Dear friends, 
I  hope that  2018 began well for you. In this irregular “out of my bubble” newsletter, you will find a new year challenge, an invitation and a quote. 
​
1. New challenge - 2018 as a "contempt-less" year 
​A year ago, I challenged you to have an "out of my bubble conversation" and thanks to many of you who did and talked to me about it. This year, obviously, a new challenge: what about making 2018 a "contempt-less year?" 

Why? In the discussions we lead in "our bubbles" I often catch others and myself expressing contempt for supporters of other parties and candidates. But contempt is a very toxic emotion - for example, in a marriage, it is the biggest predictor of divorce. In a recent article about cashiers in Czechia, feeling contempt from customers is one of their biggest complaints. Who would you vote for if you felt treated like "vermin" (in their own words) on a daily basis? This is not rocket science - if I feel contempt for the voter of an extreme party (and express it to her - in person, on Facebook, in the media), I am increasing the probability that she will vote for the extreme party again. 

Please let me know how you are doing with this challenge. There is lots of talk in Czechia, in the UK and in the US about divided societies. So maybe our "contempt-less 2018" could be a small contribution towards depolarization. 

2. Invitation
I would love to invite you to our village carnival on February 10th in Prague - Suchdol. After our first ever street party last autumn (great occasion to get out of my bubble - tables on the street, lots of wiener schnitzel and nearly 100% attendance), this is an occasion to celebrate with everybody, locals and visitors. And to dress up - as per photo below! 

As many of you live far away, maybe a different invitation for my US friends  - why not join Better Angels on their drive to depolarize America? You can get trained as a moderator and organize workshops to bridge the blue-red divide. 


3. An aspirational quote, from the very cool new Openmind platform ran by the Heterodox Academy: “Look to your own faults. / What you have done or left undone. / Overlook the faults of others.” Buddha, The Dhammapada
Thanks for reading! Wishing you a great year! 

Eva

P.S. Two of my favorite books on this topic from 2017: Timothy Snyder's essay  On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century is slightly scary. And David Goodhart's provocative analysis about the split between the "somewheres" and the "anywheres" will make you think!

Dear friends, 
I  hope that you had a nice summer. In this irregular “out of my bubble” newsletter, you will find an invitation to a fun event, an idea and a quote.

1. Invitation

On Sunday the 10th of September together with the Czech branch of Amnesty International, I coordinated an event called the “living” or “human” library. It is a fun format - readers come into a “library” (we were in the beautiful medieval convent of St Agnes) and borrow a “book” for 20 minutes. Except that the book is a person, so the readers listen and ask questions. It is a great format, originally from Denmark, and very relevant to “out of my bubble” conversations. I cannot invite you to our event in Prague (at least a photo below), but you might find Human Library events near to where you are. 

2. Idea! You might be talking about Charlotesville, the German elections, Brexit or the upcoming elections in Czechia. And you are still surprised that your mother in law/friend/neighbor does not understand your logical arguments supported by hard data. In that case, maybe you should watch this 3-minute video. It explains why your excellent data might not be welcome and that you are better off first reminding each other of what you have in common. Or even better, you can first go and build something, for example a bar, as in this advertising (for beer and dialogue).

3. A quote, courtesy of the twitter feed of Urban Confessional. From Desmond Tutu. “If you want peace, do not talk to your friends. Talk to your enemies”.

Thanks for reading! Wishing you a great beginning of the school year and lots of intriguing “out of my bubble” conversations!

Eva
P.S. On a recent trip to Boston I spoke to my friend Belle who is involved with a cool initiative bringing together Jewish and Muslim women, the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom. Another way of meeting real people in a real setting! 

After a slight winter dip, back in full spring swing:

• Bubbles on the airwaves! On the 15th of April, with Brit Jensen and Jirka Slavičinský, we have invited the young and hip listeners of Czech Public Radio DokuVlna program to have an "out of the bubble" conversation. It also included few excerpts from interviews with some of you. It was the first time I made this truly "public", i.e. beyond the circle of my friends. Exciting and slightly scary :-).  

