Dr. Jamil Zaki

I love that clarification. Yeah, absolutely. I think that The answer is yes. There is lots of evidence that we are actively avoiding having conversations, in part because of who we think the other side is. There is an amazing study that was conducted during Thanksgiving of 2016, which, as you may recall, was directly after a very polarizing election.

And researchers used geotracking on people's cell phones to examine whether in order to go to Thanksgiving dinner, they crossed between a blue county into a red county or a red county into a blue county. In other words, are they going into, and I'm using air quotes here, quote unquote, enemy territory for Thanksgiving dinner.

And researchers used geotracking on people's cell phones to examine whether in order to go to Thanksgiving dinner, they crossed between a blue county into a red county or a red county into a blue county. In other words, are they going into, and I'm using air quotes here, quote unquote, enemy territory for Thanksgiving dinner.

And researchers used geotracking on people's cell phones to examine whether in order to go to Thanksgiving dinner, they crossed between a blue county into a red county or a red county into a blue county. In other words, are they going into, and I'm using air quotes here, quote unquote, enemy territory for Thanksgiving dinner.

And they use that as a proxy of whether they're having dinner with people they disagree with. And it turns out that people who crossed county lines, who crossed into enemy territory, again, in quotes, this is perceived polarization, they had dinners that were 50 minutes shorter than people who were dining with folks who presumably they agreed with. So we're talking about... forsaking pie, Andrew.

And they use that as a proxy of whether they're having dinner with people they disagree with. And it turns out that people who crossed county lines, who crossed into enemy territory, again, in quotes, this is perceived polarization, they had dinners that were 50 minutes shorter than people who were dining with folks who presumably they agreed with. So we're talking about... forsaking pie, Andrew.

And they use that as a proxy of whether they're having dinner with people they disagree with. And it turns out that people who crossed county lines, who crossed into enemy territory, again, in quotes, this is perceived polarization, they had dinners that were 50 minutes shorter than people who were dining with folks who presumably they agreed with. So we're talking about... forsaking pie, Andrew.

They're giving up pie in order to not talk with people they disagree with. And I think a lot of us are very skittish about these conversations. Because if you believe that the other side is a bunch of bloodthirsty marauders, why would you want to talk with them? Why have a beer with a fascist? That's just not a great plan.

They're giving up pie in order to not talk with people they disagree with. And I think a lot of us are very skittish about these conversations. Because if you believe that the other side is a bunch of bloodthirsty marauders, why would you want to talk with them? Why have a beer with a fascist? That's just not a great plan.

They're giving up pie in order to not talk with people they disagree with. And I think a lot of us are very skittish about these conversations. Because if you believe that the other side is a bunch of bloodthirsty marauders, why would you want to talk with them? Why have a beer with a fascist? That's just not a great plan.

The truth, though, is that when we can collect better data, oftentimes we end up with better perceptions. And I mean better... in two ways, one more positive and two more accurate. Now, again, I want to say that there are real threats in our political environment. I'm not asking anybody to make themselves unsafe in any way.

The truth, though, is that when we can collect better data, oftentimes we end up with better perceptions. And I mean better... in two ways, one more positive and two more accurate. Now, again, I want to say that there are real threats in our political environment. I'm not asking anybody to make themselves unsafe in any way.

The truth, though, is that when we can collect better data, oftentimes we end up with better perceptions. And I mean better... in two ways, one more positive and two more accurate. Now, again, I want to say that there are real threats in our political environment. I'm not asking anybody to make themselves unsafe in any way.

But in our lab, again, my wonderful graduate student, Louisa Santos, ran a study where we had about 160 people, these are folks from all over the country, who took part in Zoom conversations. We made sure that they really disagreed about gun control, immigration, and climate change. And they talked about those issues. We asked them to forecast what those conversations would be like.

But in our lab, again, my wonderful graduate student, Louisa Santos, ran a study where we had about 160 people, these are folks from all over the country, who took part in Zoom conversations. We made sure that they really disagreed about gun control, immigration, and climate change. And they talked about those issues. We asked them to forecast what those conversations would be like.

But in our lab, again, my wonderful graduate student, Louisa Santos, ran a study where we had about 160 people, these are folks from all over the country, who took part in Zoom conversations. We made sure that they really disagreed about gun control, immigration, and climate change. And they talked about those issues. We asked them to forecast what those conversations would be like.

And we asked other folks to forecast what those conversations would be like. And the forecasts went from neutral to negative. Some people thought it won't make any difference. And other people thought it will be counterproductive. Some folks in our survey said, dialogue is dead. There's no point in any of these conversations. We then brought these folks together.

And we asked other folks to forecast what those conversations would be like. And the forecasts went from neutral to negative. Some people thought it won't make any difference. And other people thought it will be counterproductive. Some folks in our survey said, dialogue is dead. There's no point in any of these conversations. We then brought these folks together.

And we asked other folks to forecast what those conversations would be like. And the forecasts went from neutral to negative. Some people thought it won't make any difference. And other people thought it will be counterproductive. Some folks in our survey said, dialogue is dead. There's no point in any of these conversations. We then brought these folks together.

Oh, and I should say, among the people who were cynical about these conversations and who forecasted that they would go poorly, was us, the research team. Louisa and I spent hours talking about what if people start to threaten each other or dox each other or look up each other's addresses.