How to Have Impossible Conversations

How do you talk to someone when you deeply disagree—about religion, politics, or morality—without the conversation turning toxic? In How to Have Impossible Conversations, philosophers Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay argue that we’ve lost the art of meaningful dialogue in an age of ideological division. The book contends that it’s possible not only to talk to those who disagree but to change minds—our own and others’—by cultivating humility, empathy, and curiosity instead of confrontation.

The authors’ premise is simple yet counterintuitive: productive conversation isn’t about proving a point. It’s about understanding how people form beliefs and engaging them as partners rather than opponents. The book builds a skill-based framework for conversation, starting with human fundamentals like listening and rapport, moving through intermediate interventions that can foster doubt and reflection, and culminating in expert tools for navigating deeply entrenched ideologies. This gradual progression mirrors how one builds mastery of any discipline—from fundamentals to refinement and finally to wisdom.

Why Impossible Conversations Matter

Boghossian and Lindsay open by acknowledging the modern crisis of discourse: social media outrage, political polarization, and moral certitude have eroded our capacity for civil exchange. People talk past each other, fortified by echo chambers and motivated by confirmation bias. The authors argue that this isn’t just bad manners—it’s a threat to reason and democracy. We act on what we believe, they explain, so when beliefs can’t be questioned, cooperation collapses. Learning to converse therefore becomes not a soft skill, but a civic and moral imperative.

From Winning to Understanding

The book replaces adversarial “winning” mindsets with collaborative “understanding” ones. Drawing inspiration from negotiation experts like William Ury (Getting to Yes) and psychologists like Paul Ekman, the authors outline practical tools: listen more than you speak, assume charitable intentions, paraphrase accurately before disagreeing, and, crucially, model the humility you want others to emulate. These habits rewire conversations from power struggles into mutual learning sessions.

Building the Skill Ladder

The book’s seven chapters ascend from beginner to master level. You start with fundamentals—clarifying goals, forming partnerships, building rapport, and listening. At the intermediate stage, you learn interventions like “Let friends be wrong” (accept disagreement), “Build Golden Bridges” (create face-saving exits), and “Reframe” (shift perspective to shared values). Advanced chapters teach deeper tools for reasoning—Rapoport’s Rules (paraphrase before rebutting), seeking disconfirmation rather than confirmation, and managing anger. Expert sections introduce strategies borrowed from hostage negotiations and philosophical dialectics, while the final “master” level unpacks moral reframing and epistemological humility for conversing with ideologues.

Why Listening Changes Minds

Underlying every tactic is the insight that belief change rarely happens through evidence or logic alone. People cling to beliefs because they’re tied to identity, community, or morality. Facts, ironically, often backfire—making people more entrenched. Genuine transformation occurs only when we dissolve defensiveness and invite reflection, helping people see for themselves how their reasoning could be flawed. As the book puts it, “Make understanding your goal, not victory.” This principle echoes Carl Rogers’s person-centered therapy and Jonathan Haidt’s concept of moral intuitions: empathy creates the psychological safety required for reason to work.

Why These Skills Are Crucial Today

We live in a time when discussion itself feels dangerous. Whether it’s political polarization, religious disputes, or cultural disagreements, many of us avoid conversation altogether. How to Have Impossible Conversations doesn’t promise agreement—it promises understanding. By turning dialogue into a skill set that can be practiced through techniques borrowed from philosophy, psychology, and negotiation, the authors envision a future where disagreement is not a threat but a pathway to truth. These aren’t rhetorical tricks; they’re habits that make everyday communication constructive.

“The mark of an educated mind is to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

Ultimately, Boghossian and Lindsay transform conversation from a battlefield into a workshop for collaborative truth-seeking. Their message is clear: the skill of dialogue is foundational to reason itself. If practiced intentionally, it can bridge divides, dissolve moral hostility, and revive the simple human act of talking to one another.

Before tackling contentious topics, you must learn the seven fundamentals that make all conversations work. These basics—drawn from psychology, education, and negotiation—form the ground upon which advanced skills rest. Boghossian and Lindsay emphasize that even brilliant reasoning fails without emotional safety. Like athletes perfecting balance before advanced moves, conversational mastery begins with fundamentals.

