Latest / The Original Self Podcast / Why Disagreement Feel Personal | The Psychology of Conflict

Transcript

Why Disagreement Feel Personal | The Psychology of Conflict · The Original Self Podcast

0:00
She said, the reason the price of gas is so high
0:03
is because of Gavin Newsom. I replied, are governors
0:07
the one who determines the price per gallon at
0:09
the pump? She nodded her head. I smiled. I took
0:13
in a shallow breath and explained how crude oil
0:16
prices, taxes and fees, California's cleaner
0:19
burning fuel blend, and its isolated fuel market
0:23
all affect prices at the pump. She stared at
0:26
me. I tried to soften my rapid -fire explanation
0:30
and, frankly, hide my annoyance by saying, but
0:33
you're pretty new to the state, aren't you? It
0:36
sounded like a question. I wasn't really asking.
0:44
Hey everyone, it's Evet. Today we're exploring
0:48
why disagreement feels personal and what happens
0:53
psychologically when being corrected begins to
0:56
feel like being judged. Looking back at my last
1:00
comment, it could have easily sounded condescending.
1:05
I mean, let's face it, I was passive aggressively
1:07
challenging her ignorance. And it made me think
1:10
of when did I think you're wrong become I think
1:15
you're a bad person or ignorant or whatever,
1:19
something negative. There are psychological reasons
1:22
for this shift. A correction can threaten our
1:27
sense of competence. A belief can become part
1:30
of our loyalty to a group. And then we sometimes
1:34
look for reasons to defend what we already want
1:38
to believe. Once a conversation touches on those
1:42
things, more information may not address what's
1:46
making it difficult. This happens among friends
1:49
who have known each other for years. Obviously,
1:52
family dinner tables. Here comes the holidays.
1:54
It completely happens on social media every day.
1:58
all the time, and it happens sometimes in conversations
2:02
at work. Discussions about gas prices, politics,
2:06
and even parenting can reveal how quickly we
2:10
judge whether someone is reasonable or compassionate
2:13
or even worth listening to. What are we protecting
2:18
when we insist on being right? And then how do
2:22
we recognize the difference between defending
2:25
a value that we hold dear? and offending ourselves
2:29
from embarrassment. If you find yourself holding
2:33
back to avoid conflict or you're replaying conversations
2:37
in your head, you know, fantasy fighting with
2:39
the responses you should have said or regretting
2:43
the ones that you did say, we can work on it
2:46
together in coaching. I offer a free discovery
2:49
call through DeCota Life Coaching to talk about
2:51
what you'd like to work on and whether coaching
2:53
might be a good fit. You can find the link in
2:56
this episode's notes. And just so you know, there's
2:58
no pressure to commit. So before we get into
3:02
it, I want to tell you why this matters to me.
3:05
I recently watched the movie, The Social Reckoning,
3:08
which is like the follow up to the previous Facebook
3:12
movie, The Social Network, which was in 2010.
3:17
The Social Reckoning left me thinking about the
3:20
harm that misinformation can do to us as a country
3:23
and as a society. It can shape whom we fear,
3:28
whom we blame. That concerns me. What happens
3:32
when keeping us angry and divided serves someone
3:34
else's financial or political interests? Because
3:38
when falsehoods are deliberately spread for wealth
3:42
or power, our distrust becomes useful to the
3:46
people spreading them. We turn against one another
3:48
while they gain attention, while they gain money
3:52
or influence. And that gives this conversation
3:55
a larger purpose. Understanding why disagreement
3:59
feels personal can help us recognize when someone
4:03
is using those feelings to turn us against each
4:06
other. Many disagreements involve three factors.
4:10
What someone actually said, why they said it,
4:14
and then the meaning we assign to their position.
