We are all searching for answers. Everyone can recognize that the world is clearly not as it was meant to be.
Somewhere along the way, that search has moved from curious to closed, exploratory to angry, peaceful to violent. We have lost the art of arguments and the character required for disagreement.
Dale Carnegie, the famous American writer and thinker, once said “You can't win an argument. You can't because if you lose it, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it” (Goodreads, 2024). The world seems to agree with him. In response to our division, we have retreated into echo chambers void of disagreement. This is a particular problem on the far left, where a paralytic fear of harm has created such a high barrier for argument that only individuals with extremely high social capital that has been cultivated in the right way through institutional education can navigate the egg shells.
I disagree with Dale, and some of the wider cultural trends, on a fundamental level because I think we have mischaracterized the purpose of arguments. Arguments aren't a game to be won or lost, they're a joint search for truth and better answers to problems. Aristotle once said "it is possible that the many, though not individually good men, yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively, than those who are so, just as public dinners to which many contribute are better than those supplied at one man's cost" (Aristotle, 4th century BC). A statistician names Sir Frances Galton validated this idea with a simple experiment. At a 1906 country fair in Plymouth, 800 people participated in a contest to estimate the weight of a slaughtered and dressed ox. Galton observed that the median guess, 1207 pounds, was accurate within 1% of the true weight of 1198 pounds (Wikipedia contributors, 2025).
We are much better at understanding things together than apart.
However, our unwillingness and inability to argue well causes many many problems. It damages social cohesion, increases the level of anger and distrust in society, and decimates any possibility for curiosity about others opinions as we're always on the defensive. This ultimately perpetuates the problem as people take increasingly extreme positions as the "us and them" mentality takes root.
This plays our in the data. 76% of Britons believe that Britain is divided. 64% believe that division has increased in the last 10 years. 52% say that there is tension between immigrants and people born in the UK. 44% say there is division between people with differing political views. The US ranks higher on all of these statistics (Shrimpton, 2024)
And thinking turns into action. A poll in the US showed that "40% of Gen Z and Millennial workers would quit a job over political differences in the workplace and 42% of all generations find that politics had impacted their team in some way" (Kratz, 2025). In my life, I see that almost no one has good, proximate, understanding relationships across the political divide.
So, how do we have better political conversations that reduce division, increase trust, and allow unguarded curiosity?
I've only seen it done really really well on a couple of occasions, and rarely by myself. When I have seen it done well, the dialogue has had the following 4 features, so I offer them as a model for better political conversations.
An active search for proximity with people who disagree with us
For the majority of us, most of our social circles consist of people who agree with us. Our internet circles are the same - They are full of people who agree with us. I very rarely see people I know posting things I strongly disagree with.
Some research by Cambridge has shown why this is a problem. They ran an experiment with small groups of partisan Labour and Conservative voters in the UK where they were presented with "The new plan for immigration" policy. Some of the groups were entirely homogenous (Only Labour voters or only Conservative voters) and some groups were mixed. Their conclusion? "Conservative partisans in the homogeneous groups became more supportive of the policy, however measured, when compared to Conservatives in mixed groups. Equally, Labour partisans in the homogeneous discussion groups became less supportive of the policy, however measured, when compared to those in mixed groups" (Hobolt et al, 2023).
People who only engage with like minded people become more extreme in their beliefs. It's not just that they don't change their minds, it's that they agree more strongly. And as Aristotle and Sir Frances Galton observed, this means we end up with worse answers.
All of this to say we have to actively search for proximity with people who disagree with us. We need relationships across political divides where we can talk about the world and how we each see it. These relationships and conversations can be more uncomfortable, but they are ultimately more full as they challenge our perceptions and experiences.
I see there being a couple of ways of doing this. An easy starting point is to post open, non-hostile opinions on the internet and respond when people disagree to invite them into further conversation. Probably a more meaningful step is to invite people round to our houses who we know are in disagreement with our opinions, to enjoy food together, and to talk. Another approach could be to embed in local community groups where we know there might be differences of opinion. Lastly, universities can be a great place to actively search out disagreement by design. There are lots of ways to find people who disagree, they are everywhere, it just takes intention.
