full transcript

From the Ted Talk by Guadalupe Nogu├ęs: Como hablar con otros que piensan distinto

Unscramble the Blue Letters

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a scientist but I ended up taking some wried paths. sciecne is a way of asking questions to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first disappointment. enivdcee is necessary but not sufficient. This opened up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The coolsrsam is one of my favorite places. But there I found the same problem. I was teaching on vaccines and one stuednt said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I eilxapn, she will chngae her mind." I eelxnaipd to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. edtaucion is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path oneped up. Maybe, it's a communication plbreom? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't trust vaccines, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve communication on this subject. And there I realized that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an ideological deesigmreant? emintperexs show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our oninopis, instead of being temporary, bridges to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the world shatters in an explosive combination of aggression and distrust. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born euaql. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are istnene, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a doubt on who we are. And that is unbearable. In addition, the need to prtoect our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education wkors. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a question. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and tinknhig something like, "Mm, I don't know what these people think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever happen to you? Let's see, risae your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tribalism is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the saciol punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these reasons that we leave conversations in silence. A loud silence. And so, the ianitbily to diguloae causes the nubemr of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. sceline is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. cohrsseinp from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for decmacroy. Both in our small evinnorment and on a large scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up cnrootl to those who speak up. But this is a false dilemma. There is another otpoin, but we need to make it evident, because it is hidden in this sea of tibrisalm. We can have defined pnioosits, even very intense ones, without riding on the dynamics of intolerant sceeph. It's one of the things I learned when talking to pelope who doubt vccianes. To break tribalism, to find more vcieos, to baerk this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our opinions without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and cvoarosntneis become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the product of amrenetges, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these iedas I usually get some criticism. It seems that in oedrr to avoid conflict I suggest that we let consensus happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't erxepss ourselves because we feel alienated or expelled we are not taking part in deoiscin mniakg. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile atpmsohree because it's exhausting and we see that it leads nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the iivndaduil lveel to move past tirabl mode. But I think there are some very concrete things to do. And I have three sgguesinots that could help. First, look for pluralism. ptrmooe it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also reiureqs listening to voices we don't like. The moment to defend freedom of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than recovering it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of disagreeing. A conversation is not waiting for our turn to talk, trying to impose our ideas by force or insistence. It's about ltneiinsg to understand others. Without listening there's no cvnstaoroien. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. hunams are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look alike. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or griwnog out of control. It took us time but we learned to hnadle fire. We larened to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (Applause)

Open Cloze

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a scientist but I ended up taking some _____ paths. _______ is a way of asking questions to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first disappointment. ________ is necessary but not sufficient. This opened up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The _________ is one of my favorite places. But there I found the same problem. I was teaching on vaccines and one _______ said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I _______, she will ______ her mind." I _________ to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. _________ is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path ______ up. Maybe, it's a communication _______? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't trust vaccines, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve communication on this subject. And there I realized that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an ideological ____________? ___________ show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our ________, instead of being temporary, bridges to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the world shatters in an explosive combination of aggression and distrust. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born _____. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are _______, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a doubt on who we are. And that is unbearable. In addition, the need to _______ our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education _____. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a question. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and ________ something like, "Mm, I don't know what these people think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever happen to you? Let's see, _____ your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tribalism is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the ______ punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these reasons that we leave conversations in silence. A loud silence. And so, the _________ to ________ causes the ______ of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. _______ is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. __________ from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for _________. Both in our small ___________ and on a large scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up _______ to those who speak up. But this is a false dilemma. There is another ______, but we need to make it evident, because it is hidden in this sea of _________. We can have defined _________, even very intense ones, without riding on the dynamics of intolerant ______. It's one of the things I learned when talking to ______ who doubt ________. To break tribalism, to find more ______, to _____ this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our opinions without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and _____________ become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the product of __________, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these _____ I usually get some criticism. It seems that in _____ to avoid conflict I suggest that we let consensus happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't _______ ourselves because we feel alienated or expelled we are not taking part in ________ ______. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile __________ because it's exhausting and we see that it leads nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the __________ _____ to move past ______ mode. But I think there are some very concrete things to do. And I have three ___________ that could help. First, look for pluralism. _______ it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also ________ listening to voices we don't like. The moment to defend freedom of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than recovering it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of disagreeing. A conversation is not waiting for our turn to talk, trying to impose our ideas by force or insistence. It's about _________ to understand others. Without listening there's no ____________. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. ______ are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look alike. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or _______ out of control. It took us time but we learned to ______ fire. We _______ to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (Applause)

