Using Our Late Night FM DJ Voices
“Good relationships will keep you healthy and happy, healthier and happier than anything–including being right.[12]
Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator, recommends using what he calls a “late night FM DJ voice during a hostage negotiation, which is a calm, soothing, and slightly downward inflected tone of voice designed to create a sense of empathy and encourage collaboration with the other party.”[1] It’s been my dream and long term goal to become the kind of leader who is non-threatening, builds rapport and makes the other person feel heard all while remaining logical amidst high stress. The one characteristic I was not born with was a softer tone of voice–a kind of demure tenor that puts everyone within earshot at ease. To the contrary, I was liberally given an enthusiastic, intense and somewhat startling tone of voice with an almost impossible skill to hide my true feelings. My adult daughters and their husband’s/fiance all express how much they appreciate my deep questions and enthusiastic desire to know them; they also thrill when they say things that get a reaction out of me! Which as you know, isn’t all that difficult. Alas, my dream and long term goal has not changed since the beginning of this program. A handful of the books we have read provide practical communication skills that, coalesced together, create an archetype of what a thoughtful, well spoken leader might sound like in non-confrontational conversations and during truth-telling, impossible conversations.
Archetype of a Thoughtful, Well-Spoken Leader
I am recalling just a few here:
- In Mining for Gold, Tom Camacho writes, “We need people to speak the truth to us and encourage us to become all God created us to be.”[2] Camacho listed great questions like open-ended or ones designed to explore, not just gain information.
- Eve Poole in Leadersmithing writes, “A leader’s job is to nail down certainties and achieve agreement about them, whenever possible, so that the main effect can be directed to where it can add the most value.”[3]
- Daniel Kahneman’s[4] motif is overconfidence. He says experts are especially prone to an exaggerated sense of how well we understand the world.
- If we want to shift someone’s opinion, says Bobby Duffy,[5] we need to provide vivid stories alongside facts.
- In How to Be Heard, Julian Treasure claims people are more concerned with their speaking than that of their listening . . . “a balance between the two skills is essential because they are interrelated.”[6]
- Simon Walker talks about effective leaders and the importance of “whether a leader understands the kind of power she is using.”[7] Is power appropriate to use in that situation? Effective leaders tune into the same frequency, humming in the same key while resonating with their society.
- “Jung called instincts archetypes–the archetypes are the bones that give structure to the stories we tell ourselves” Daniel Lieberman[8] told us on the call, this is where individuals gain confidence in their beliefs. He also said that inspiration brings about fundamental change–this is what makes an individual.
What’s the Central Question I’m Asking?
Discovering my central question for Peter Boghossian’s and James Lindsay’s book, How to Have Impossible Conversations seemed impossible as I read helpful quips and tips while glossing over familiar techniques. Something was niggling in the back of my mind as I listened to the authors equip us with the tools to speak our minds, understand and be understood[9]–even in the most difficult conversations.
The “something” turned out to be a “someone” and maybe even a few “someones” as highlighted above. However, the loudest niggler was Johnathan Haidt who asked, “Why are young people today more anxious, depressed, and fragile than previous generations?”[10] We just read how changes in parenting, education and societal issues have led to a generation that is less resilient and more prone to anxiety. If the central theme of Boghossian’s and Lindsay’s book is teaching people how to engage in productive, respectful and rational dialogue with those who hold radically different beliefs, I believe the tone and ideological biases seep into their techniques: they are teaching people how to create doubt in others’ minds. How does this create healthy relationships?
Although the practical step-by-step approach to having difficult conversations might offer ideas for better communication with an anxious generation, at times their approach oversimplifies having genuine conversations with young people who are deconstructing their faith or confused about their political home. While the authors were straightforward about handling defensiveness and anger,[11] I wondered if their approach truly fostered happy, healthy relationships?
Why Does Haidt Sound More Like a Late Night FM DJ Voice?
In The Coddling of the American Mind, Jonathan Haidt, along with co-author Greg Lukianoff, suggests several strategies to help facilitate difficult conversations with the “anxious generation,” particularly in light of the rising levels of anxiety, fragility, and political polarization among young people. Here are a few key approaches Haidt recommends for having productive discussions: (one or two are mentioned in Boghossian’s book).
