Understanding

Kurt Gray, a psychology professor and the author of Outraged: Why We Fight about Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground, discusses leaning into curiosity, asking questions and fostering understanding when political conversations veer into controversial territory. He emphasizes that persuasion begins with empathy, not facts, and argues that deep listening is essential in rebuilding relationships fractured by politics. For Gray, genuine dialogue means recognizing shared moral motivations, even when beliefs differ starkly. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When we disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Status differences can complicate any conversation. Imagine two friends planning a road trip. One has been on dozens of cross country adventures while the other rarely ventures beyond their hometown.

The experienced traveler might dominate the planning assuming their knowledge is superior. But what if the novice really has a knack for finding hidden roadside gems and quaint diners and cute bookstores and kitschy bars? And even more. If the conversation is tilted by perceived expertise, the trip might miss out on real fun.

This is where the concept of bracketed status differences is important. In an ideal public sphere, theorized by many rider citizens temporarily set aside their social rank, their wealth, and their expertise. When they [00:01:00] debate each other, in other words, they debate as equals. They show evidence rather than assert it.

Everyone's voice is treated relatively equally. That doesn't mean that everybody's right, and it certainly doesn't mean that everybody has a valid point of view. Or that their arguments are true, but the focus shifts from who is speaking to what is being said. Think about family gatherings. Maybe there's an uncle who's a doctor and weighs in on every health related topic, but the youngest cousin is in a biology class and brings up some really new research that she learned in college.

In a free and fair conversation, the cousin wouldn't be casually dismissed for lacking credentials. Instead, the argument itself, the research she shared would be scrutinized. Did the data hold up? Is the reasoning sound bracketing status? Differences is, of course, much easier set than done. Power dynamics tend to creep in picture, a workplace meeting where a junior employee has a groundbreaking idea.[00:02:00] 

Even if it's brilliant, the CEO might brush it aside. While a more senior manager making essentially the same suggestion, could get applause when status trumps substance, good ideas can get lost. But when people consciously create a space where status is bracketed, conversations can change. It's not about pretending we don't have different backgrounds or experiences.

It's about refusing to let those differences hijack the pursuit of a collective decision. I'm Michael Lee, professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. Our guest today on When We Disagree is Kurt Gray. Kurt is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, where he directs the deepest beliefs lab.

And the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding. His latest book is Outrage. Why We Fight about Morality and Politics, and How to Find Common Ground. Kurt, tell us an argument story. 

Kurt Gray: Uh, [00:03:00] well, I try not to have so many arguments because my whole shtick is moral understanding, but I'll tell you about, um, a kind of exciting conversation about morality.

So I took an Uber ride to the airport. The driver asked what I do. I told him I study morality in politics, and he said, well, here's what I think about morality in politics. I'm a Christian nationalist, but not the typical kind. I. And so what I could have done was say, well, I, I don't agree with Christian nationalism, but instead, what I asked and I asked questions was, well, what does that mean?

I've never met a Christian nationalist, let alone an atypical one. So he told me his views on the church, the state, the family. We asked, I asked lots of questions. I felt like I really understood the nuances of his arguments. And then as we're getting closer to the airport, maybe 20 minutes later, we start.

I guess having a disagreement about abortion and he [00:04:00] likened all those who were pro-choice to the Gestapo, to Nazis. And I teach a class on how to have better disagreements on how to have moral understanding. And I stopped him after that, you know, Nazi comparison. And I said, hold up. We can't have. A conversation about politics and morality.

Good natured, well-meaning one, if you compare half the country to the Nazis. And then he did something that people rarely do, which is he said, I'm sorry, let me take that back. I was just trying to say this kind of slippery slope idea that if you don't respect feet of life, you don't respect other life.

The fact that he could take a step back and apologize. And as I left the Uber, you know, we shook each other's hands and it's clear that we didn't agree with each other, but it's clear that we respected our positions. And he as a Christian nationalist who probably was predisposed not to like, you know, more [00:05:00] progressive academics, like the folks I hang out with, I think also kinda respected my position.

So I think that's a great example. Mm-hmm. Of a topic. Mm-hmm. And an issue that could really create disagreement, and we still disagree, right? But the way I approached it was something that fostered respect and common ground. 

Michael Lee: I am curious about the first thing you said before we get into the weeds of the atypical Christian nationalist, who apparently is a very capable Uber driver as well.

'cause you got there safely amidst a pretty rancorous argument, which is that you said you try not to have these memorable arguments because of your whole shtick is about understanding. How do you juxtapose those two and, and your story gets into that as well, is a world of understanding a world without argument or is a world of argument, a world with lots of misunderstanding?

Kurt Gray: Uh, I think you can have lots of disagreements with people, right? And I think like that's the world we live in. We live in a pluralistic democracy where there's folks on the left and [00:06:00] folks on the right and and more besides, and I think disagreement and discussion are all essential. And all inevitable.