• Bubbles are modernizing into new communication channels. Check those for interesting links to videos/books/initiatives. ​
  • Out of my bubble/Z bubliny ven Facebook Page
  • @EvaBlechova on Twitter
  • The website has a new, neater address now www.mindthegapplease.org   

 If you only have 3 minutes, maybe this video from the Atlantic on A Better Way How to Argue About Politics could both amuse you and give you some food for thought for the next conversation with your aunt/neighbor/yourself! ​

 A conversation has begun (and it changed me a tiny bit)


Let me start with a story - I met Shana in a singing workshop last year in Prague and we stayed in touch. To the “bubble” invitation, she wrote back: “This is lovely.  With your permission, I want to participate and share.” And few days later, she shared a story of her friend, a musician and songwriter called Jean. 
​
Jean participated in the Women's March on January 21st and was playing a concert that night with her pink hat (sign of the participants of the march) on. After the concert, a woman in her 60's came up to her to ask "I heard about the thousands of people marching today and I am curious. Why are you frightened about a Trump presidency?" Jean started explaining some of her concerns about Trump's character and attitudes to her. The lady repeated that she is just trying to understand and that she is genuinely curious ... and she shared that she was also frightened when Obama was elected. They both agreed that Trump's tweeting habit is not a great thing. Jean thanked the lady for genuinely asking and listening and somehow at the end they were holding hands. Jean writes about her "first direct encounter with a Trump supporter": "I walked away empowered and felt that a conversation had begun."

What really worked in this story is the genuine openness and curiosity of the Trump supporter lady - she kept repeating “I am just trying to understand”. The “out of the bubble conversations” can be highly emotional (especially on the day after Trump’s inauguration), so openness is crucial. 

And of course, there are no fireworks at the end, no falling in each other’s arms, not agreeing on much (except maybe the tweets). But the “conversation had begun” and by holding hands, we acknowledge each other as a human being and not as the “enemy”. 

In the same spirit, my Indian friend Subir opened a discussion with a colleague of his -  US, white male, Republican - anti immigration, anti Obamacare, anti doles, for guns etc. He writes: “Initially he was hesitant to share his views openly, but soon he realized that I am not judging, but listening to him and his thoughts - he opened up. I did realize how Trump won.. many people believed in Trump's ideas and views, but never openly shared. That is the reason that not many predicted well.”


My friend Melodie actually shared her experience on the website forum. To the question: “Do you think mankind will like doing this? Will it change the world?”, she says beautifully: 
"Maybe a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit. Maybe because it changed me."

New facts and ladder of inference

Another benefit of out of the bubble conversations was shared with by my friend Marie in Prague. She talked to her uncle about a topic they disagree on - attitudes to Romas. Instead of the usual “I am right, your are wrong”, this time Marie aimed to understand where do her uncle’s attitudes (“racist” from her point of view) come from. She discovered that when he was in secondary school in a small Czech town, he had frequent encounters and difficult experiences with the Roma minority in that town. As for herself, she admitted that her pro-Roma views were based on principles and second hand reports from other people only. That does not mean that her views are wrong, but the new piece of information made Marie more understanding and willing to have further discussions with her uncle.

Using the terminology of organizational psychologist Chris Argyris, you could say that Marie started exploring her uncle’s “ladder of inference”. The ladder describes the way in which we all select data, interpret them and create assumptions and beliefs. Once we have these beliefs, we select data based on them (this is called the confirmation bias). That might explain why we sometimes feel we are living in a different world than our uncles …  I am planning to write a blog later about how understanding other’s and our own ladders can be useful - stay tuned! 

As a result of my New Year’s email, a friend in Prague on started to send me some of the articles and blogs he follows. As we are in different “bubbles” as far as our attitudes to islam and refugees to, sometimes I have a very emotional reaction when reading some of the material. And on the whole, it has been much more interesting and eye-opening for me to read the articles he sends rather than ressassing the articles “on my side”.

So as a mini-conclusion - out of the bubble conversations enable us to stay in touch with our uncles or strangers during a concert. And they enable us to learn new things. Now I need to run - I am off to continue the discussion with my own uncle about the European Union. He wants to abolish it and I think we should still give it a chance.  

Remember the ice bucket challenge in 2014, in which people poured a bucket of iced water over their heads to solicit donations for ALS? It was hard to do, but it took 30 seconds. It turns out that the “out of the bubble” challenge might be even harder than a bucket of cold water. 

