Knowing how to disagree well may be one of today’s most important skills, and most of us are bad at it. Political dialogue in the United States has grown increasingly fractured, and the numbers reflect it: According to Pew Research Data from February, 56 percent of Americans now say they have stopped talking to certain people about political news because of something they said—up from 45 percent in 2024.
Julia Minson, a behavioral scientist and professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, has spent her career studying conflict management, negotiation, and the psychology of disagreement. Her book How to Disagree Better will be published next week.
In this interview, edited for length and clarity, she shares practical strategies for engaging with people we disagree with.
1. What’s the most common mistake we make when we disagree?
Trying to win. We go in wanting to persuade the other person they’re wrong and we’re right. That usually backfires. Often, what is underneath is a phenomenon psychologists call “naïve realism:” we assume our view of the world is basically correct and objective, and we don’t notice how much our background, incentives, and mood shape what we see. So when someone disagrees, we don’t think “I might be missing something.” We think something’s wrong with them.
2. What practical shifts would make others more receptive to opposing views?
First, say out loud that you want to learn. Don’t assume people can tell you’re curious. Use clear phrases like: “That’s how I see it, but I’d like to understand other perspectives.” The research shows that even a couple of sentences like this—without changing your actual argument—makes the other side see you as more reasonable, trustworthy, and worth talking to again. Second, use the H.E.A.R. framework when you make your case: Hedge your claims (“most of the time,” “in many cases”); Emphasize where you agree; Acknowledge their view before you disagree; and Reframe to the positive (fewer “don’t,” “can’t,” “never”; more “I’d appreciate,” “what would help”). You’re not changing your position, but you’re showing that you are leaving some mental space for their arguments. And receptiveness in language tends to be reciprocated.
In experiments, people who get brief training in [the H.E.A.R framework] are rated by disagreeing counterparts as more trustworthy, objective, and desirable as teammates, even on very divisive topics … Teaching people what to say works better than only urging them to be more empathetic or humble, because it gives them concrete moves they can use in the moment.
3. Political and cultural polarization have intensified in recent years. What psychological forces drive this trend?
Interestingly, some of what we call polarization is actually false polarization: we think we’re much further apart than we are politically. Multiple studies show that people overestimate how much the other side disagrees with them. Those assumptions prevent us from engaging in dialogue, which means we never correct the caricature, and the cycle continues. When people do talk, they often find more overlap than they expected. I think we should put ourselves in the position to be pleasantly surprised more often.
4. What can make some disagreements harder to navigate than others?
Our identities absolutely shape both what we’re willing to discuss and how we explain the other side. Depending on your own experiences, some issues feel sacred or off-limits. We might be fine debating one topic but feel that engaging with another legitimizes something we see as harmful. That’s often tied to identity (e.g., immigrant experience, faith, profession). It makes those disagreements feel riskier and more emotional.
We also use our counterpart’s identity to explain to ourselves why a disagreement is happening. When someone disagrees with us, we often attribute it to their group, motives, or flaws, rather than to information or values we might not share. So, disagreements that touch moral convictions or core identity are harder.
5. What role does language play in conflict? Are there particular words, phrases, or framings you shouldn’t use?
Language is central. We can’t see someone’s intentions; we only see how they behave. Words are the main way we signal receptiveness or lack thereof. Avoid negations and negative emotion like “don’t,” “can’t,” “never,” “hate,” “terrible”—they escalate. Avoid reasoning words when they sound condescending: “because,” “therefore,” and “the fact is” can sound like you’re lecturing. Avoid adverb limiters like “just,” “simply,” “only,” “merely”—they shrink the other person’s view and feel dismissive.
The research shows that the same ideas land very differently depending on whether it’s wrapped in receptive language or are stated simply as a counterargument. One person’s choice of words can shift the whole exchange.