Solution

  1. raise
  2. express
  3. tribal
  4. voices
  5. people
  6. silence
  7. learned
  8. speech
  9. explain
  10. thinking
  11. handle
  12. experiments
  13. growing
  14. humans
  15. environment
  16. dialogue
  17. weird
  18. opinions
  19. promote
  20. tribalism
  21. making
  22. opened
  23. education
  24. intense
  25. level
  26. suggestions
  27. protect
  28. disagreement
  29. social
  30. individual
  31. works
  32. positions
  33. listening
  34. evidence
  35. vaccines
  36. change
  37. option
  38. censorship
  39. equal
  40. problem
  41. democracy
  42. order
  43. requires
  44. break
  45. science
  46. student
  47. number
  48. classroom
  49. atmosphere
  50. inability
  51. conversations
  52. agreements
  53. ideas
  54. control
  55. decision
  56. conversation
  57. explained

Original Text

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a scientist but I ended up taking some weird paths. Science is a way of asking questions to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first disappointment. Evidence is necessary but not sufficient. This opened up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The classroom is one of my favorite places. But there I found the same problem. I was teaching on vaccines and one student said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I explain, she will change her mind." I explained to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. Education is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path opened up. Maybe, it's a communication problem? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't trust vaccines, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve communication on this subject. And there I realized that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an ideological disagreement? Experiments show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our opinions, instead of being temporary, bridges to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the world shatters in an explosive combination of aggression and distrust. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born equal. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are intense, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a doubt on who we are. And that is unbearable. In addition, the need to protect our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education works. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a question. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and thinking something like, "Mm, I don't know what these people think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever happen to you? Let's see, raise your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tribalism is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the social punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these reasons that we leave conversations in silence. A loud silence. And so, the inability to dialogue causes the number of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. Silence is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. Censorship from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for democracy. Both in our small environment and on a large scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up control to those who speak up. But this is a false dilemma. There is another option, but we need to make it evident, because it is hidden in this sea of tribalism. We can have defined positions, even very intense ones, without riding on the dynamics of intolerant speech. It's one of the things I learned when talking to people who doubt vaccines. To break tribalism, to find more voices, to break this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our opinions without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and conversations become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the product of agreements, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these ideas I usually get some criticism. It seems that in order to avoid conflict I suggest that we let consensus happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't express ourselves because we feel alienated or expelled we are not taking part in decision making. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile atmosphere because it's exhausting and we see that it leads nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the individual level to move past tribal mode. But I think there are some very concrete things to do. And I have three suggestions that could help. First, look for pluralism. Promote it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also requires listening to voices we don't like. The moment to defend freedom of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than recovering it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of disagreeing. A conversation is not waiting for our turn to talk, trying to impose our ideas by force or insistence. It's about listening to understand others. Without listening there's no conversation. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. Humans are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look alike. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or growing out of control. It took us time but we learned to handle fire. We learned to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (Applause)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation frequency
tribal mode 2