Why is it so hard? This is the most difficult part to sum up - it seems to me there are three main reasons. 




First reason - I do not know anyone out of my bubble  (because we are all tribal)

My friend Kate from London writes: “I’m increasingly aware that I live in a bubble - just thinking about your invitation makes me realize how often I'm talking to people who agree with me!”. My German friend Maja says: “I do not find a single person I know and can call a friend or a relative who is of the opposite view than mine. Talk about bubbles!!!” My Czech friend Katka: “I accepted your challenge but realized that I first have to get out of my bubble in order to even meet anyone with different points of view”. 

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in “The Righteous Mind” (a book I highly recommend or at least watch his TED talk) argues convincingly why bubbles are natural - because we are fundamentally tribal creatures. “It would be nice to believe that we humans were designed to love everyone unconditionally. Nice, but rather unlikely from an evolutionary perspective. (…) We evolved to live in groups. Our minds were designed not only to help us win the competition within our groups, but also to help us unite with those in our group to win competitions across groups”. 
Being part of a tribe, an ideological bubble, has all kinds of psychological benefits - mainly a sense of belonging and not being alone.The disadvantage of long term stay inside the bubble is the development of intellectual habits such as black and white thinking and exaggerating negative stereotypes about the “other side”. 

Second reason - I just want to escape to the kitchen 

Talking about Trump, Brexit or gypsies is very emotional, as it is linked to our values and identity. Conversation about a topic that I care about with somebody I care about is by definition a “difficult conversation” . So our amygdala gets switched on … and with it the fight or flight response. 

My friend Johanna from Sydney writes:  "I am not having these bubble bursting discussion with others and I am thinking this avoidance is created rather unconsciously and very quickly to avoid conflict. Thanks for raising this topic and for committing to exploring this so comprehensively and passionately! I will endeavor to have at least one conversation and share it on your website”. 

Miriam from Calgary says: "I’ve read your Bubble Project and love the idea. I have a close friend who is a religious Christian and fiercely anti-abortion/pro-life. She also believes that debate should not be stifled. She'd be a great person for me to start with even though the thought gives me palpitations!!! "

My Czech friend Zuzana was surprised how difficult it is for her to communicate with someone with a different view of hers. “I just want to go away and do not want to hear anything”! My friend Julie from Prague says that when her brother argued with her father about refugees on Christmas Day, she escaped to the kitchen. “So when I imagine that I should talk about it with either of them … well, I’d just rather not!”.

My Canadian friend Susan has a specific story on the double duty of an important topic/keeping the friendship: "I was at my good friend's the other night and she continues to disparage her husband because he keeps an open mind about Trump. The rest of us (me included, but privately) 'judge' his opinion. It is definitely 'us' and 'them'. I was thinking how I could open this topic with my friend without jeopardizing the friendship."

A friend from Prague writes in capital letters : “I catch myself just NOT WANTING to talk with people from the other bubble. And then I criticize myself for it.”

Third reason - the feelings run pretty deep  

Several American friends shared their very strong feelings after the election of Donald Trump. They had difficulties in imagining having a conversation with a Trump supporter who would be “gloating at their candidate’s win”. They admit to seeing their side as “good” and the other as “bad” , and that feeling runs pretty deep. 

Erich from Prague watched videos of Trump supporters on You Tube  and “does not feel that these are people who would like to have a dialogue: “The message I find there is: you have ignored us, we are hurt (!), but now that we won, we will do whatever we want. So I see the rise of isolationism, protectionism, intolerance, bigotry.”

With my London based friend Malgosia we discussed the important topic of how emotionally charged these issues are: “I will give you an example: I am talking to a Brexitier and that person is explaining why they voted that way and there is no single argument or reason that makes sense and its very clear that person did not vote Brexit but voted against Cameron. I then experience frustration, despair and very strong depression.This impacts on my body and my mind because I then come home and cannot sleep."

As a therapist, she listens to people sharing their worries in her practice.