Setting Clear Goals

Ask yourself why you’re having the conversation. Is it to learn, persuade, or simply connect? Without clarity, you’ll drift into argument. The authors outline possible goals—from learning each other's reasoning to collaboratively seeking truth. When intentions are explicit, expectations align, and tensions lessen. They echo Amy Edmondson’s concept of “psychological safety”: clarity and mutual respect encourage openness.

Form Partnerships, Not Battles

Conversations thrive when you see the other person as a partner rather than an adversary. Using examples like musician Daryl Davis befriending Ku Klux Klan members, the authors show that kindness—not argument—changes hearts. Shifting from “winning” to “understanding” dissolves hostility. Even when the belief seems vile, treating someone as a partner broadens their receptiveness.

Rapport and Listening

Rapport is emotional connection—the bridge across divides. Anthony Magnabosco’s street conversations illustrate how warmth and curiosity disarm defensiveness. Listening, the next step, means yielding the floor. Eye contact, nodding, and pausing turn mere hearing into engagement. People relax when they feel heard. Listening also creates space for your partner’s own reflection.

Other Essential Fundamentals

• Shoot the Messenger: Don’t deliver uninvited truths—ask questions instead.
• Assume Good Intentions: Few people knowingly desire harm; misunderstanding breeds misjudgment.
• Know When to Walk Away: Disengagement can preserve civility and prevent escalation.

Together, these fundamentals turn arguments into explorations. They teach patience, curiosity, and mutual respect—qualities that make even “impossible” conversations possible.

Once you’re grounded in basics, you can employ “intervention” techniques to help people reconsider what they believe. The first is modeling: showing the behavior you want to inspire. The second is asking questions: directing thought through curiosity rather than confrontation. These are the foundations of Socratic dialogue itself.

Modeling Curiosity and Humility

People mirror what they observe. If you want someone to admit uncertainty, start by admitting yours. Boghossian’s example of philosophers and psychologists who explored the “illusion of explanatory depth” demonstrates that realizing our own ignorance—how little we truly know—opens the door to learning. By saying “I don’t know,” you normalize humility, which lets others safely explore doubt.

The Art of the Question

Questions are more powerful than statements. Socrates rarely told; he asked. Use calibrated questions beginning with “how” or “what” (“How does that work?” “What led you to that conclusion?”). These invite reflection instead of defense. Hostage negotiators, therapists, and successful teachers all rely on questions that evoke introspection. Closed questions battle; open questions build.

Focusing on Epistemology

Instead of challenging conclusions (“You’re wrong”), ask about reasoning (“How do you know that?”). This shifts focus from belief content to belief formation. People are less defensive discussing how they know something than whether it’s true. This epistemological approach—common in critical thinking pedagogy—lets people uncover flaws in their own reasoning naturally.

“The more ignorance you admit, the more curiosity you invite.”

By modeling humility and asking thoughtful questions, you transform dialogue into self-exploration. The result is not winning an argument but helping someone become curious enough to revise their own mind.

When conversations become contentious, emotions—especially anger—are the true obstacles. Boghossian and Lindsay devote significant attention to managing feelings, both yours and your partner’s, because emotional restraint is the hallmark of advanced conversational skill.

Understanding Anger

Drawing on psychologist Paul Ekman’s research, the authors explain that anger blinds, seeks justification, and creates a “refractory period” during which rational thought is impossible. The advice: recognize anger early, pause, and slow down. Silence interrupts escalation and provides a moment for calm—a technique also used in FBI negotiations (Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference).

Avoiding Triggers

Know what provokes you. Political arguments, moral offenses, or certain words may trigger defensiveness. Naming those triggers aloud (“I find this topic frustrating”) defuses their impact. The authors recommend replacing accusatory language (“You’re angry”) with collaborative phrasing (“We seem frustrated”). This reframes emotion as teamwork, not blame.

Empathy and Listening

When anger flares, listen more. An apology or empathy statement (“That must be hard”) can lower temperature instantly. After tension subsides, return to points of agreement. Hearing someone out does not mean agreeing—it simply means acknowledging their humanity. Empathy transforms impasse into dialogue.

The antidote to outrage, therefore, is deliberate calm. By disciplining your emotional reflexes, you make space for understanding—and show that civility is the highest form of persuasion.