- Use Socratic Questioning: Haidt suggests using a method of questioning to help individuals reflect on their beliefs and thought processes without immediately challenging or dismissing them. The Socratic method—asking thoughtful, open-ended questions—can encourage individuals to examine the logical consistency of their views and the underlying assumptions driving them. This technique can help diffuse defensiveness and open up space for genuine dialogue.
- Foster Intellectual Humility: Haidt emphasizes the importance of promoting intellectual humility, both in yourself and others. This means acknowledging that none of us have all the answers and that our beliefs may be wrong or incomplete. In conversations, it’s helpful to model open-mindedness and show that it’s okay to change one’s mind or consider alternative viewpoints.
- Focus on Shared Values: To reduce polarization, Haidt suggests focusing on common ground and shared values. Instead of immediately diving into contentious issues, try to identify areas of agreement or mutual concern. This can help build rapport and show that, despite differences, both parties care about similar outcomes (e.g., well-being, fairness, justice).
- Practice “Agreeing to Disagree”: Haidt suggests that it’s important to accept that some disagreements may not be resolvable. Instead of pushing to “win” the conversation, it’s valuable to acknowledge when an issue is fundamentally divisive and to agree to disagree while still maintaining respect for the other person’s perspective. This can help prevent conversations from becoming overly combative.
- Model Emotional Resilience: Haidt believes that part of the anxiety and fragility in today’s generation stems from overprotective parenting and a lack of exposure to challenging or uncomfortable ideas. In conversations, it’s important to model emotional resilience—demonstrating that it’s possible to engage with difficult topics, handle discomfort, and still remain respectful and calm. By doing so, you can encourage others to be more resilient in their own thinking.
Ultimately, Haidt’s advice centers around creating an environment where both parties are open to challenging ideas without resorting to emotional overreaction or ideological rigidness. He advocates for nurturing a culture of open dialogue, intellectual curiosity, and the ability to engage with disagreement constructively, even in the face of difficult or sensitive topics. The book we read offered these in part–I just sensed Boghossian was persuading his readers on how to be right.
“Good relationships will keep you healthy and happy, healthier and happier than anything–including being right.[12]
[1] Voss, Chris, and Tahl Raz. Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It. 1st edition. New York: Harper Business, 2016.
[2] Camacho, Tom. Mining for Gold: Developing Kingdom Leaders through Coaching. Nottingham: IVP UK, 2019.
[3] Poole, Eve. Leadersmithing: Revealing the Trade Secrets of Leadership. London ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury Business, 2017.
[4] Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st edition. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.
[5] Duffy, Bobby. Why We’re Wrong About Nearly Everything: A Theory of Human Misunderstanding. Illustrated edition. New York: Basic Books, 2019.
[6] Treasure, Julian. How to Be Heard: Secrets for Powerful Speaking and Listening. Mango Media, 2017.
[7] Walker, Simon P. Leading Out of Who You Are: Discovering the Secret of Undefended Leadership. Piquant Editions, 2007.
[8] MD, Daniel Z. Lieberman. Spellbound: Modern Science, Ancient Magic, and the Hidden Potential of the Unconscious Mind. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2022.
[9] Boghossian, Peter G. How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide. First edition. New York, NY: Life Long, 2019.
[10] Haidt, Jonathan. The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. New York: Penguin Press, 2024.
[11] Boghossian, How to Have Impossible Conversations. P. 122.
[12] Harvard Second Generation Study, 2015.
About the Author
Pam Lau
Pamela Havey Lau brings more than 25 years of experience in speaking, teaching, writing and mediating. She has led a variety of groups, both small and large, in seminars, trainings, conferences and teachings. Pam’s passion is to see each person communicate with their most authentic voice with a transparent faith in Jesus Christ. With more than 10, 000 hours of writing, researching, and teaching the heart and soul of Pam’s calling comes from decades of walking alongside those who have experienced healing through pain and peace through conflict. As a professor and author, Pam deeply understands the role of mentoring and building bridges from one generation to another. She has developed a wisdom in how to connect leaders with their teams. Her skill in facilitating conversations extends across differences in families, businesses, schools, universities, and nonprofits. Pam specializes in simplifying complex issues and as a business owner, has helped numerous CEOs and leaders communicate effectively. She is the author of Soul Strength (Random House) and A Friend in Me (David C. Cook) and is a frequent contributor to online and print publications. You can hear Pam’s podcast on Real Life with Pamela Lau on itunes. Currently, Pam is a mediator for families, churches, and nonprofits. You can contact Pam through her website: PamelaLau.com. Brad and Pam live in Newberg, Oregon; they have three adult daughters and one son-in-law. One small, vocal dog, Cali lives in the family home where she tries to be the boss! As a family they enjoy worshiping God, tennis, good food and spending time with family and friends.15 responses to “Using Our Late Night FM DJ Voices”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I so agree wtih you, Pam. I felt like this wasn’t a book about how to have respectful impossible conversations, but a book trying to help us win an argument.