“I have just had another example of 2 people very upset by Brexit. I would not call it frustration. I would call it despair and fury. I do not think you should underestimate the depth of emotions that this issue touches in people. Its about survival, jobs, security, rights, unfairness, being uprooted. People go depressed and tearful and disoriented (at least those I talk to). So just to suggest that they should talk to the other side is slightly far fetched. It's not an intellectual exercise. It's a very emotionally charged issue for which people need to be prepared.”

My friend Melodie living in Normandy actually tried a difficult conversation and openly shared how painful it was. 

“I proposed a difficult topic. I handled the difficult response. I managed what felt to me like insults. I persisted to speak what I believed, while acknowledging my counterpart. It was a choice between the "out of my bubble" conversation and status quo, which was even less desirable. It was difficult. It was painful. It shed some light on a blind spot. Next time I think I will (the conversation will continue) think of ways in which I can show more appreciation for my counterpart.”

 (Thanks, Melodie and I will get you that promised bottle of wine as soon as we meet.)

One of the most moving stories I received was from Pavel. He is an IT professional and lives in a smallish Czech town of Rokycany. Five years ago he met Vera, a wonderful woman in all respects. Except her and her family’s and friend’s views on Romas/gypsies. Any discussion on that topic with those nice and educated people was a source of conflict - from Pavel’s side, their arguments were totally unacceptable and reminded him of the Holocaust. He even though about terminating the relationship because of that. 

Being very motivated (Love! Love! Love!), he persevered and with Vera, who is now his wife, they are able to be aware of their bubbles and to respect them. 

How did he do it? Pavel writes: “For me is is mainly about working on myself, to be aware of one’s own personal story, the unconscious sources that lead me to action. Once you see that, you see that the same happens for everybody - my partner, my family, friends, nations, Asad, Putin, Trump … It was all a trial and error process. At the beginning, my behavior was purely reactive - as soon as somebody came up with their anti-gypsy opinions, I felt the need to correct his “wrong” view. Over the years, I have learned that it is better to listen, listen, listen … I have been through myriads of these discussions during my trips to Přerov (the smallish Moravian town his wife comes from). I came to realize that their opinions are formed over a long time, based on their own experiences and what they have heard from others. Because of their life stories, they are in their bubble and are unable to see the “other side” (unless, like my wife, they move out or they have someone to talk to). To me this is the archetype of a bubble - different life stories, lack of awareness of them (from both sides) and therefore an impossibility to get out of them and see things more clearly.”

These days, the situation is different. My wife sees her bubble (she lives in Pilsen, only goes to Přerov sometimes), and she also sees the different opinion (my bubble) that I am consistently presenting. I became aware of my bubble and I also learned to respect here life story and her bubble. We are looking for ways, how to let the bubbles burst even in this area. Where there is no middle to the bubble (the story), there is no container for it. 

The night after Donald Trump was elected,
I had a dream. I dreamed that his victory speech will concentrate on  “binding the wounds of division”. And he really said that!  And then I dreamed even bigger - that the wounds actually healed.



​
In my dream, as part of his first days in office, Donald proposed an ambitious (“dream big and bold and daring” he said in his speech) plan - pairing each Trump voter with a Hillary voter by a random lottery. In his slightly authoriarian way, they were ordered to  “bind the wounds of division” through a conversation. In person if they live near. On Skype if they live far. Maybe an hour, maybe two, maybe three? 

What helps with this plan is that Americans are conveniently split in half - half of them are frustrated with Donald Trump being elected and half of them have been frustrated for years by being the “forgotten men and women of our country” who voted for Trump. Frustration might seem like a problem - and it might also be the “burning platform” management gurus talk about when they want to start changing things.

So let’s say we have everybody paired up, they meet, “hi there Trump voter”, “hi there Hillary voter”. What’s next? No doubt this would not be an easy conversation. Again, fortunately enough, there is knowledge about how to conduct these discussions - for example in the book Difficult conversations. The book has many pages, but I assume its authors would be happy to summarize it in few pages or a short YouTube video to reach all Americans easily. 

The main point the authors, long term researchers at the Harvard Negotiation Project, make, is that the purpose of that conversation is not to convince the other person that “I am right and you are wrong”, but to listen to their story, their emotions. And as a second step, aim to understand how, based on their life experiences, the way the “other side”  behaves (i.e. votes) makes sense to them. So we are talking about genuine curiosity and no judgment. Not agreeing, but listening and understanding.