4:17
Those factors can become quickly entangled. Someone
4:22
disagrees with the decision and we hear, oh,
4:24
they don't care about the people affected. Someone
4:27
questions a claim. We hear that they're defending
4:31
everything associated with it. Or when someone
4:34
says they support a solution, we may assume they're
4:38
okay with the outcomes that they didn't think
4:41
through. Think about when we were told that the
4:44
need for ICE enforcement on the streets was to
4:47
deal with dangerous criminals. But in Chicago,
4:52
a federal judge found that ICE had repeatedly
4:54
made warrantless arrests in violation of a court
4:58
order that limits them. The Trump administration
5:02
agreed that 13 of the people it had detained
5:04
were arrested unlawfully, and an appeals court
5:08
later upheld the ruling. And in Minneapolis,
5:14
Minnesota, December of 2025, the federal government
5:18
launched Operation Metro Surge. That fun little
5:23
surge began with roughly 2,000 federal agents
5:26
and grew to as many as 4,000 by the end of January,
5:32
all in the city of Minneapolis. In that surge,
5:37
you might remember that agents shot and killed
5:39
two American citizens. Renee Good was shot in
5:43
the head in her SUV by an ICE agent while leaving
5:46
an area they were swarming. And Alex Pretti, an
5:50
ICU nurse at a VA hospital, was pepper sprayed
5:54
and shot by multiple Border Patrol agents, just
5:58
after holding up his phone to record them during
6:00
a protest and stepping in to help a woman who
6:03
had been knocked down. As he was forced down,
6:07
with his legs and arms pinned by agents, Ten
6:11
shots were fired at Pretti by multiple agents,
6:14
and then a medical examiner ruled his death a
6:18
homicide. Consider this: the 238 Venezuelan men
6:23
flown to El Salvador's CECOT prison in March
6:26
of 2025 did not have a chance to ask a court
6:30
to review their detentions, breaking the enshrined
6:34
constitutional right to habeas corpus. A federal
6:39
judge ordered the planes to turn around, but
6:41
all three landed in El Salvador anyway. CBS News
6:46
reported that about three -quarters of the men
6:49
that were on those planes had no apparent criminal
6:52
record. Human Rights Watch and Cristosal documented
6:59
systematic abuse inside the CECOT Prison, which
7:03
they described in many cases as torture. So three
7:08
-quarters of those men with no apparent criminal
7:11
record were sent out of our country to a prison
7:15
where they described torture. I know I've gone
7:20
hard with these examples, and I've done it on
7:22
purpose. They aren't abstract for me. When people
7:26
are arrested without warrants, shot while recording,
7:30
or sent to prisons without a hearing, I don't
7:33
hear a difference of opinion about policy. I
7:37
hear a question about whether our rights apply
7:40
to everyone. And when thousands of federal agents
7:43
are sent into an American city, I see power being
7:48
used against the very people it's supposed to
7:51
protect. Everything I've just described is documented.
7:55
And that's why it matters so much to me. If I'm
7:59
asking you what you're protecting, I should tell
8:02
you what I'm protecting. Because I find those
8:06
examples I just talked about inhumane. You might
8:10
be thinking of examples that shape your view.
8:13
I'd love to hear them. When someone says they
8:17
support stricter immigration policies, I want
8:20
to ask them three things. Is this what I just
8:24
described? What you support? Did you anticipate
8:28
that this could happen? And then how do you respond
8:32
to it now? now knowing that two American citizens
8:36
were murdered. What someone answers gives me
8:40
an actual position to examine, and when necessary,
8:44
challenge. And it helps to remember how often
8:48
we get the other side's position wrong before
8:51
they even said a word. In 2024, the National
8:55
Academy of Sciences, or PNAS Nexus, published
8:58
a story that found that Democrats and Republicans
9:01
each think the other side is more okay with things
9:06
like tax fraud or cheating on a spouse than they
9:09
actually are. In some experiments, learning that
9:13
that opponent condemned those acts made people
9:17
less likely to see that person than less than
9:19
human. It doesn't mean the parties agree on immigration
9:23
or other decisive issues. but it does show that
9:27
we misjudge each other on widely condemned acts.
