Taboo Topics and Demonstrating Intellectual Hospitality
Based on some of our cohort’s previous posts, I am picturing many of us starting this week’s post off naming the person(s) in our lives whom we cannot have a conversation with regarding certain topics. For many years I have avoided discussing religion and politics with my dad. Over the years, when it comes to religious conversations, I have been practicing Boghossian and Lindsay’s technique of “Let Friends Be Wrong.”[1] I will acknowledge his beliefs but choose not to argue against them. As Kathryn Schulz points out in her book Being Wrong, we do not all “perceive the world the same way.”[2] One of us is wrong in our beliefs, but Schulz also points out that “there is no experiences of being wrong.”[3]
Until reading Boghossian and Lindsay’s book, my thought process was that one day one of us will realize that our perception and beliefs were wrong, and there is no sense in ruining our friendship. After reading the book, I am still willing to practice “Let Friend be Wrong,”[4] but now I am equipped with some tools to help me gain an understanding of my dad’s beliefs. What I have noted over the years is that when it comes to religion and politics, it doesn’t seem to take much to make my dad angry. Boghossian and Lindsay mention four facts about anger.
- “Anger blinds you and derails conversations.”
- “Anger seeks its own justification.”
- “All emotions, including anger carry with them what is know as a refractor period.”
- “By understanding how anger works and committing yourself to avoiding it, you can minimize its impact on your conversations and in your life.”[5]
I see the first three occur in conversations with my dad. There are reasons that I do not know that explain why my dad gets so angry. Taking Boghossian and Lindsay’s advice I need to have understanding as a foundational goal in our conversations.[6] I need to learn from him. I need to examine his epistemology. When I was very young my dad taught creation and evolution to a Sunday School class at the church we attended. In that class he defended creation. Now, he would be defending evolution. What changed and how did that change occur? Those are epistemological questions I have but have never felt comfortable asking.
I listened to two different videos with Boghossian discussing and demonstrating with this audience some of the techniques from the book. I really enjoyed the examples that involved using scales. I believe using scales would be a good technique to use in having conversations with my dad. This would allow both of us to understand how strongly he holds his beliefs. It would also provide me with a great starting point in understanding him and possibly causing him to doubt his own beliefs.
Boghossian and Lindsay’s techniques are useful, and I can think of several other people, many are closed minded, with whom I could use these techniques, but how does having impossible conversations relate to leadership? Leadership involves influencing people and as Boghossian and Lindsay point out that needs to be done in a “psychologically safe environments”[7] People do not like to be attacked. Being attacked activates the limbic system and as Boghossian and Lindsay, Bobby Duffy, Tim Hartford and other authors we have read point out we tend not to think rationally when we our emotions are involved.[8] If as leaders we want to influence people and possibly change their way of thinking and perceiving the world, then they must feel safe. One way to do this is to exhibit an attitude of intellectual hospitality.
Kim Phipps writes:
Intellectual hospitality involves care and concern for the person, and it also necessitates inviting others into conversation, listening without prejudging, and affirming the value of others and their perspectives even when legitimate disagreements exist. Most important, intellectual hospitality involves the virtue of epistemological humility, which roots openness to the views of others in the recognition that our own mental powers are limited and that the cognitive experiential, and affective insights of others, especially when they are different from our own, can truly deepen and extend our understanding of others and the world that surrounds us. Intellectual hospitality is not just a matter of being civil to other people in an academic setting; it is a methodology of inquiry that humbly assumes that we can learn as much (or more) from those with whom we disagree as we can from our like-minded colleagues. [9]
I don’t know if Phipps has ever read anything by Boghossian or Lindsay, her essay was published in 2004 well before this book. It really seems to home in on the purpose of engaging in impossible conversations with others. As Boghossian and Lindsay state, the purpose of these impossible conversations is not to win but seek to understand the other person.[10]
As leaders, humbly building relationships with those we influence must be a priority; ensuring that people feel safe and understood allows those relationships to be built.
Knowing that I have a good safe relationship with my dad, I want to practice intellectual hospitality and engage in impossible conversations with him to understand his epistemology. I know that there is a lot I can learn from him and his life experiences that will help sharpen my own leadership skills.
[1] Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, (New York: Hatchett Books, 2019), 73.