But I don't think the kind of rancorous arguments, right, that come to mind of like shouting and spittle coming out of your mouth and red face. I mean, I think that's often what we think about when we think of disagreement. But it doesn't have to be that. It's not that in my classes and it's not that when I talk to folks.

And so I think I can imagine like a better kind of disagreement than we often think about. 

Michael Lee: That's right. Okay. So a world of understanding still has inevitable disagreements. The temperature's just taken down. 

Kurt Gray: That's right. We're disagreeing about ideas. We're not thinking that the person we're disagreeing with is a monster.

Right? I think so often in in political discourse today, we think, well, you know, you're trying to burn it all down and I'm the only one in this conversation who's trying to protect our families or America, and I think. My research [00:07:00] shows that that's absolutely wrong, right? People are motivated, everyone's motivated by this desire for protection and, and the desire to kind of like uphold their values, but we seldom recognize that.

At the same time, there's ways to help us recognize that. And when we do, I think conversations go much better, right? When we strive for understanding instead of, you know, victories. Because let's be honest, no one ever gives up. You know, their moral convictions at the end of one of these conversations. But we enter them thinking that people will, um, of course we will never do that, but we think the other person will.

And I think that's just a crazy assumption to make. Like, if you wouldn't do it, then they wouldn't do it. And so let's strive for understanding. 

Michael Lee: And you, when you give the advice to strive for understanding rather, rather than victories, are you saying that in the kind of uber example with the atypical Christian nationalists where this is a one-off conversation?

You know that you have a limited relationship if a mostly non-existent relationship with this one-time person. And so in this [00:08:00] moment, let's strive for understanding, but you and I have a consistent relationship perhaps, and you have come to a belief that I find monstrous, but I would like to sustain our relationship and think there's some value in getting you to change your mind.

Would you say that I could strive for both understanding and victory over the long term? 

Kurt Gray: I think when people have one-off interactions, maybe understanding isn't as important. Right. And I'm so committed to understanding, I will try to understand an Uber driver for 20 minutes instead of playing on my phone.

Right. Or like zoning out and looking at the window. 

Michael Lee: Mm-hmm. 

Kurt Gray: But you know, the book Outrage and all the work that I do, it's really about, these are people you wanna have a relationship with, your coworkers, your family member. Right. Those are especially the times you strive for understanding because you wanna reestablish those relationships.

And it turns out that if you want to persuade folks in the long run, then what you need to do is first understand them, right? You need to understand where they're at, you need to meet them where they're at. And only then [00:09:00] is persuasion possible. So you, I think understanding is, is even more important when you actually have a relationship with someone.

Michael Lee: So in that world, it's not understanding versus victory. It's that understanding precedes victory, at least persuasive victory. 

Kurt Gray: Exactly. Exactly right. Because if you come to this conversation stuck in your head and you're like, I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna throw these these facts at someone that I heard on NPR and that's gonna somehow defeat them and they'll be like, oh, I give up my view on abortion because of these talking points.

You threw it. I guess. I guess you're right. I mean, that has never happened in a conversation ever in the world, you know? 

Michael Lee: Mm-hmm. 

Kurt Gray: And, and so instead, I think if you wanna convince someone that you have a reasonable position, then I think the way to do that is to understand in their mind, the reasonableness of their position, and then kind of pull them closer again by meeting someone where they're at.

Not just assuming that you know everything that [00:10:00] they think is wrong. 

Michael Lee: When I try this, this line of argument and it is one that I, I deeply believe in when I try it in front of audiences of I'm giving talks on dialogue and debate and how to depolarize, how to be persuasive. The two pushbacks I most often get.

And I'm curious as to your response 'cause you've researched this question so much is. Are you giving up on the fact, right? Are you giving up on the idea of facts when you start with a position of common ground and you hear somebody out who's saying things that you know to be false? And the consensus amongst experts is that this is false.

And then second. When you seek to understand is that naturally slipping into seeking to validate, to affirm as well. And so in other words, are you platforming and tacitly agreeing with these ideas if you seek to understand them first? 

Kurt Gray: Maybe I'll answer the second question first about the tacit agreements.

Um, in understanding, I [00:11:00] do think there is some validation. I do think there is some sense that people need to feel like they're heard and their views. Are respected so that they can feel comfortable. Shifting their perspective as I did with the Uber driver, right? If I argued against him for 20 minutes that he's wrong and an idiot and evil, then he wouldn't have apologized and taken back the invocation of the Nazis.

Right? And so I think affirming someone like I, I understand how you could, you could think that, especially given, you know, your experiences growing up, right? Your other values. I think that is a kind of very person centric understanding. It's not saying that your position is right, you can even say, right.