9:32
That's the third factor again, the meaning we
9:34
assign to someone's position. Before I decide
9:37
what their position says about them, shouldn't
9:41
I find out what it actually is? Back to my former
9:44
client. She blamed the governor for high gas
9:47
prices. I disagreed. But I never asked how she
9:51
had reached that explanation before launching
9:54
into my soliloquy. By the way, this conversation
9:58
happened about a year ago before we bombed Iran,
10:02
which produces more than three million barrels
10:05
of crude oil a day. Then, like you know, the
10:09
Strait of Hormuz, which carries about a quarter
10:12
of the world's seaborne oil trade, shut down
10:17
and gas prices skyrocketed. So, I was right about
10:21
the gas prices back then, but wrong about the
10:25
way I said it. I wonder how that conversation
10:28
would have gone if I had asked her what led
10:31
you to that conclusion? Or I could have asked,
10:35
when you say the governor is responsible, which
10:38
decision or policy do you actually mean? That
10:42
would have left room for discussion instead of
10:45
completely closing it down. Maybe her answer
10:49
would have identified a policy we could have
10:52
examined, or a source we could have checked,
10:55
or it just may reveal an assumption that needs
10:58
to be gently challenged. The point is, we can't
11:03
know which if we skip the explanation. Is there
11:07
reasoning sound? Who knows? But at least it's
11:11
something specific to examine. So imagine being
11:14
corrected in front of other people. It's probably
11:16
happened to all of us. You may listen to the
11:19
explanation as your face grows warmer, because
11:23
the information explaining this correction is
11:26
only one part of your experience. The second
11:29
part is that the person being corrected also
11:32
knows that others are watching them get something
11:34
wrong. In psychology, that's called social evaluative
11:39
threat. Basically, situations where an important
11:44
part of ourselves could be judged negatively
11:45
by others. Researchers examined 208 lab studies
11:50
of acute stress and found that tasks combining
11:55
social evaluation with a lack of control produced
11:58
the largest cortisol, you know, the fight -or
12:01
-flight hormone, responses. Knowing about what
12:05
that study produced gives us a way to think about
12:08
the difference between saying that figure is
12:11
inaccurate and you clearly don't understand this.
12:15
The first identifies an error. The second puts
12:18
someone's competence on trial. Publicly correcting
12:22
someone can make us feel that others see us as
12:25
foolish. In my exchange, no one else was listening.
12:30
But telling the client she only lived here for
12:32
a short time still put her competence on trial.
12:35
We can notice this in ourselves when our attention
12:38
moves from the issue to how we look. Maybe that
12:42
shows up in how we start speaking faster or explaining
12:46
our credentials or reaching for that comeback,
12:49
that fantasy fighting, right? In those moments,
12:53
if we could only pause and ask ourselves, am
12:57
I responding to the evidence or trying to undo
13:00
the embarrassment? One caution, a correction
13:05
can also be delivered with actual contempt. And
13:10
noticing our own reaction doesn't make their
13:12
behavior acceptable. But we'll come back to that.
13:16
The next difficulty is much harder to catch because
13:20
it can feel like careful thinking. We read the
13:24
news articles, inspect the sources, and then
13:27
assemble our argument. I hope that's what we
13:30
do. Taking those steps is responsible, but we
13:34
may still give evidence an easier pass when it
13:37
supports the conclusion we want. Psychologist
13:41
Ziva Kunda explained in her review of motivated
13:45
reasoning that our goals can influence which
13:49
memories and beliefs we draw on and how we evaluate
13:52
information. Meaning, when our goal is accuracy,
13:57
we look for ways to reach an accurate answer.
14:01
When we want the answer to be true, we favor
14:04
the information that supports it. Take Trump's
14:07
tariffs. first implemented in February 2025.