I’ve never read The Coddling of the American mind, but I resonate with those points much more than anything I read in this book.
Thanks!
Interesting that we sensed the same tone while we were reading, Tim. The parts where the authors gave us practical tips for handling anger I thought were helpful. When I heard Peter Boghossian on a podcast after I read the book, I was convinced he was against Christians and wondered if he wrote the book in wanting to change Christian’s minds on their beliefs?
By the way, I’ve been listening to more Jack Hayford sermons while working out and I can almost hear him saying, “The Holy Spirit spoke to my heart and said, . . . ” I appreciate his openness with hearing God’s voice. Do you think God “tries” to change our minds? Or does it all start with repentance?
Hi Pam,
Great post with lots of connecting points to other reading…thanks. I, like you, both noticed and referenced the author’s shift in intention throughout the book–from having meaningful and mutually-beneficial dialogue with another who believes differently from you…..to persuading someone who believes different to change their mind. In my blog, I noted that there is nothing inherently wrong with the second aspect of persuasion….but it did leave me uncomfortable, and as I read your blog the penny dropped as to why: conversation with the unspoken intent to persuade another person strikes me as inauthentic…almost manipulative. In a real sense, it’s likely what people feel about Christians who are ‘always trying to convert them’ even if that’s not the stated goal. As I read your blog, I thought about some people in my church that I don’t run to talk to…in part because I feel like they always have some ‘hidden agenda’ behind any interaction they have with me, and that violates by high authenticity value.
While the authors communicated a lot of good content–let others be wrong, listen and don’t just speak, etc…–the persuasion part felt slightly out of alignment with the desire to simply have meaningful connection with others through thoughtful and respectful conversation.
Thanks for helping clarify that for me.
Scott, Your comments about the people (THOSE people) who have an agenda with every interaction irritate me because I can sense them a mile away. The irony of what we are seeing and saying is that the Apostle Paul certainly used persuasive writing when speaking to the Jews and Gentiles about the Gospel. Isn’t the book of Galatians one long argumentative missive against a false Gospel? Either way, your statements about an agenda to persuade a person does feel manipulative to me. Like you, I work too hard to be my most authentic self with people, with God and myself to take on tactics that would not build genuine relationship. In your church, do you see a place for a book like this? Does your congregation need equipping in how to have conversations like this?
Hi Pam,
Such a great post.
My mind recognized the other authors names (that we have read), but you list gave me the mental boost that I needed.
You quoted Haidt, “Use Socratic Questioning: Haidt suggests using a method of questioning to help individuals reflect on their beliefs and thought processes without immediately challenging or dismissing them. The Socratic method—asking thoughtful, open-ended questions—can encourage individuals to examine the logical consistency of their views and the underlying assumptions driving them. This technique can help diffuse defensiveness and open up space for genuine dialogue.
I was so impressed with this method that I used it for my Immigration Symposium in Texas. It helped prime the intellectual pump for many of the students who attended. I sent out a “Worksheet/study sheet” with Socratic questions AND added websites that would fuel what I hoped would be “critical thinking.”
The symposium went well, and hopefully, the cascades of change (Sartell) started in gentle ripples.
Shalom.
Russell, Did you do the Symposium this week? How’d it go? Some weeks, I review the books we’ve read so I can find context for the current one we are reading; it helps me find connection. Peter Boghossian’s tips and advice overlap with Haidt’s in many ways, I just sensed an approach with more finesse, a little more human.
Hi,
The immigration symposium was actually in March and it helped me craft my message. I am presenting Interlinkt.org at a TESOL conference tomorrow morning in Colorado. Last week I presented at the West Texas TESOL. I am pleasantly surprised to discover MANY folk who are interested in investing in newcomers (despite the the election).
