The video addresses the complexity of changing minds, highlighting how pressure as a tool for persuasion often leads to hardened positions rather than transformation. The speaker uses personal anecdotes and global issues to demonstrate that pressure forces individuals to resist and retaliate instead of reconsidering their stance.

The speaker emphasizes the need for creating safe spaces where individuals or parties can shift their beliefs without humiliation. Engaging in dialogue, even with contentious topics, allows people to understand different perspectives without being forced into a corner. The speaker believes that authentic engagement is crucial for facilitating meaningful change.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. colorblind [ˈkʌlərˌblaɪnd] - (adjective) - Incapable of perceiving different colors; seeing things without bias. - Synonyms: (unbiased, impartial, neutral)

The committee is colorblind.

2. consensus [kənˈsɛnsəs] - (noun) - General agreement among a group of people. - Synonyms: (agreement, accord, harmony)

Everyone in the room is dug in on their own position because no one wants to be the first to break a consensus they might build.

3. division [dɪˈvɪʒən] - (noun) - The action of separating something into parts, or the process of being separated. - Synonyms: (separation, split, schism)

Every single debate point was met with division and disgust.

4. insurmountable [ˌɪnsərˈmaʊntəbl] - (adjective) - Too great to be overcome. - Synonyms: (overwhelming, unconquerable, unbeatable)

Suddenly, from this original debate, an insurmountable amount of disputes happen.

5. intractable [ɪnˈtræktəbl] - (adjective) - Hard to control or deal with. - Synonyms: (stubborn, unmanageable, inflexible)

Humiliated nations nurse grievances into intractable conflicts.

6. perceived [pərˈsiːvd] - (verb) - Become aware or conscious of something; come to realize or understand. - Synonyms: (recognized, discerned, acknowledged)

Despite repeated rounds of violence, there is this belief that an unflinching wall of brutality will finally make the other shift. It doesn't. It doesn't, as the pressure is perceived by the people receiving it.

7. existential [ˌɛɡzɪˈstɛnʃəl] - (adjective) - Relating to existence, especially human existence or the experience of living. - Synonyms: (life-related, theoretical, philosophical)

If all that's offered is defeat and humiliation, well, everything starts to feel quite existential

8. humiliate [hjuːˈmɪlieɪt] - (verb) - Make someone feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect. - Synonyms: (embarrass, mortify, demean)

They want to break, shatter, humiliate.

9. impassioned [ɪmˈpæʃənd] - (adjective) - Filled with or showing great emotion. - Synonyms: (emotional, fervent, passionate)

It's rare if ever I've come across someone who is in impassioned disagreement with someone else.

10. engagement [ɪnˈɡeɪdʒmənt] - (noun) - Involvement or commitment; also used to mean interaction. - Synonyms: (participation, involvement, interaction)

How do we create these spaces? Well, we need to engage with one another through engagement

Pressure, Dialogue, & Space for Change in Conflict and Democracy - Joel Braunold - TEDxWrigleyville

Have you ever tried to solve a Rubik's Cube by committee? Imagine that. The committee is colorblind. It's the best way I can describe the work I do with governments and actors who work on some of the hardest to solve conflicts in our world. I try and help them find a way through the chaos.

Something I think about a lot and governs a lot of my work is how do you enable someone to change their mind on something? Most people like to think that they're right about everything all the time and that the whole world needs to just revolve around them. Whereas in reality, most problems are solved by someone actually shifting their own position. This question of how do you enable someone to change their mind is not just about solving international Rubik's Cubes, but is really essential to our divided democracy today. Increasingly, it seems that the only form of persuasion anyone believes in anymore is pressure. Whether protests, rallies, social media, pylons calling people out, the pressure will convince someone that you were right all along and that they just needed to agree with you.

Does it work though? I think about myself as a member of one of the most contentious debates that ever rocked the Chicagoland area last year. Every single debate point was met with division and disgust and every data point was completely ripped apart by either side. Was Justin Fields, the NFL starting quarterback for the Chicago Bears, good enough to keep or should he be traded away? Like, for those of you who are laughing, it was real. Justin was a world class runner of the football, but honestly he lacked a processing time that might help him succeed at the top level. People would just troll each other. Online sports radio was full of commentary and I asked myself, was any of this effective? I think about me. I was ride or die with Justin and the more I was pushed, the more I dug in.

So why do we do it? Well, pressure is seductive. It demands everything of you and nothing of me. Agree with me and I'll stop protesting. Say that I'm right and you're wrong. You need to change and I get to stay. The other thing about pressure is I don't need to engage with you. I don't ever need to challenge my own beliefs. What happens if I engage in the Justin Fields debate and I'm wrong and I clearly don't know how to watch football? What happens if it shatters me?

Taking it out of the world of sports? I've been married for 12 years and as anyone who's been in a long term committed relationship will tell you, there are some issues that you have fights on that you know you are wrong. But ultimately you dug in further. Suddenly, from this original debate, an insurmountable amount of disputes happen and you find yourself trying to unpick all of them, and it's just too much. It feels insurmountable. So you don't engage. You create sanctions. I'm not going to do the dishes. I'm not going to get the salts that you want. I'm not going to initiate intimacy. I'm going to punish you to come around. Because for me to engage just seems too much.