14:12
Research published by the New York Fed Economist
14:14
in October 2026 found those tariffs added roughly
14:20
three percentage points to consumer goods inflation
14:24
by February, only one year later. The same client
14:29
who blamed Newsom for gas prices also told me
14:32
she was excited about Trump's tariffs because
14:35
it was about time the world paid its fair share.
14:39
I responded by telling her, you know, I'm not
14:42
great at math, but I'm pretty sure basic economics
14:45
states that businesses can pass those incurred
14:48
costs on to us, the consumer. Apparently the
14:53
world's fair share ends up on our receipts. But
14:57
here's where I have to examine my own reasoning.
15:00
That research supports what I already believe,
15:04
so it's easy for me to accept it without much
15:06
scrutiny. If another study suggested a benefit,
15:11
I have to ask myself, would I examine it fairly
15:13
or just immediately start looking for flaws?
15:18
Given what I know about tariffs, I'd probably
15:20
look for flaws. But I owe it to myself and other
15:24
people I care about to examine findings that
15:28
support my view just as carefully. This helps
15:32
explain why a conversation can contain plenty
15:34
of facts and still make very little progress.
15:38
Each person may be working hard to explain why
15:40
the other person's evidence doesn't count. Maybe
15:45
one useful practice is to decide what would count
15:48
as good evidence before we know whether it supports
15:51
our view. For a policy, that maybe means asking
15:55
what changed over time and what else could explain
15:59
it. Sometimes revising a belief carries a cost
16:03
beyond admitting an error. It might feel like
16:07
moving away from the person who taught us what
16:09
a sensible person believes. Our position may
16:13
carry the approval of our families, our professional
16:16
community, or our political group, right? Psychologist
16:20
Geoffrey Cohen examined this influence in four
16:24
studies of how people evaluated a social policy.
16:29
In his experiments, A political party's endorsement
16:32
shaped participants' judgments more strongly
16:35
than the policy's content or their ideological
16:39
learnings. Yet, participants denied being influenced
16:44
by their group while believing other people,
16:46
especially their opponents, would be influenced.
16:50
The striking part is that group influence can
16:53
change what a policy seems to mean. A proposal
16:58
can look responsible when associated with our
17:00
group and suspect when associated with another.
17:05
We may experience that judgment as entirely our
17:08
own, even when the group's endorsement helped
17:12
shaped it. Imagine a woman whose family and political
17:16
community celebrated the overturning of Roe vs.
17:20
Wade. She supported it, too. Then, her daughter
17:24
experiences a dangerous pregnancy complication,
17:28
and the restrictions she's supported could affect
17:31
someone she loves, her daughter. Or she reads
17:36
about Joselie Barnica, a woman who died in Texas
17:40
in 2021 after doctors delayed miscarriage care
17:43
for 40 hours because of the state's six -week
17:47
abortion ban. ProPublica documented her case
17:50
using hospital and autopsy records, family interviews,
17:54
and reviews by more than a dozen medical experts.
17:57
The woman, the mother, she may begin asking a
18:01
question she hadn't seriously considered. Does
18:04
my opposition to abortion justify giving the
18:07
government this much control over another woman's
18:10
medical decisions? She now faces a conflict between
18:14
commitments she previously experienced as compatible
18:17
protecting life, protecting her daughter, and
18:21
supporting her political community. An experience
18:24
like this won't change everyone's mind. I fully
18:26
get that. But it may make someone reconsidered
18:31
whether a law they supported actually serves
18:34
the values that led them to support it. Even
18:38
if her position changes privately, saying so
18:41
aloud might feel like betrayal. She might worry
18:46
that her family will question her morality or
18:48
accuse her of abandoning everything they stand
18:51
for. I think that helps explain why privately
18:56
questioning a position and publicly abandoning
18:59
it can be very different decisions. Sometimes
19:03
the audience for a disagreement includes people
19:06
who aren't even in the room, the friends whose
19:10
disapproval we can already imagine. For ourselves,
19:14
it's useful to ask whose acceptance seems attached
19:18
to this belief. Would changing one part of my
19:21
view feel like betraying someone or betraying
19:25
myself? Would I evaluate the proposal differently
19:29
if someone I respected took the opposite position?