Pam, great post. You articulated something I could not:
“at times their approach oversimplifies having genuine conversations with young people who are deconstructing their faith or confused about their political home.”
I wrote a lot about how I perceived the authors to be going down a path of bait and switch, but I like how you pulled out how this can really do damage to people sincerely wrestling with their faith and can discourage that important work.
With my head and heart steeped so much in humility literature right now, I came across this quote that helps me clarify why it’s damaging:
“There are many who seek knowledge: that is curiosity. There are others who desire to know in order that they may themselves be known: that is vanity. But there are some who seek knowledge in order to serve and edify others: that is humility.” St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Ooh, I liked your quote in your last comment! I was going to say something about your post, but I am struck by the quote. curiosity vs. vanity and humility. I also liked this quote you pulled out “Good relationships will keep you healthy and happy, healthier and happier than anything–including being right”.[12] I absolutely can sniff out agenda’s in a conversation. SO to be able to keep curious and go to what I have found is to be explorer…ask more question you can’t possibly know the answer to, instead of being a detective.
Good blog Pam
Jana, Thanks for highlighting the quotes. As I read over our cohort member’s blogs, I am asking myself to be more clear about what exactly I am picking up in this book that felt like a shift in their otherwise practical guide to having Impossible Conversations (See Scott’s Blog). Perhaps what I am seeing is these techniques can be best used in a narrow form of life. Where? And for what purposes? I haven’t decided yet. What do you see?
Hi Pam,
Thank you for your brilliant post. You brilliantly show the correlation of this week’s readings with some of our previous cohort readings. I was intrigued by your statement about Boghossian and Lindsay. You said, “If the central theme of Boghossian’s and Lindsay’s book is teaching people how to engage in productive, respectful and rational dialogue with those who hold radically different beliefs, I believe the tone and ideological biases seep into their techniques: they are teaching people how to create doubt in others’ minds. How does this create healthy relationships?”
I appreciate your statement. I may have missed that part. How do you have a healthy conversation with someone with flawed beliefs without putting them in a bad light?
Blessings.
Dinka~
In the book, the authors clearly say how moral conversations are extremely difficult to navigate because moral beliefs are closely tied to issues of personal identity and community–it’s how a person views themselves. In my experience with teaching college students, life in general and seeing the division in beliefs, values, attitudes and qualities, the way forward of “not placing someone in a bad light” may only be by staying in close relationships with that person. To be honest, it’s a rarity. Most of us stay close to people with whom we agree. What have you observed?
I don’t have a late night FM voice either. I sound patronizing when I try to use that voice – or maybe I just *feel* like I am being patronizing when I use it. Anyway, it’s something I can work on.
I think it was Adam Harris who also mentioned creating doubt, but, if I remember correctly, he used the phrase “introducing doubt.” (I didn’t go back to actually check that though bc I have several more of these comments to write this morning!) I know it means the same thing but the phrase “introducing doubt” doesn’t feel inauthentic to me. It feels like part of the Socratic method. What do you think about the two phrases?
Kally~I love that you are differentiating between the two phrases: “Creating doubt” and “Introducing doubt”. As I wrote above, I reread our cohort’s blog posts as I am trying to think more clearly what struck me about this book causing me to question the techniques. Thinking aloud with you, for years I taught Argumentation and Persuasion for debate in my communication courses utilizing a few of the same tools Boghossian and Lindsay employ. The methods are tried and true for formal debates. After I read the book, I listened to a podcast with Peter Boghossian and I heard him clearly say to the podcast host: “My goal is to teach people to create doubt in people’s minds.” I also heard him speak in demeaning ways about people who hold certain religious beliefs and convictions which caused me to pause. Might it be about context? I’d like to bring Todd into this conversation to talk about Peter Rollins work. A few years back, several of my peers told me that Peter Rollins (and voices like his) “introduced doubt” to their teenagers and young adults in their faith leaving them deeply troubled rather than stronger. I don’t know the full story; I am thoughtful about this strategy. In the context Adam writes about, I envision a more formal debate or consensual relationship where both conversation partners want to spar. I am energized by those kinds of conversations–however, the boundaries of relationship are very clear so as to not question a person’s identity. It’s early I may not be making much sense.