How to Have Impossible Conversations with Peter Boghossian

Before we dive in, I want to let you know this episode is entirely AI-generated, including the voices you're hearing. Today's show is brought to you by MindBridge Pro, the new app that helps you practice difficult conversations with AI before having them in real life.

I'm Marcus, and today we're talking about a book that tackles one of the most important skills of our time. How do you actually have productive conversations with people who fundamentally disagree with you?

My guest is Peter Boghossian, philosopher and author of "How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide." Peter, welcome to the show.

Thanks for having me, Marcus. I'm excited to dig into this.

Let's start with the obvious question. What makes a conversation impossible?

It's when people are so entrenched in their positions that they can't even hear what the other person is saying. Think about politics, religion, conspiracy theories. People aren't just disagreeing about facts anymore.

They're operating from completely different epistemologies. Different ways of knowing what's true.

And you wrote this book because traditional debate and argument techniques just make things worse?

Exactly. When you try to win an argument, you activate the other person's defenses. Their brain literally shuts down to new information. It's a biological response.

I spent years teaching philosophy students how to think critically, but I realized most people never learned these basic conversational skills.

So what's your background that led you to develop this approach?

I'm a philosopher by training, but I've spent decades studying how people actually change their minds. I worked with street epistemologists, people who have conversations with strangers about their deepest beliefs.

I also collaborated with James Lindsay on this book, and we drew from cognitive science, psychology, and practical field experience.

Street epistemology is fascinating. You literally go out and talk to random people about religion and politics?

Right. And what we discovered is that the same techniques that work with strangers work even better with people you know. The key is getting past their defensive reactions.

What's the big problem this book is trying to solve? Why does this matter so much right now?

We're living in separate information bubbles. Families are being torn apart over politics. People can't even agree on basic facts anymore.

But here's the thing. Most people think the solution is better arguments or more facts. That's backwards. The solution is better conversations.

Okay, so let's get to your core thesis. What's the central claim of your book?

The main idea is that you can't change someone's mind by attacking their conclusions. You have to understand and gently examine the process they used to reach those conclusions.

Most people have never been asked how they know what they know. When you ask with genuine curiosity, something magical happens.

Can you give me a concrete example of what this looks like?

Sure. Let's say someone believes vaccines are dangerous. Instead of throwing studies at them, you ask: 'That's interesting. How did you first come to that conclusion?'

Then you listen. Really listen. You might ask, 'What would it take for you to change your mind about this?' or 'How confident are you in this belief on a scale of one to ten?'

And this approach is different from traditional debate how?

Debate is about winning. This is about understanding. In debate, you're trying to prove the other person wrong. Here, you're trying to help them examine their own thinking.

The goal isn't to change their mind in that conversation. It's to plant a seed of doubt that might grow over time.

Where does this approach come from historically? What's the intellectual foundation?

It goes back to Socrates, actually. The Socratic method of asking questions rather than making statements. But we've refined it using modern cognitive science.

We also draw from motivational interviewing, which therapists use to help people overcome addiction. The techniques for helping someone quit smoking work for helping someone examine their political beliefs.

That's a fascinating connection. What does the research tell us about how minds actually change?

People change their minds when they feel safe and when they do the work themselves. If I tell you you're wrong, your brain treats it as an attack. But if you discover inconsistencies in your own thinking, that's different.

There's also something called the elaboration likelihood model. People are more likely to change deeply held beliefs when they're in a reflective, not defensive, state of mind.

Okay, let's dive into the practical methods. What's the first tool you teach people?

The partnership approach. Before you even start the conversation, you establish that you're not adversaries. You're partners trying to understand truth together.

You might say something like, 'I'm genuinely curious about your perspective on this. Can you help me understand how you see it?'

Can you walk me through a real example of how this partnership approach works?

I once talked to a woman who believed the earth was flat. Instead of laughing or arguing, I said, 'I've never met anyone who believes this. I'm genuinely curious. What convinced you?'

She lit up. Nobody had ever asked her that question with genuine curiosity. She started explaining, and I kept asking follow-up questions about her reasoning process.

What happened in that conversation?

By the end, she said, 'You know, I'm not as confident about this as I was an hour ago.' That's a huge win. I didn't convince her the earth was round, but I helped her examine her confidence level.

So the goal isn't necessarily to change the belief, but to change how certain they are about it?

Exactly. Certainty is the enemy of learning. If someone is 100% sure about something, there's no room for new information. But if they go from 100% to 80% certain, now there's an opening.

What's the next key method you teach?

Building rapport before getting into content. This is huge. You need to establish trust and likability before you can have any influence.

Find common ground first. Maybe you both love your kids or you're both frustrated with traffic. Start there, not with the controversial topic.