I don't agree with that position politically, but I understand kind of like the reasons why, why you might, you know, be drawn to that position. So I think that's, that's a little different than just kind of validating the general position as much as their experience. Then the second question about facts, [00:12:00] it's a good one.

I mean, sometimes there's disagreement about like, which facts are most relevant. So take guns. I'm group in Canada, no handguns. I I'm not really into, you know, the existence of handguns, but there, there is a fact of the matter that some people have used guns to defend themselves and their family. You can see stories of this on the internet.

You can read stories about this. And so when someone says, look, I'm pro gun rights because I want to have a gun and, and protect my family, I can say. Think of all the times that, you know, kids die because of guns that are not protected or whatever. But they might say, well, I'm a very careful gun owner and I'm doing it to protect my family.

And so their kind of statistics I think are on my side. But they can marshal statistics that that show that many people use guns in self-defense. So I think the issue is more complicated than we think about it. Of course, there's other issues like I think vaccines, right? As a scientist and pro-vaccine.

Um. That that I think the facts are, are really [00:13:00] squarely in our corner as as scientists. And there, I think, well, facts do matter, but again, the only way you're gonna convince people pragmatically, right? Practically, I. Is by striving to understand their feelings, their opposition to vaccines, meeting 'em where they're at, and then trying to pull them along.

It's not, you can't start with being like, well, you're an idiot. That's not the truth. That's not the facts. That's not gonna change anyone's mind. So I think my goals are really pragmatic. Even if we think that, you know, the facts are clear, 

Michael Lee: I'm struck by a kind of asymmetry. In terms of the way that people are persuaded between what you're suggesting and many people are suggesting.

And, and you're on the show now, so we'll talk about your position, but it is kind of a part of a larger dialogue based movement of, of mutual understanding and the way that mass persuasion even radicalization happens around issues. So let's just say you and I were having a discussion about how many [00:14:00] people.

Have been persuaded in the past five years that there's something nefarious going on, something really risky going on with vaccines. And would you say that that persuasive process has been a fairly rational process based on mutual understanding, perspective taken in re in respect, given No, it's a, it's a process largely driven by fear.

And fear based arguments. Right? Radical argument, this is gonna hurt you, this is gonna hurt your kids, you're gonna die. There's something secret in these things. And then the antidote, you're saying. Is respect and understanding and coming at them. Not fight. Fear with fear, say, no, that's right. These are gonna save your life.

You're gonna die if you don't take these. That's not what you're saying. 

Kurt Gray: Right. I think I'm saying, of course, these persuasion tactics rely on fears and worries about harms because that's how our moral mind operates. You know, I have, I have more than a decade of research that suggests every single moral judgment we make [00:15:00] is grounded in perceptions of harm that underlies all of our moral and political convictions.

But those perceptions of harm are intuitive and visceral. Right. And so you can't come out with someone with a rational argument dispelling their kind of visceral fears. So if I ask you to put a fork in an outlet, right, and I say, trust me, the outlet's turned off. You're gonna hesitate before you stick the fork in the electric outlet, right?

Because you get this visceral sense, like, I don't know. Or if you're afraid of flying and you're sweating and twitching as there's turbulence, and I say, you know what? Actually it's super safe, but then the plane drops, you know, a hundred feet in the air, right? And everyone gives a little shout. I want, you know, you still have the feeling.

And I can't say, well, you're stupid. You know, you're stupid. It's, it's safe to fly. Like just get over it. Instead, I need to say. You know, I understand you're, you're really afraid. And it's super frightening when there's [00:16:00] turbulence and you meet someone where they're at, and then you can marshal the statistics of like, well, here's some facts about planes you maybe didn't know.

Right. And so it doesn't mean dispel the facts entirely, but it means you first have to kind of acknowledge people's intuitions and their visceral fears. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. And, and I guess my point is that when we wade into these debates, let's say it's about vaccine or something, then. The folks who are saying that, um, X is really bad for you.

You think it's good, but it's really bad for you are using a bazooka of fear. And here the recommendation, at least from the other side, seems to be we come in with scalpels of moral understanding. 

Kurt Gray: I think that's right. I think that's right. I mean, I think it's also useful to recognize that our minds operate on the idea of stories instead of statistics.

We're like storytelling creatures and with statist, or sorry, with vaccines. There [00:17:00] are actual real stories of people being harmed through vaccines. It's not typical. I. Right. But it is very real. Mm-hmm. Those stories, and if you anchor on those stories, like that's the bazooka, right? You're like, well, here's this case of terribleness and I put something in my child's body and it hurt them.

Or it killed them. Mm-hmm. And so the, the fear of kind of, you might catch a disease statistically if you don't get this, and it might be stronger if you don't get this right. I think that's harder to grasp in this real story. And so. Uh, that's part of meeting people where they're at, is recognizing the power of stories, and I don't think that we need to.