A consistent assumption that others have good intentions and ultimately want good outcomes
Whenever I've seen political conversations done well, at least one of the participants assumes the other has good intentions. They use phrases like "ultimately, we both want X" or "I can see you really want Y to change". They ask "What is the outcome you're really hoping for through this policy or movement?".
The vast majority of the time, people want similar things. We want other people to flourish. We hate poverty and injustice and unfairness. We want to feel safe. We want good leaders who make good decisions.
Starting with this as our baseline assumption means we don't disagree about the why, we disagree about the how. Once we've assumed we agree on the why, it becomes much easier to talk about the how with curiosity and without anger.
Search for common ground and similarities
I recently saw a great video where Krish Kandiah, a social entrepreneur, went on GB News to talk about the integration of immigrants. The link is below:
The presenter and Krish clearly don't have the same worldview. The presenter starts out with some figures about immigrants not learning the language and being on benefits. Krish fights really hard in the conversation to keep coming back to "We all agree that learning languages is really important". He then speaks about ESOL being underfunded and the need to fund this to enable people to learn languages. He also speaks about the reality that Brits abroad don't learn local languages, and often locals learn English which accommodates us. He suggests that we should learn some words of Ukrainian to help Ukrainian refugees feel welcome.
It's a far better model for conversation when we start by finding common ground. However slim, there will always be something to agree on, and this agreement can be the base for a much better conversation. I'm absolutely sure that Krish's approach had more impact on the presenter and on the viewers than a different commentator coming on and immediately snapping back with statistics and accusations.
When you disagree, "speak the truth in love"
We've found people who think differently, we've assumed they have good intentions, and we've fought for common ground and agreement. There is then always space to disagree.
I've always liked the biblical idea of "speaking the truth in love". We need to say what we think is true, with evidence, but in love.
I think a great starting point for "speaking the truth" is to use statistics, data, and logic as these provide a good baseline for disagreement, but to pair these with playful and optimistic suggestions and ideas. In Krish's example above, he demonstrates that 13% of Brits abroad don't speak the local language compared to 1.3% of immigrants in the UK. He pairs this with the optimistic idea that we should learn a few words of Ukrainian.
I also think that it is absolutely imperative to do this "in love". To look people in the eye, with a smile, when we disagree. To search for our common humanity with others, to empathize with their worldview, and to disagree out of that place. We're in a much better place to disagree when we treat others like they are humans, made in the image of God, rather than ideological objects.
I'm convinced that if we want to fight the polarization of our societies, it starts with everyday people like you and me having better arguments. And I'm convinced that there is a model for having better arguments that looks radically different to today because its foundation is curiosity and grace.
All of us have good and bad bits in us. Much of life is a battle to unearth the good, gentle, curious, humble, compassionate bits at the expense of the angry, idolatrous, power-hungry bits. Arguments should be a collective endeavor to see and build up the good bits in others in search of good answers, as opposed to accusing and condemning the bad bits in others in search of personal righteousness.
Goodreads.com. (2024). A quote from How to Win Friends & Influence People. [online] Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/722865-you-can-t-win-an-argument-you-can-t-because-if-you [Accessed 9 Mar. 2025].
Aristotle (1967) [4th century BC]. "III". Politics. Translated by Rackham, H. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library. p. 1281b. ASIN B00JD13IJW.
Wikipedia Contributors (2025). Wisdom of the crowd. Wikipedia.
Shrimpton, H. (2024). Three in four say Britain is divided, but public say problems are less serious than in the US. [online] Ipsos. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-four-say-britain-divided-public-say-problems-are-less-serious-than-us.
Kratz, J. (2025). How To Navigate Political Discourse with Civility and Respect. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2025/03/02/how-to-navigate-political-discourse-with-civility-and-respect/ [Accessed 9 Mar. 2025].
Hobolt, S.B., Lawall, K. and Tilley, J. (2023). The Polarizing Effect of Partisan Echo Chambers. American Political Science Review, 118(3), pp.1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423001211.
Comments