like basic training for next level humans. So is there kind of a? I love that level humans, yes, so is there a? Is there kind of a? I love that a lot, so is it. Is there a link or where can I send people to to find this?

Speaker 2: 1:07:34

absolutely. Um, let me. We have a tiny uh url that is circulating, but let me, let me tell you the tiny url.

Speaker 1: 1:07:43

Um yeah, I just love this idea of you know, with this, not having to be heavy lifting. You know what I also like, julianne? I also like that it's right around election time, because I do think this is the most important time to do this work and to get these skill sets.

Speaker 2: 1:07:59

Yeah, absolutely so. Our tiny URL is 7daychallenge24. Seven day 7daychallenge. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 1:08:08

Challenge 24. Seven Day Challenge yeah, 24.

Speaker 2: 1:08:12

Seven, number seven day with caps, challenge with C caps and 24. I'm happy to pop it in the chat and to make it available in show notes afterwards as well. Yeah 100%.

Speaker 1: 1:08:26

I'll put it in the show notes for sure. I appreciate you. So, juliana, any any further. First of all, thank you for your work. You know, from my perspective, these are the organizations that I really want to. You know. The greater good science center. Thank you for your work there. Thank you for helping translate all this science for us. Thank you for bringing simple ways for us to just be better humans and connect. And is there any other thing that you want to say or leave us with?

Speaker 2: 1:08:52

I just want to say that we can do this right, like in this moment of anxiety and stress and division. It's hard to forget that we can do this stress and division. It's hard to forget that we can do this, and I just want to leave people with the idea that this is possible, that we have seen people do this across some of the most complex divides and really walk away, not changing their position on the issue, but changing how they perceive the other person and feeling an enormous relief from that, and that's what we're inviting you to do. We're not changing anyone's perspective on issues. We are changing how we feel about others and we are connecting at a deeper level with others and we are feeling better about ourselves and we are feeling better about the polarization and hatred because we are doing something about it.

Speaker 1: 1:09:55

Yeah, I love it. I think this work is so important. Thank you again. Juliana Tafor, thank you for being here. Go ahead and hang on the line. I'm going to shut down the record, just make sure everything uploads, but for all of you listening, thank you so much for hanging out with us and we will see you at the next show.

Speaker 2: 1:10:11

Thank you.