You know, surrender all of our facts, obviously to that story, but recognize its power and the power to like viscerally create fear. Um, and I think once you, once you kind of meet people where they're at there, then I think you can, you can try to like marshal these other. Fears as well, but never through a are you stupid kind of attitude.[00:18:00] 

Michael Lee: Yeah. Well said. And, and to that point, uh, we're talking about kind of norms of exchange, norms of decorum, how we should talk to one another, fear-based arguments versus these kind of moral understanding scalpels. It draws me back to a question I was thinking of about earlier when you were in this argument, Uber argument with the atypical Christian nationalist, which is when the Christian nationalist driver started comparing those who were.

Pro-choice to the Gestapo and, and then, and then inevitably apologized it sounds like, and kind of walked that line back a little bit. Taking that more broadly, under what circumstances is it appropriate or is it wise from a persuasive point of view, or is it moral perhaps? To draw that boundary and say, no, I think this is really moral, morally monstrous, and include an epithet, a label like that.

Maybe it's not the Nazis, but it's something else. Or make that kind of a slippery slope argument. Like I think your, I think your position on this issue licenses all sorts of moral [00:19:00] monstrosities that you haven't considered. 

Kurt Gray: Yeah, it's a good question and I think we need to consider what's the, what's the purpose of this conversation that you're having with someone?

Are, are you trying to persuade them or are you trying to just establish, you know, your moral convictions? And if you're just trying to say, well, here's what I believe, then. Maybe it makes sense to make that strong argument. Right, but, but I don't think there's a world in which anyone's better off in a one-on-one conversation where you're trying to kind of pull people towards your viewpoint when you suggest that they're in Lee with the Nazis.

Right. I mean, especially if family members, coworkers, right? You're at the water cooler, you're like, what are you, Hitler? Right? Like that. I don't think that's gonna help. I, I do think it's important, however, to distinguish conversations with everyday people, [00:20:00] 99% who are well-meaning and like just trying to make the right choice for themselves and their family with some political elites, right?

So I, I don't think. You know, you need to have like a deep well of compassion for let's say, Elon Musk, right? I think the majority of Americans aren't thinking like, wow, I really wanna understand him and have compassion for his perspectives when he is, you know, maybe slashing social security or whatever, right?

Like no one voted for Elon. And so I don't think we need to worry about him as much. But I think everyday people, I think we really need to resist the urge to think that they're motivated to destroy. And that they see themselves as Nazis, right? Everyone is just trying to kind of do their best for themselves and their family.

Michael Lee: One big question as we close, and a question about curiosity, about your reactions to your research. You've been un really researching persuasion and moral understanding for a hot minute, and you've collected [00:21:00] it into this book. Outrage. What's, what's something that's really surprised you along the way?

Either a finding or a recommendation, a study. 

Kurt Gray: I think, you know, I've been studying this for, for a long time, um, and collecting lots of data. Um, but I think what what maybe most surprised me is the kind of first third of the, of the book, uh, in moral in Outraged, and that's about our kind of human nature. I.

Um, and this is something that I didn't research directly but really read about and we assume that humans evolved as predators, as apex predators. And it turns out that we were much more hunted than hunter prey than predator. And you know, thinking of how we evolved millions of years ago, might seem far away from moral conflict today, but I think.

What really gets me interested in this is like there's a, there's like really a direct link, right? We're so afraid [00:22:00] in our past of getting eaten by saber tooth cats and our kids getting picked off by eagles and devoured and nests. That, that, that's like deep within our minds, right? And so today we're maybe safer from wild animals, although if you went into the forest, you know, at dusk and no one was around, you might still get creeped out.

But today we still have this kind of fear, this threat, and we can't help but like trigger these fears. So no, even if we're super safe today, in a relative sense, right, there's less crime, there's no wild animals. We still project these fears and threats onto the world and worry about them. And so I think that's important for folks to keep in mind, right?

Like no matter how safe you actually are, you can't help but worry about these threats. And so. Political leaders capitalize on that to make us afraid, but also we can capitalize that in conversation to help us understand each other. 

Michael Lee: Yeah, it's an evolutionary notion and it's also a, a burkean notion, Edmund Burke, in that sense that what human beings have this contradictory nature, motivated by massive [00:23:00] negativity, biases, and fear can lead us to be awestruck by power and things that make us feel safe.

But it can also make us. Deeply empathetic and social animals who need to cooperate to better our individual and collective lives. 

Kurt Gray: Exactly right. We all rely on community to flourish and to thrive, and those community bonds are fractured today by politics. And I think the way to kind of reestablish that community is by, you know, striving for understanding, and recognizing that people are motivated by, you know, protecting themselves from the fears they see.

Michael Lee: Kurt Gray, thank you so much for being on when we Disagree. 

Kurt Gray: Thanks for having me. 

Michael Lee: When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse KZ and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We [00:24:00] disagree@gmail.com.