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.