So. Pressure requires everything of you and nothing of me, and it enables me to avoid dealing with my own problems. No wonder why it's so appealing.

The other thing I found in my own work is that you might apply pressure thinking you're giving one message, but in reality, the other side hears something completely different. Take the Israeli Palestinian conflict, for example. One of the only things that both societies can agree on is that force is the only language the other understands. Despite repeated rounds of violence, there is this belief that an unflinching wall of brutality will finally make the other shift. It doesn't. It doesn't, as the pressure is perceived by the people receiving it, and it speaks to their worst fears. They're trying to kill us. They're trying to wipe us off the land. So in return, we need to stand steadfast. We need to dig in further. Pressure doesn't change minds, it hardens them.

The mistake of those who use pressure in order to try and shift someone is that they're not actually looking to change their mind. They're looking to break them. Now, for some people, this is what they want. They want to break, shatter, humiliate. You want to get someone's fan base to admit that their star athlete is trash. You want to get your significant other to basically say, I'm right and you're wrong. You want your historical rival to accept your narrative. The problem is, if someone thinks that you're trying to break, shatter, humiliate them, well, they don't really react very well to that. And they will resist in every aspect of their being.

Humiliated fan bases nurse grudges like an article of faith. Humiliated nations nurse grievances into intractable conflicts. If you've had to apply the level of pressure necessary to break someone, well, they'll spend their entire life trying to get a revenge and pass that on to their children and their children's children. The reason we try and enable people to change their minds rather than defeat them is defeating them requires you to do something to someone that you would never want done unto yourself. If all that's offered is defeat and humiliation, well, everything starts to feel quite existential.

I'd argue that's why everything feels like a deathmatch. Right now in our democracy, we're all trying to shatter each other on everything all the time. And the stakes keep getting higher and higher and we keep hardening and hardening, Whether in our favorite pastimes or things more serious. We're in this vain belief that if we just shout louder and longer, then we're going to win. If we want to stop being so brittle, we have to move beyond pressure as our only form of persuasion.

So if pressure isn't the magic ingredient to enable someone to shift, what is it? How do we unclench? I'd argue what we need is to start creating safe spaces, spaces where someone can move without losing themselves or being humiliated. How do we create these spaces? Well, we need to engage with one another through engagement. You can show the person that your passion isn't an attempt to break them, but to move them. And yes, that engagement might have you having your own beliefs questioned.

It's why dialogue feels so controversial or uncomfortable, because it has the potential to move you as much as the other person. You know. This isn't about saying that you need to give up pressure as a tactic or you have to be any less passionate. Protest, rally, march, for sure. But remember, in the end of the day, the people you're trying to convince, well, they're people. They react to the same things that you react to. If someone comes and screams at you and another person comes and talks to you, who are you more likely to believe? Who are you more likely to trust?

In my own work, I have had an opportunity to work with leaders, princes, ministers. And what I found is that all of these people, in the end of the day, they are humans. They have interests and needs. They have long memories. They remember when someone was kind, and they remember when someone was cruel. It's rare if ever I've come across someone who is an impassionate disagreement with someone else. They'd find it really weird if they weren't. But if all you come at them is with pressure, well, they respond in kind.

What they need is spaces where they can brainstorm with each other to find places they can move without being humiliated. The issue could be as serious as avoiding a nuclear war or as banal as arguing about your quarterback. But if you're afraid to have a dialogue with someone else, it's a weakness in your own position rather than a strength I started this talk asking the question how do you enable someone to shift their mind? Not how do you change someone's mind? What I found is it's about creating those conditions needed in order for someone to move.

It's not about dialogue for the sake of dialogue or rational arguments, but finding those spaces that someone can move without losing themselves. Going back to our Justin Fields example, if I can recognize that Justin was a world class athlete and a phenomenal prospect, but might have lacked that one thing that helped him succeed at that level, then I can find the safe space that I could admit he might not have been the long term solution without being humiliated into the position that I don't know how to watch football.

Going away from the world of sports and maybe into sort of international affairs. Let's look at Northern Ireland. Here's a conflict that revolved around the question should Northern Ireland become part of the United Kingdom and stay there or become part of the United Island? Rather than trying to shatter one side or another to give up their sacred values, the safe space was found by agreeing to punt on this final status issue and share power peacefully.

In the meantime, to find these safe spaces you have to do it through engagement. Even if you think you can get there without talking to the other side, having them co author the solution is part of the process. As my wife likes to remind me when she wants to vent. It's not about me solving her problems, it's about me listening. This isn't a talk to say that dialogue is better than pressure. Pressure is often necessary to move a party off their spot.

But remember, use pressure to move them. But you need human contact and dialogue to give them a safe space to land. Pressure and dialogue. It's about the ands. So if you find yourself in a position that you want to help someone shift their position, remember 1. Be authentic, be passionate and find someone to reach out to on the other side. 2. Don't use tactics that would switch you off if you were in their position.

3. When you do engage, remember, don't dictate the solution, but co author them together. And finally, remember that you might have to create the space necessary to shift in order to make the change you're looking to achieve. Pressure and dialogue don't need to be opposite sides of a spectrum. Honestly, to create sustainable change, you need to have them work in concert together. Thanks very much.

Education, Politics, Philosophy, Conflict Resolution, Persuasion Techniques, Dialogue And Engagement, Tedx Talks