19:35
If we asked ourselves those questions, I think
19:37
it would help us recognize how belonging may
19:40
shape our judgment. I know we can care deeply
19:44
about people and still reach a different conclusion
19:46
from theirs. For me, the Epstein case raises
19:50
a fundamental moral question about sexual exploitation
19:53
and whether wealth and power protect people from
19:56
accountability. I want the evidence examined
20:00
regardless of whose name appears in the files.
20:05
Approximately 225 people submitted sexual abuse
20:09
claims to Epstein's victims compensation program.
20:14
In July of 2025, the DOJ and the FBI stated that
20:18
Epstein had harmed more than 1 ,000 victims.
20:22
Separately, in May 2023, a civil jury found that
20:27
Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean
20:31
Carroll. That's a court finding, not an accusation
20:34
I happen to believe. Yet, he was elected President
20:39
of the United States for a second time. Even
20:44
Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly challenged Trump
20:47
over releasing the Epstein files. She said she
20:51
stood with survivors and opposed protecting powerful
20:54
people who had done wrong. Think about that.
20:58
This is where disagreement becomes moral for
21:01
me. I'm questioning what someone is willing to
21:04
accept from a person they help place in power.
21:07
Asking me to find a comfortable middle ground
21:11
is asking me to make sexual abuse negotiable.
21:15
Some disagreements concern how our policy might
21:18
work. Others concern whether it violates a value
21:22
we consider fundamental. Psychologists distinguish
21:26
moral conviction from simply holding a strong
21:30
opinion. Moral conviction is experiencing a position
21:34
as a matter of fundamental right and wrong. found
21:40
that the stronger someone's moral conviction,
21:42
the more distance they wanted from people who
21:45
disagreed, and the harder it was to work with
21:48
them. One study even measured how far participants
21:51
placed their chair for someone whose position
21:54
they knew. Further away if they disagreed, or
21:58
closer if they agreed. That makes the personal
22:02
consequence of moral disagreement unusually concrete.
22:06
A disagreement can affect whether we want to
22:09
sit near someone. work with them, or have them
22:12
in our lives. Compromise begins to feel like
22:16
participating in something wrong. Moral conviction
22:20
can completely motivate us to challenge harm.
22:25
It can also make us quick to decide that another
22:27
person is beyond discussion. My immediate reaction
22:31
is, how could any woman support this? How could
22:37
she vote for him? But when I'm speaking with
22:40
someone who continues to support Trump, I still
22:43
need to identify what they're defending. Do they
22:47
reject the evidence? Do they acknowledge it but
22:51
consider other priorities more important? Are
22:54
they minimizing the abuse itself? Do they not
22:59
even know what's going on? Those answers matter
23:02
because rejecting a finding or accepting it as
23:06
a political trade -off and then excusing the
23:09
conduct, those are different positions. I might
23:13
find all of them deeply troubling, but each calls
23:16
for a different challenge. Someone may condemn
23:20
sexual abuse, yet still support a politician
23:23
found responsible for it. That doesn't erase
23:26
the contradiction I see. It lights it up like
23:30
a Fourth of July fireworks finale. I can ask
23:34
how their moral standard influences their choices.
23:37
and whether they would apply the same standard
23:40
to a political opponent. I can challenge that
23:44
inconsistency directly, but understanding their
23:47
explanation doesn't obligate me to accept it
23:50
or preserve the same relationship afterward.
