Impossible Conversations and A Broken Friendship
Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have written a practical book that provides a framework for “communicat(ing) effectively with people who hold radically different beliefs.”[1] How to Have Impossible Conversations “teaches you how to have conversations with anyone who’s willing to speak with you, even though those people and those conversations seem impossible.”[2] And this is key: The people with whom you choose to converse, no matter how divergent their beliefs, must be willing to talk. I say this, in part because there is a story that immediately came to mind as I read the book. It’s a story about two friends. I know them both, quite well. One of the two decided to quit talking to the other. Their “story” is below. In this post, I’m going to keep their names and the details of their story anonymous while I weave in some of Boghossian’s and Lindsay’s observations about impossible conversations. I will conclude with three takeaways.
A broken friendship
In recent years I watched the collapse of a friendship. In reality, this friendship unraveled in part because the friends failed to execute the “fundamentals of good conversations”[3] in the midst of increasingly different perspectives. Their interaction became impossible. And by “impossible,” I do mean at the very least what the authors meant regarding “conversations that feel futile because they take place across a seemingly unbridgeable gulf of disagreement in ideas, beliefs, morals, politics, or worldviews.”[4] But I also mean “impossible” because one refused to talk to the other. Thankfully the two have not taken the disagreement to social media, but there is no doubt that one told the other, in so many words: “I’m not going to talk to you anymore.” And the other essentially said, “I don’t want to have anything to do with you.” As of August 2024, the friendship remains on hiatus.
Boghossian and Lindsay write, “When someone refuses to speak with you, there’s no conversation to be had.”[5] This is where the communication between these two former friends stands today. While one of the two HAS reached out to reconcile, the other presently refuses to do so. When the latter did initially respond (in this case, via text or email), it was never with, it was always to. There really wasn’t a healthy exchange. Today, “a give-and-take seems hopeless because the person across from (the former friend) fails to speak with (the former friend) and instead speaks at (the former friend).”[6] Though rapport WAS there, it was taken for granted. “(K)eeping the friendship should (have) rank(ed) higher than winning an argument or scoring rhetorical points.”[7] But alas, the arguments and disagreements trumped the relationship.
If “(t)he goal of an intervention is to help people become less confident about what they believe,”[8] then these two may have had the wrong goal in mind, even if unconsciously. Instead, each wanted to be right and the other to be completely wrong. And perhaps one of the two IS indeed wrong, but the reconciliatory friend started the process on the wrong foot. Rather than “(m)odel(ing) the behavior (the friend) want(ed) to see in (the) conversation partner,”[9] the reconciliatory friend started a particular conversation in accusatory fashion, and the subsequent conversations – really, the entire friendship – has yet to recover.
Excursus
Even as I tell this story, I think of how many times I have been “so focused on winning…that (I) ruined the conversation.”[10] I thought of conversations I’ve had with my oldest son who is now married and 27. My son and I have had many “discussions” where both of us probably wanted to win. Thankfully, we value our friendship and our love for one another more than the argument, and so the discourse has been mostly civil – ha.
Three takeaways
For people embroiled in impossible conversations, how many of us believe we have enough time to “make the other person in the conversation a partner, not an adversary.”[11] Better yet, how many of us actually WANT TO? The latter may be the better question. Everyone is limited. No one has infinite margins, so I get it. Regardless, if I were to address these friends in the future, I’d want to explore this idea – how to make the other a partner in the conversation, not an adversary.
Of course, I would imagine that some people wake up each day WANTING to argue, wanting to “win” and their “opponent(s)” to lose. For them, this is a zero-sum affair. I’m reminded of what Russell Moore pointed out in Losing Our Religion. For those who wake up wanting to argue, “these arguments are their lives.”[12] That’s why people need a guidebook for how to engage in civil discourse. Yet, for those who feel like they’ve hit a discourse roadblock, the authors say we need the freedom to be able to “(w)alk away.”[13] They need to give themselves the freedom to choose, either way. Either that or begin with the recognition that we may be dealing with an idealogue. Of course, “Sometimes we are the idealogues. Sometimes we are unwilling to learn.”[14] But takeaway #2 is that if I could address the aforementioned friends, I’d encourage them to feel the freedom to walk away from the conversation.
Finally, a person may be so caught up in their position that it’s no longer (never was?) based on evidence. The authors state, “What it means to hold a belief based on evidence is, by definition, that one is open to the possibility that evidence might be discovered that would change one’s mind. If no evidence would change one’s mind, then one is not forming one’s beliefs on the basis of evidence.”[15] The authors do provide a roadmap for helping someone to deal with their epistemology[16], but if they are unwilling to change their mind, then no conversation is possible. And that is my final takeaway. Recognize that someone’s perspective may not be based on evidence. It’s based on something way more personal, even if unreasonable.