How long should you spend on rapport building?

It depends on the relationship and the topic. With a stranger, maybe ten or fifteen minutes. With a family member about a deeply held belief, maybe several conversations before you even touch the controversial topic.

The more controversial the topic, the stronger the rapport needs to be.

Now let's talk about the questioning techniques themselves. What kinds of questions actually work?

The magic questions start with 'How do you know that?' or 'What convinced you of that?' You're not challenging the belief, you're exploring the epistemology behind it.

Another powerful one is, 'What would have to be true for you to change your mind about this?' This gets them thinking about their own belief system.

Can you give me a workplace example of how these questions might work?

Sure. Let's say your colleague thinks remote work is terrible for productivity. Instead of citing studies, you ask, 'That's interesting. What experiences led you to that conclusion?'

Maybe they'll say, 'Well, when our team went remote, projects started falling behind.' Now you can explore that specific experience rather than arguing about remote work in general.

And then what? How do you probe deeper without seeming argumentative?

You might ask, 'What do you think was happening that caused the delays? Were there other factors that might have contributed?' You're helping them examine their own reasoning.

The key is genuine curiosity. If you're secretly trying to prove them wrong, they'll sense it and shut down.

Let's talk about the confidence scale you mentioned. How does that work exactly?

You ask them to rate their confidence in their belief from one to ten. Let's say they say nine. Then you ask, 'What keeps it from being a ten?' This gets them thinking about their own doubts.

Or if they say ten, you can ask, 'Has there ever been anything you were completely certain about that you later changed your mind on?' Most people have had that experience.

That's clever. You're using their own experience to show them that certainty isn't always justified.

Right. And it's not manipulative because it's true. We've all been wrong about things we were sure about. It's part of being human.

What about when someone gives you an answer that's clearly based on bad information? How do you handle that without being condescending?

This is where the steel man technique comes in. Instead of attacking their weakest argument, you find the strongest version of their position and engage with that.

You might say, 'If I understand correctly, you're concerned about X because of Y. Is that right?' You show you're really listening and trying to understand.

Can you give me an example of steel manning in action?

Let's say someone opposes immigration because they think immigrants take jobs from Americans. Instead of calling them racist, you might say, 'It sounds like you're concerned about economic opportunities for American workers. That's something a lot of people worry about.'

Now you're engaging with their actual concern, not dismissing it.

And from there, how do you help them examine that concern?

You might ask, 'How do you think we could best protect American workers while also helping people who are fleeing dangerous situations?' You're reframing it as a problem to solve together, not a battle to win.

Let's talk about timing. When is someone most open to these kinds of conversations?

Not when they're emotional or defensive. You want to catch people in a reflective mood. Maybe over coffee, or during a walk. Physical movement actually helps people think more flexibly.

And never ambush someone. If you want to talk about something controversial, ask permission first. 'Hey, I've been thinking about what you said about climate change. Would you be open to exploring that together?'

What about the length of these conversations? How long should they take?

For deep beliefs, you're looking at multiple conversations over weeks or months. One conversation might just establish rapport. The next might explore their reasoning. Change happens slowly.

But even a five-minute conversation can plant a seed if you do it right.

Now let's get into implementation. If someone listening wants to try this approach, what should they do first?

Start with something low stakes. Don't begin with your Trump-supporting uncle at Thanksgiving. Practice with a friend who disagrees with you about something minor, like the best pizza topping.

Get comfortable with the questioning technique and the mindset before you tackle the big stuff.

What does that practice conversation look like?

You might say, 'I notice you always order pepperoni pizza. What is it about pepperoni that you prefer?' Then listen to their answer and ask follow-up questions about their reasoning.

It sounds silly, but you're building the muscle of genuine curiosity about how other people think.

Once someone has practiced with low-stakes topics, how do they approach a real controversial conversation?

Pick one person and one topic. Don't try to change the world all at once. Maybe it's your sister's views on vaccines, or your coworker's political beliefs.

Spend time building rapport first. Then, when the topic comes up naturally, use your questions. 'That's interesting. How did you first come to that conclusion?'

What are the most common mistakes people make when they try this approach?

The biggest one is fake curiosity. They ask the questions, but they're secretly trying to lead the person to a predetermined conclusion. People can sense that, and it backfires.

Another mistake is rushing. They want to see immediate change. But changing deeply held beliefs is like losing weight. It takes time and patience.

What about when someone gets defensive anyway, despite your best efforts?

Back off immediately. You might say, 'I can see this is important to you. I don't want to push.' Then change the subject. The rapport is more important than winning the conversation.

You can always try again another time when they're in a better headspace.