23:54
Remember that. You don't have to have a huge
23:56
fight, but you can also just say, no, not for
24:00
me. There's another reason an argument can become
24:04
harder to hear. It can sound as though someone's
24:08
trying to take away our freedom to decide. Hearing,
24:14
you have to admit I'm right, adds a demand to
24:18
the disagreement. Psychological reactance is
24:21
the motivation to restore a freedom we believe
24:24
is being threatened. In two studies of persuasive
24:28
health messages, researchers examined messages
24:31
about flossing and limited alcohol intake. They
24:35
found that when people felt their freedom was
24:37
threatened, anger and negative thoughts helped
24:40
explain their resistance. Those studies, of course,
24:45
focused on health messages, but I think it offers
24:48
a useful way to think about everyday disagreements.
24:52
Your view on not flossing or flossing, it's not
24:56
a big deal, right? But our language adds to an
25:01
already tense conversation. It may add to an
25:04
already tense conversation. Imagine this. A friend
25:08
tells you she trusts RFK Jr.'s views on vaccines.
25:12
You respond by saying, you need to stop listening
25:15
to him. I'm going to send you an article and
25:19
then read it before you say anything else about
25:21
this. You may have strong evidence to correct
25:25
her, but saying before you say anything else,
25:30
makes reading that article a condition of being
25:33
allowed to speak for her. Now she may be thinking,
25:37
you don't get to tell me what I can listen to,
25:40
who I can listen to, or when I can speak. She
25:43
just might refuse to open the article because
25:46
she's going to defend her right to make her own
25:48
decision and then never consider the evidence,
25:52
never even look at it. You're arguing about evidence.
25:56
She's resisting your attempt to control her.
25:59
That's where the conversation shifts. The stakes
26:03
matter. Medical misinformation can influence
26:06
decisions that affect someone's child and other
26:10
people in their community. There's a good reason
26:13
to challenge it. But if my delivery turns the
26:16
conversation into a fight over a person's rights
26:19
or control, nothing's going to change. And the
26:24
health risk still remains. Recognizing that resistance
26:27
can help us make an important correction more
26:30
effectively. We can definitely be direct about
26:34
the evidence and the consequences, but we don't
26:37
need to demand that someone accept our authority
26:40
simply because we are certain. When we're the
26:44
ones being corrected, we can ask, you know, am
26:47
I rejecting this information because the evidence
26:50
is weak or because I resent being told what to
26:53
think? We can object to someone's tone and still
26:57
examine their evidence. once we've had time to
27:00
think. Let's examine that feeling of certainty.
27:04
Just because an explanation is familiar and easy
27:06
to repeat doesn't necessarily mean we can explain
27:10
it in absolute detail. The illusion of explanatory
27:15
depth is believing we understand how something
27:17
works more thoroughly than we actually do. Back
27:21
in 2013, There was a study by Philip Fernbach
27:25
and colleagues where they asked people to explain
27:28
in detail how a certain political policy worked.
27:33
Participants back then recognized gaps in their
27:36
understanding and their positions became more
27:39
moderate. Then move to 2021, research published
27:45
people would recognize those gaps without becoming
27:50
more moderate. Realizing we understand less than
27:54
we thought doesn't necessarily change our political
27:57
views now. I find the distinction between explaining
28:01
how and arguing why pretty useful. If I'm asked,
28:07
why do you support this? It can invite a well
28:11
-practiced defense. But if I'm asked, how would
28:15
this produce the result you expect? It asks me
28:19
to trace a process. We may understand the goal,
28:23
but haven't fully examined how the proposed solution
28:27
reaches it. And of course, we're not politicians.
28:30
We're not scientists, right? But it behooves
28:34
us to dig deeper, to be curious, to find the
28:38
information. Let's take my own view on crossing
28:42
the border for work. I do support making it easier
28:45
for people living in Mexico near the U .S. border
28:48
to cross. Work for the day. and then return home
28:52
afterward. If someone asks me why I support that,
28:56
I can explain that I believe people deserve humane
29:00
treatment and the opportunity to earn a living.