That’s it, you say? Not convincing anybody? Just listening to their story? Is that bold and big and daring enough? 

OK, there is one more thing. An important element of difficult conversations  is that each partner admits his or her contribution to the problem. In real life, this is usually not a 50/50 responsibility, but there is always a contribution from both sides. Yes, always. Even for me. 

Where is my contribution in this? I live and vote in Europe, so I did not vote for either Hillary or Donald. At the same time, there are many similarities. I see two main parts of my contribution - the bubble and the contempt. 

1) Bubble - I do live in a bubble - I read a certain kind of newspaper online, I talk to certain kind of people in person and on Facebook. I rarely meet people with opposing views and even more rarely engage with them in a conversation (mainly because I fear that conversation would be difficult). 

2) Contempt - Contempt takes the form of a sarcastic comment or  liking a funny and demeaning post about Trump/Hillary and their voters. As Dr. Gottman has shown in years of research on marriage, contempt is the number 1 predictor of divorce. It is fueled by long-term negative thoughts about the other person and feeling superior to him or her.  As expected, this can hardly lead to mutual understanding. Yes, you might say: both Donald and Hillary have used contempt for their opponent and his/her supporters during the campaign. You are right. And we are talking about my contribution here, not theirs …  

So as I start my difficult conversation with my fellow American (Czech, French, British), I would admit that this is my contribution … I have been living in a bubble and I have occasionally treated the “other side” with contempt. 

And while waiting for Donald (and European politicians) to organize these conversations, I might work on myself … 1) live less in a bubble, at least once a week read a different newspaper and talk to someone who has different views from mine 2)  take contempt completely out of my conversations  -  face-to-face or online. 

And maybe I should not wait, but just start, right? Anybody joining me? 

​P.S. Oh, the picture - that is Brigitte Bardot in the 1963 French film "Contempt" (Le Mépris) by Jean-Luc Godard

Various media have reported how much Brexit has emotionally affected people and divided the nation and families. Is there anything that each of us can do to help bridge the gap? This article aims to suggest some pointers in that direction. (If you are closer to the Leave camp, you might want to start reading from the picture of the chocolate cake below).

Let’s imagine your name is David and you voted Remain. Although you would not admit it, when you learned the results on that Friday morning 24th of June 2016, you actually cried. This is not the Britain you know!  Your first thought is “how can people be so stupid”? You swear and laugh at Nigel Farage appearing on TV to distance himself from the promise of 350 million GBP contribution being spent on the NHS. You are sad and upset, you call few friends, email few others  and check Facebook. Every one of your friends agree:  “they have taken our country from us”, “I’m ashamed to be English” and “who are these short-sighted idiots?” You spend your day googling the news and signing the petition to repeat the referendum. You  continue these discussions over a drink (or two) on Friday night. 
​
On Saturday, you wake up with a physiological and mental hangover. “So this is Brexit. And what have you done” sings John Lennon on the radio or that is what you distinctly hear. You reach for your phone to call your friends … and then you realize - you promised to have lunch with your grandmother. You know she has voted Leave. What do you do? 

Option 1 - You do not go, because you just cannot face her. Avoiding is not a bad strategy, right? Well, that might be a good solution for your mental health, but not great for family relationships. And it just sounds like being a coward. And a bad loser on top of that. And you actually really like your grandmother, not to mention her chicken Kiev, which she always prepares specially for you.  

Option 2 - You go and explain to her why she is wrong and why you are right. You prove to her that Nigel Farage manipulated her and blatantly lied. That Turkey is not going to be part of the EU tomorrow, as Daily Mail tried to convince her. That her holiday trip to Italy will be more expensive now, and rightly so - it is all her fault. That her other grandson Simon might not be able to go to an Erasmus program as you did. That her repair jobs might become much more expensive now that she complicated she life of Grzegorz, her favorite Polish builder? That the only people laughing now are Nigel Farage and Vladimir Putin. What was she thinking?  How can she have been so gullible? Before dessert, she will agree with you, admit that she was wrong, apologize, repent and give you a extra portion of chocolate cake to take home. 