Important Words

  1. achieve
  2. actively
  3. addition
  4. aggression
  5. agreement
  6. agreements
  7. alien
  8. alienated
  9. alike
  10. alive
  11. allowing
  12. answers
  13. anytime
  14. applause
  15. atmosphere
  16. attacked
  17. attacking
  18. attempt
  19. attitude
  20. avoid
  21. bans
  22. battle
  23. beliefs
  24. born
  25. break
  26. bridges
  27. broad
  28. build
  29. care
  30. censorship
  31. change
  32. classroom
  33. climate
  34. combination
  35. common
  36. communicate
  37. communication
  38. concrete
  39. conflict
  40. confused
  41. consensus
  42. consequences
  43. control
  44. conversation
  45. conversations
  46. created
  47. creates
  48. criticism
  49. danger
  50. dangerous
  51. dangers
  52. debate
  53. decision
  54. decisions
  55. deep
  56. defend
  57. defined
  58. democracy
  59. deny
  60. deserve
  61. despising
  62. destroy
  63. dialogue
  64. differences
  65. differently
  66. dig
  67. dilemma
  68. disagreeing
  69. disagreement
  70. disappears
  71. disappointment
  72. discipline
  73. discuss
  74. discussion
  75. dissent
  76. dissonant
  77. distinguish
  78. distrust
  79. ditch
  80. doctors
  81. doubt
  82. dying
  83. dynamics
  84. earn
  85. easier
  86. education
  87. eliminated
  88. emotions
  89. ended
  90. engage
  91. ensue
  92. environment
  93. equal
  94. evidence
  95. evident
  96. evil
  97. exhausting
  98. exhaustion
  99. expelled
  100. experience
  101. experiments
  102. explain
  103. explained
  104. explosive
  105. express
  106. expression
  107. extreme
  108. false
  109. favorite
  110. fear
  111. feel
  112. feeling
  113. fight
  114. find
  115. fire
  116. force
  117. forming
  118. free
  119. freedom
  120. general
  121. give
  122. good
  123. growing
  124. halfhearted
  125. hand
  126. handle
  127. happen
  128. happened
  129. happening
  130. harm
  131. healthy
  132. heard
  133. hidden
  134. homogeneous
  135. honest
  136. hostile
  137. humans
  138. hunch
  139. idea
  140. ideas
  141. identity
  142. ideological
  143. illusion
  144. immovable
  145. important
  146. impose
  147. impossible
  148. improve
  149. inability
  150. include
  151. individual
  152. information
  153. insistence
  154. integrity
  155. intense
  156. intolerant
  157. invented
  158. inventors
  159. issue
  160. journalists
  161. lab
  162. large
  163. leads
  164. learn
  165. learned
  166. leave
  167. left
  168. level
  169. listening
  170. live
  171. lived
  172. lot
  173. loud
  174. love
  175. making
  176. meet
  177. meeting
  178. mind
  179. mode
  180. moment
  181. move
  182. moving
  183. nuances
  184. number
  185. opened
  186. opinion
  187. opinions
  188. option
  189. options
  190. order
  191. part
  192. path
  193. paths
  194. people
  195. permanent
  196. person
  197. personal
  198. places
  199. pluralism
  200. point
  201. positions
  202. power
  203. problem
  204. product
  205. promote
  206. propose
  207. protect
  208. punished
  209. punishment
  210. question
  211. questions
  212. raise
  213. raising
  214. real
  215. realized
  216. reappear
  217. reasons
  218. recovering
  219. requires
  220. respect
  221. riding
  222. safe
  223. scale
  224. science
  225. scientist
  226. sea
  227. separate
  228. set
  229. share
  230. shatters
  231. show
  232. shut
  233. side
  234. silence
  235. sitting
  236. situation
  237. small
  238. social
  239. socially
  240. speak
  241. speech
  242. started
  243. student
  244. study
  245. subject
  246. subtle
  247. sufficient
  248. suggest
  249. suggestions
  250. survive
  251. talk
  252. talking
  253. teaching
  254. team
  255. tells
  256. temporary
  257. thinking
  258. thought
  259. threat
  260. threatened
  261. time
  262. tone
  263. tool
  264. tools
  265. tribal
  266. tribalism
  267. true
  268. trust
  269. truth
  270. turn
  271. turned
  272. unbearable
  273. understand
  274. vaccinated
  275. vaccines
  276. visible
  277. voices
  278. waiting
  279. ways
  280. weak
  281. weird
  282. withdraw
  283. work
  284. works
  285. world