29:03
All people. There's history behind my position.
29:08
For decades, many Mexican workers traveled to
29:11
the United States for work and returned home
29:13
afterward. President Clinton border enforcement
29:17
made crossings more dangerous and expensive.
29:20
which made workers stay rather than risk crossing
29:23
again. But I have to ask myself, how would the
29:27
system I want actually work now? How would workers
29:31
receive permission? How would employers hire
29:34
them? And then most importantly, what protections
29:37
would prevent employers from exploiting the Mexican
29:41
workers? I can be certain that people deserve
29:45
a humane way to earn a living while still not
29:49
truly understanding how to make that possible.
29:52
I need to be honest about that. Once we recognize
29:57
these processes, we can usually make more specific
30:01
choices if we have the desire to do so. When
30:06
I feel humiliated, I can ask what I expect to
30:09
accomplish by delivering a devastating reply.
30:12
It's hard. I don't always succeed. I'm pretty
30:16
quick with my comebacks. But I also try to remind
30:20
myself of a value that matters beyond winning
30:23
a particular argument. That might be honesty
30:26
or care for the person or fairness. Then I can
30:31
ask myself how those values show up in my response.
30:35
For instance, recently, a friend told me that
30:40
the New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, was ruining
30:44
the city and imposing Muslim law. I waited for
30:48
her to finish and then asked where she had heard
30:51
that. The conversation led back to reels she
30:54
was seeing on social media and conversations
30:56
with clients in her own hair salon. I asked her
31:00
whether watching a few reels might have changed
31:03
the algorithm on social media to show her more
31:08
reels that supported that, showing claims against
31:13
the mayor's politics and religion. I encouraged
31:17
her. did not tell her, but encouraged her to
31:20
compare reporting from different news sources
31:23
and look up what he's already accomplished as
31:27
the mayor of New York City. I ended by saying
31:30
she might be surprised what she found. I did
31:34
not tell her how wrong she was or try to shut
31:36
her down in any way. Now, don't get me wrong.
31:39
I was shocked by what she said, but I also respect
31:43
much of what she has to say about many topics.
31:46
She's a very good friend of mine. And perhaps
31:48
the care I have for her helped me respond in
31:51
a more gentle way. And there's research on self
31:55
-affirmation that suggests reflecting on values
31:58
that matter to you or matter to us, help us approach
32:03
disagreement with more intellectual humility.
32:07
In a 2023 study, trained observers watched recorded
32:11
group discussions. They observed that people
32:15
who had first reflected on important personal
32:18
values showed more intellectual humility, but
32:22
how humble they thought they were didn't match
32:25
how they behaved. The practical idea I take from
32:29
this is that being wrong about one claim doesn't
32:33
need to become a verdict on our entire worth.
32:37
Reminding myself that honesty matters gives me
32:39
a reason to correct a mistake, even when being
32:43
corrected. is uncomfortable. Our willingness
32:46
to engage also has to come through in what we
32:50
say. Language needs to be specific. Here's an
32:55
example. If you said, I agree the cost matters.
33:00
I disagree with your explanation for it. Or that
33:04
evidence addresses one part of my concern. Here's
33:08
the part I think it still leaves unanswered.
33:10
Those examples give the person a clearer sense
33:13
of what we considered and where the disagreement
33:17
remains. Receptive language assumes both people
33:21
want a real conversation, but sometimes they
33:24
don't. A conversation can also become a public
33:27
performance built around degrading someone. At
33:32
his 2023 CNN town hall, Trump called journalist
33:37
Caitlin Collins a nasty person. The audience
33:41
responded with laughter, cheers, and applause.
33:45
In November 2025, he told Bloomberg reporter
33:48
Catherine Lucey, quiet, quiet, piggy, as she tried
33:52
to ask a follow -up question about the Epstein
33:54
files. Some may see that behavior as strength
33:58
or applauded as putting a woman in her place.