[1] Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, New York: Hachette, 2019, Kindle version, 1 of 234.
[2] Boghossian and Lindsay, 4 of 234.
[3] See chapter two, “”The Seven Fundamentals of Good Conversations,” in How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, pages 9 – 32 of 234. The authors outline the fundamentals:
“#1 — Goals
Why are you engaged in this conversation?
#2 — Partnerships
Be partners, not adversaries
#3 — Rapport
Develop and maintain a good connection
$4 — Listen
Listen more, talk less
#5 — Shoot the messenger
Don’t deliver your truth
#6 — Intentions
People have better intentions than you think
#7 — Walk away
Don’t push your conversation partner beyond their comfort zone” (Boghossian and Lindsay, 9 of 234)
[4] Boghossian and Lindsay, 3 of 234.
[5] Boghossian and Lindsay, 3 of 234.
[6] Boghossian and Lindsay, 3 of 234.
[7] Boghossian and Lindsay, 16 of 234.
[8] Boghossian and Lindsay, 34 of 234.
[9] Boghossian and Lindsay, 35 of 234.
[10] Boghossian and Lindsay, 2 of 234.
[11] Boghossian and Lindsay, 9 of 234.
[12] Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America, New York: Sentinel, 2023, 92..
[13] Boghossian and Lindsay, 125 of 234.
[14] Boghossian and Lindsay, 65 of 234.
[15] Boghossian and Lindsay, 91 of 234.
[16] Boghossian and Lindsay write, “Here are some simple ways you can focus on how your partner comes to knowledge rather than just on what he thinks he knows:
- Make a brief, positive statement before probing someone’s epistemology…
- Ask ‘outsider questions’…
- Start your conversation in wonder…
- If someone’s reasoning makes no sense, there’s a good chance they reason that way to justify a (moral) belief that cannot otherwise be justified…
- Try to derive other conclusions from their reasoning process.” (Boghossian and Lindsay, 61 – 64 of 234)
About the Author
Travis Vaughn
5 responses to “Impossible Conversations and A Broken Friendship”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi, Travis,
We have all been there. Conversing to win! My conversational skills have been helped immensely by the coaching skills I have had to learn and am still learning. They correlate with many of the thoughts in this book. However, in coaching the thought partnership is agreed upon. Much easier!
Your final take-away to “recognize that someone’s perspective may not be based on evidence. It’s based on something way more personal, even if unreasonable” is helpful on so many levels. It helps me rise to a more self-differentiated platform as I interact.
I am curious. The book is full of practical skills to develop. Which one resonates as one you want to cultivate more of?
The skill that I immediately resonated with was #1 “Goals” in their “Seven Fundamentals of Good Conversations” – asking “Why are you engaged in this conversation?” This of course is a great place to start as a coach, asking the coachee “What would be most helpful in this coaching conversation” or “By the end of our coaching time today, what would have been most helpful for you (or what would you hope to walk away with?)” But one of the practical skills I’d like to cultivate more of is beginning a conversation with more wonder (the authors say to “Start your conversation in wonder”).
Travis~Your post flows extremely well as you intersperse your takeaways from the book and the “story” of your friends’ ruined friendship. First, not much discourages me more than witnessing friendships (or families!) split apart over disagreements. The tale is as old as time. One question I had reading your post and the book is this: Must one change a person’s mind for understanding, compassion and wisdom to take hold? In other words, is my goal to change a person’s mind? To change a person’s belief? One example that came to my mind was when an Atheist friend of mine tried to change my mind on God’s existence. I could still engage in conversation but they were not going to change my mind. What are your thougths?
Thanks, Pam, and you ask some great questions. I think the answer is “no” or “probably not, depending on the context” to your question “Must one change a person’s mind for understanding, compassion and wisdom to take hold of?” I think Proverbs 15:1 fits here: “A soft answer turns away wrath.” Also, I think Paul’s words in Romans 12:18-20 are also applicable: “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’” If there is indeed a mind to be changed or a belief to be changed, ultimately that job rests in God’s hand. And…if, of course, someone’s mind does need to be changed (and of course that change could begin with the mind of the one trying to do the convincing), it is helpful to know that God is the one who gives the gift of change (repentance), not me.
Travis,
I thought it was really creative to weave a true story of friendship lost due to “bad” conversations to reflect the concepts of the book. I hope with time that they find their way back to each other….perhaps a “secret Santa” gift to them both of this book under their tree?