From your point of view, you see Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage as scammers preying on your elderly granny and selling her some useless insurance contract. You will just uncover the scam et voila! Unfortunately, as Anthony Pratkanis has shown in studies of scammers preying on their elderly targets, “a lecture just makes the victim feel more defensive and pushes him or her further into the clutches of the fraud criminal” (1) This is linked to the theory of cognitive dissonance, in which we strive for internal consistency - the “already embarassed victim will withdraw further into themselves and clam up, refusing to tell anyone what they are doing”. So you will have inadvertently reinforced your grandmother’s views and made her even more likely to vote Leave in the repeated referendum (which you are still hoping for).

Option 3 - So what can you do? Instead of trying to convince your grandma, you could actually ask her questions. And not questions like “How could you possibly have believed that creep?" but rather: “Tell me what appealed to you about Leave?”. The whole “trick” is that rather than making her feel stupid and gullible, you want to make her feel  respected and supported.  

Why is listening to your grandmother and genuinely trying to understand her point of view so difficult for most of us? Let’s admit it, we are better at talking then at listening.  Empathy is hard work. Most of us also really enjoy being right and to point out other people’s errors. 
​
Why would you bother to listen to your grandma? Because she is your grandmother and cooks well. Also because you might be the person who will finally hear out her frustration with life, the queue at the NHS, the noisy Romanian neighbor, her unruly dog and the Archers (which have changed so much recently). Which in turn might make it just tiny bit less probable that she would vote for Nigel Farage next time or maybe not. But at least you have not made things worse. And maybe the British society could be a tiny bit less divided after such a discussion. And you might still get your double portion of chocolate cake to take home. 

Let’s imagine your name is Sheila and you voted Leave. You wake up on a Friday morning to walk the dog and are surprised to hear the news on the radio - Britain is leaving the EU. You did not really expect this to happen, but now that it has, well done, Britain. You will have your country and control back. You are slightly taken aback by Nigel Farage on the news saying that the 350 million promised to NHS will not go to NHS and by David Cameron resigning.

Your friends are coming over for tea this afternoon, and while this is not exactly a celebration, the mood is pretty good. You share your worries about the cost of your holiday in Italy, now that the pound is down, but your friends reassure you that it will go up again. You laugh at the money really rich people will lose over this - billions probably. Your friend Susan is angry at the plotters who want overrrule the referendum - the people signing the petition, Nicola Sturgeon and the EU bureaucrats. Such bad losers! If it were the other way round, they would be celebrating and gloating …
​
When everybody leaves, you realize your favorite grandson David is coming over for lunch tomorrow. Not only you have to prepare Chicken Kiev and make a chocolate cake, but what will you say to him?  

Option 1 - you can cancel lunch and pretend that your leg is in pain. But you really like David, he does not come to see you that often and it sounds cowardly. 

Option 2 - you will explain to him why you are right and he is, or rather was, wrong on Brexit. As your now late husband used to say, you can be pretty convincing when things matter to you. Anyway, you still cannot understand how David, such a logical boy, can not see why Britain would be better of on its own. Surely, all the predictions of terrible things that will happen in Britain after Brexit were said just to scare people. David will understand your arguments, wish he had voted Leave too and give you a compliment on your food. 

Unfortunately, as Anthony Pratkanis has shown in studies on scammers preying on their elderly targets (which in your book David Cameron or all these experts are very similar to, and David is not elderly, but young people can be very gullible too) “a lecture just makes the victim feel more defensive and pushes him or her further into the clutches of the fraud criminal” ) Etc. Etc. See above.

Option 3 - Yes, listen, listen, listen. Empathize. Seek not to judge, but to understand his young, unexperienced mind. Ask him: “What appeals to you about Remain?” and genuinely listen what he has to say. Why? Because he is your grandson. And it might be slightly less probable next time that he would be manipulated by those experts. Or maybe not, but at least you have not made things worse. And maybe the British society could be a tiny bit less divided after such a discussion. And you might still be able to cook him Chicken Kiev next year or the year after. 
​
You start cooking and you put on your favorite record, although it is only June …

So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young

Eva Blechová, July 3rd, 2016

(1) As quoted in Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson: Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me. Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts, Pinter and Martin, 2013 (more about this book here)