How long does it typically take to see results with this approach?

For surface-level beliefs, maybe a few conversations. For identity-level beliefs, like religious or political views, we're talking months or even years.

But you'll see small changes along the way. Someone might start saying 'I think' instead of 'I know.' Or they might acknowledge that the other side has some valid points.

What if someone completely shuts down and refuses to engage?

That tells you something important. Either you haven't built enough rapport, or they're not ready for this conversation yet. Don't take it personally.

Focus on the relationship first. Maybe in six months, they'll be in a different place.

Let's talk about adapting this approach to different contexts. How would you use these techniques in a professional setting?

The same principles apply, but you need to be more subtle. Instead of 'How do you know that?' you might say, 'Can you walk me through your thinking on this?' or 'What data are you looking at?'

In business, people expect to justify their positions, so it's actually easier in some ways.

What about with family members? That seems like it would be harder because there's more emotional baggage.

It is harder, but it's also more important. Start by acknowledging the relationship. 'Dad, I love you and I want to understand your perspective on this.'

And be prepared for it to take longer. Family beliefs often go back decades.

If someone only has time to implement one thing from your book, what should it be?

Learn to ask 'How do you know that?' with genuine curiosity. That one question will change how you interact with people who disagree with you.

But you have to really mean it. You have to be genuinely curious about their thought process, not secretly trying to trap them.

What about for people who are dealing with conspiracy theorists or people with really extreme views?

Same approach, but even more patience required. Conspiracy thinking often comes from a deep need to feel special or in control. Address the emotional need, not just the logical errors.

And remember, some people aren't ready to change. Your job is to plant seeds, not to harvest the crop.

Now let's step back and evaluate this book critically. What does it do really well?

I think the book's strength is that it gives people concrete tools they can use immediately. These aren't just theories. They're techniques that work in real conversations.

We also ground everything in actual cognitive science and field experience. This isn't just philosophy. It's been tested.

Where do you think the book falls short or overpromises?

Honestly, some people read the book expecting magic bullets. They want techniques that will instantly change minds, and that's not realistic.

We probably could have been clearer about how much patience and practice this approach requires.

How does your approach compare to other books in this space, like 'Getting to Yes' or 'Difficult Conversations'?

Those are great books, but they're mostly about negotiation or conflict resolution. We're specifically focused on epistemology. How people know what they know.

We're not trying to find compromise positions. We're trying to help people examine their reasoning processes.

What criticism has your book received, and how do you respond to it?

Some people say the approach is manipulative. I disagree. Manipulation involves deception. We're being completely transparent about what we're doing and why.

Others say it's too slow, that some beliefs are so dangerous we need to confront them directly. I understand that frustration, but direct confrontation usually backfires.

Are there situations where your approach wouldn't work or wouldn't be appropriate?

If someone is in immediate danger, yes, you might need to be more direct. And if someone is acting in bad faith, just trying to waste your time, then this approach won't work.

This is for people who genuinely believe what they're saying, even if those beliefs seem crazy to you.

What important topics does your book not cover that readers should look elsewhere for?

We don't spend much time on organizational change or large group dynamics. This is really about one-on-one conversations.

And we don't get into the deeper psychological reasons why people hold certain beliefs. That's more therapy territory.

Since the book came out in 2019, how have you seen these ideas being used?

I've heard from teachers, therapists, family members, even politicians who've used these techniques. The demand is clearly there.

But I've also seen people misuse them, trying to manipulate rather than genuinely understand. That's disappointing but probably inevitable.

How has the political climate since 2019 affected the relevance of your book?

It's made it more relevant, unfortunately. People are more polarized than ever. Families are splitting apart over politics and COVID beliefs.

But that also means there's more recognition that we need better ways to talk to each other.

What do you think the long-term impact of this approach could be if more people adopted it?

Imagine if kids learned these skills in school. If questioning assumptions and examining reasoning became as basic as reading and math.

We might see less polarization, more nuanced thinking, and better collective decision-making. But that's a generational project.

As we wrap up, what's the single most important thing you want listeners to take away from this conversation?

Stop trying to win arguments and start trying to understand how people think. The question 'How do you know that?' asked with genuine curiosity, can transform your relationships.

And if someone wants to dive deeper into this approach, what should they do after reading your book?

Practice. Find someone who disagrees with you about something relatively minor and try the techniques. Then gradually work up to more important conversations.

And remember, the goal isn't to change minds immediately. It's to model a better way of having difficult conversations.

Peter Boghossian, author of 'How to Have Impossible Conversations.' Thanks for helping us think differently about how we talk to people who disagree with us.

Thanks for having me, Marcus. I hope your listeners will give these ideas a try.