Mónica Guzmán

Why did nothing get across here?

What's going on?

And I looked at the thread and all they were doing was sending articles to each other.

One of them would send the other, here's the thing from the blaze, just read this.

Here's the thing from the New York Times, just read this.

And they're sending each other information, but from sources that the other doesn't trust, as if it's homework, as if read that article and then you're qualified to talk to me again.

Read that article and then I'll believe that you're worth listening to.

Right.

So I'll borrow a framework from a friend of mine, Buster Benson.

He talks about how there's three conversations across disagreement that we have the conversation about what is true, the conversation about what is meaningful and the conversation about what is useful.

We all want to have the conversation about what is true across disagreement as if it's the only one we can have.

So I get asked a lot, what happens if you're talking to someone and they say something that you know is blatantly untrue?

And people think, well, that's when I hit the abort button.

That's when we're done.

Or it's my moral imperative to correct them until they accept it.

But that's not going to happen most likely.

So instead, what you do is you switch to the conversation about what's meaningful.

You don't talk about that thing that you feel is wrong.

You get behind that and you ask about the concerns behind that.

You ask how that person came to believe and really connect with that idea.