[2] Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong Adventures in the Margin of Error, (New York: Harpers Collings, 2010), 55.
[3] Schulz, 18.
[4] Boghossian and Lindsay, 13.
[5] All four facts were taken from Boghossian and Lindsay, 124.
[6] Boghossian and Lindsay, 13.
[7] Boghossian and Lindsay, 12.
[8] Boghossian an Lindsay; Duffy, Why We are Wrong About Nearly Everything: A Theory of Human Misunderstanding, (New York: Basic, 2018); Harford, How to Make the World Add up, (Great Britian: Bridge Street Press, 2020).
[9] Kim S. Phipps “Epilogue: Campus Climate and Christian Scholarship.” In Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the Conversation. Eds. Douglas Jacobsen and Rhonda Hustedt Jacobsen (Oxford UP, 2004), 174.
[10] Boghossian and Lindsay, 12.
About the Author
Jeff Styer
Jeff Styer lives in Northeast Ohio's Amish Country. He has degrees in Social Work and Psychology and currently works as a professor of social work at Mount Vernon Nazarene University. Jeff is married to his wife, Veronica, 25+ years. Together they have 4 beautiful children (to be honest, Jeff has 4 kids, Veronica says she is raising 5). Jeff loves the outdoors, including biking, hiking, camping, birding, and recently picked up disc golf.11 responses to “Taboo Topics and Demonstrating Intellectual Hospitality”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Jeff, what does “Let Friend Be Wrong” look like in practice, especially when the stakes feel personal, for example non-Christian collogues mocking the Christian faith?
Shela,
Great question and I am far from perfect in handling this myself. My first instinct is to ask – If they are mocking a faith they know you hold are they really a friend?
A real friendship should be able to handle disagreements. In a video that I listened to Boghossian talked about a time when he ruined a friendship and how he carries that with him. I think Let Friends Be Wrong really involves assessing the situation and determining how important the friendship is versus the need to be right.
Hey Jeff,
I really love the term intellectual hospitality—thank you for highlighting Kim Phipps’ thoughts on it. I also appreciate your honesty in sharing about your interactions with your dad and the way you’re recognizing that there are still important things to learn from him. I know that can be really difficult and often discouraging. What are some meaningful ways you’ve thought about practicing intellectual hospitality with him?
I can tell you that over the past few years I’ve grown closer to him politically than I was before, but I still have to what topics are safe and which ones will really upset him. Regarding religious conversations, there is a conversation that I have wanted to have with him for years and never have. I want to know what makes him so angry about religion. I’ve thought about trying to have that conversation with him and just listen and empathize with him. Having that conversation might actually open other doors for deeper and hopefully calm discussions.
Hi Jeff, I appreciate you bringing out intellectual hospitality. Over the past week, I hosted several people from diverse cultures and languages. My desire is that everyone, regardless of their backgrounds, will feel comfortable and safe in my home. How much more vital it is that people feel intellectually safe as they share and discuss.
Kari,
Yes it is so important to feel like you have the freedom to express yourself and not be attacked or made to feel bad or stupid. I have friends in Cleveland that are very involved in racial reconciliation projects throughout the area. I know that this is important to them as they work to unite people.
Hi Jeff, Somewhere in my academic travels the concept that anger is a response to some kind of fear was discussed. I am wondering if approaching any conversation where anger seems to take center stage from a curiosity about what fear might be prompting the anger might be useful.
Diane,
I’ve also been told that anger is a secondary emotion. Fear may be driving the anger and that may be a great way to approach the topics. Thanks.
Jeff, I agree that it’s hard to have these kinds of conversations with people we love and care about.
With that in mind, beyond using scales, what’s a small, tangible action you plan to take in a conversation with your dad to demonstrate intellectual hospitality and make him feel psychologically safe?
Debbie,
I think asking questions that show up front my desire to learn and understand. Starting conversations with”I’m curious about. . . “
Jeff,
I too, have challenges conversing with some family members. I I also feel like it is good to hear their perspective at times but I wonder to what extent? If the family member is spouting off racist ideologies and non-factual information then I am not sure I want to listen to them anymore. I have heard their perspective and now I find it offensive and don’t want my kids to be around it. So, I just stick to discussing the weather like the good Minnesotan that I am. Do you think there are times that we simply shouldn’t have the conversations at all?