34:02
Others, myself included, find it degrading, obnoxious,
34:06
and quite frankly, trashy. For me, it raises
34:10
a question about what behavior are we willing
34:12
to reward in someone with power? When an audience
34:16
cheers an insult, the speaker receives approval
34:19
for humiliating someone. The exchange becomes
34:23
a performance for supporters, and the question
34:26
that prompted it disappears beneath the spectacle.
34:29
And that's not only about insults. In the past
34:32
year, the Justice Department under this president
34:36
indicted James Comey and Letitia James, and then
34:40
a judge dismissed both cases because the prosecutor
34:43
was unlawfully appointed. A grand jury refused
34:48
to indict six Democratic lawmakers because they
34:52
did a video telling troops that they could refuse
34:56
illegal orders. Trump called it seditious and
35:00
punishable by death. On October 12th of this
35:03
year, 2026, Homeland Security agents raided the
35:07
home of Somali-born Democratic representative
35:10
and U .S. citizen, Ilhan Omar. They raided her
35:14
home under a court -authorized warrant. Last
35:18
December 2025, the president said that Omar shouldn't
35:21
be allowed to be a congresswoman and should be
35:25
thrown the hell out of our country. He also called
35:28
Somali immigrants garbage and said that they
35:30
were taking over the state of Minnesota. Eventually,
35:34
That's when 4,000 federal agents swarmed Minneapolis.
35:39
You can believe each one of those examples is
35:41
justified. You can also ask yourself, what patterns
35:45
are you seeing? Giving ourselves room to respond
35:48
includes deciding what treatment we'll accept.
35:51
We can challenge a claim. We can condemn degrading
35:55
behavior. And we can also set a boundary without
35:58
resorting to insults ourselves. In our own conversations,
36:03
that boundary might sound like, I'm willing to
36:05
discuss this. I'm not willing to continue while
36:09
you insult me. A conversation can end with the
36:13
disagreement still intact and something else
36:15
made clearer. What each person believes, what
36:19
they're willing to defend, and whether there's
36:21
enough respect to keep talking. Sometimes that
36:25
clarity gives us a reason to continue. Sometimes
36:28
it gives us a reason to step back. We can take
36:31
both outcomes seriously. Because the effort to
36:35
understand someone may deepen a relationship.
36:39
It may also reveal a difference we can no longer
36:43
overlook. For your next disagreement, you know
36:46
there's going to be more. Notice the moment you
36:49
begin protecting something other than the claim.
36:53
Ask yourself, are you trying to prove you're
36:55
competent? Then correct the claim without making
36:57
someone's worth the subject. Do you feel that
37:01
if you changed your viewpoint, you're being disloyal
37:04
to someone, then ask whose approval is attached
37:07
to this belief. Consider that you might be applying
37:11
a standard to their evidence that you wouldn't
37:14
apply to your own. Then check your own standard
37:17
of evidence. And when the pressure makes you
37:20
want to push back, give yourself a second to
37:23
respond. Then there's one more reason to notice
37:26
the moment a disagreement starts to feel personal.
37:29
That's when we're easiest to divide. Asking yourself
37:34
what I'm protecting is also a way of not handing
37:39
that over. We will have disagreements that matter
37:42
deeply, and some, as I said, will expose differences
37:45
we can't resolve. Personally, I want to recognize
37:48
those differences clearly, defend what I believe
37:51
deserves defending, and truly take responsibility
37:56
for the way I treat the person across from me.
37:59
If this episode has you thinking about a conversation
38:02
you wish you'd handled differently or when you're
38:05
still not sure how to have, that's exactly the
38:09
kind of thing we can work through together. The
38:11
free discovery call is where we can start. You
38:14
can find all my contact information in the episode
38:17
notes. I'm Evet DeCota. Thank you for listening
38:21
to The Original Self Podcast and I'll see you
38:23
next time. Have a great day.