One of the most surprising ideas in the book is this: avoid introducing facts when discussing moral or identity-based beliefs. Boghossian illustrates this with Bill Nye’s debate against creationist Ken Ham. Despite Nye’s avalanche of evidence, Ham declared that no information could change his mind. Facts backfired—they made him dig deeper.

Why Facts Fail

The authors explain that most people don’t form beliefs rationally. They form them socially or morally—to belong, to feel good, or to see themselves as virtuous. Evidence contradicting these identity-based beliefs triggers what psychologists call the “backfire effect.” Presenting facts becomes counterproductive.

Seek Disconfirmation Instead

Rather than arguing for what’s true, ask what would make it false. The magical question—“Under what conditions could this belief be wrong?”—helps people uncover whether any flexible doubt exists. The beer truck parable shows this principle: asking not “How do you know?” but “How could you be wrong?” invites reflection rather than defense. It distinguishes disconfirmable beliefs (open to revision) from non-disconfirmable ones (matters of absolute faith).

The Moral Dimension

When someone maintains a belief under wildly implausible conditions (“Show me Christ’s bones”), you’ve crossed from logic to morality. People resist revising beliefs that define what it means to be good. The solution? Shift from factual questions to moral ones: “Would good people still be good if they didn’t hold this belief?” This reframing connects belief change to moral security.

“People don’t change because they lack information—they change because they find courage to doubt.”

By avoiding facts and inviting disconfirmation, you nurture doubt safely—turning certainty into curiosity without threat.

Humiliation prevents belief change. To overcome this, Boghossian and Lindsay teach two critical techniques—building Golden Bridges and adopting the “Yes, and” stance. These strategies make changing one’s mind feel graceful rather than shameful.

Building Golden Bridges

Derived from Sun Tzu and negotiation research, Golden Bridges are face-saving escape routes that let someone adjust their view without embarrassment. Instead of “I told you so,” you say, “I can see why you thought that.” Acknowledge that beliefs made sense given prior information. When people feel respected, they can update beliefs without losing dignity—a pattern of psychological “safe exit” validated by William Ury’s research at the Harvard Negotiation Project.

Practicing ‘Yes, And’

Borrowed from improv comedy, replacing “but” with “and” keeps conversations flowing. “Yes, but” negates; “Yes, and” builds. The authors compare it to collaborative storytelling: each participant affirms and expands. For example, “Yes, and how should we handle this?” Inviting contribution rather than contradiction transforms debate into co-creation. Linguistically, “and” turns discussions into problem-solving sessions.

Together, these techniques embody conversational grace—showing that civility and empathy are not weaknesses but powerful tools for truth-seeking.

At expert level, conversations mimic negotiation psychology. The authors adapt hostage negotiation methods to ordinary life—mirroring, labeling emotions, and letting people save face. They also introduce altercasting: encouraging behavior change by assigning someone a positive role they’ll naturally strive to fulfill.

Lessons from Hostage Negotiators

Hostage negotiators rely on empathy and patience more than power. Minimal encouragers (“I see,” “Okay”), mirroring (“Get their way?”), and emotional labeling (“That sounds frustrating”) keep people talking while reducing tension. These techniques translate beautifully to ideological dialogue: acknowledging emotions before arguing ideas preserves connection.

Altercasting Civility

Altercasting means framing others as the kind of person you want them to be—“You strike me as very fair-minded.” People internalize roles consistent with positive identities. When asked to act as rational thinkers or problem solvers, they subconsciously live up to that expectation. Used ethically, this builds rapport and encourages open-mindedness (Note: unethical manipulation can backfire).

Combining negotiation and altercasting turns emotionally charged discussions into collaborative thinking exercises. You no longer fight to win—you guide others to become the kind of people who learn.

The book culminates in moral reframing—the art of speaking another person’s moral language. When logic fails, morality speaks. Ideologues—those unable or unwilling to revise beliefs—operate through moral identity, not reason. To reach them, you must translate ideas into values they already cherish.

Understanding Moral Foundations

Drawing on Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory, the authors show that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians prioritize different moral instincts: liberals emphasize care and fairness; conservatives value loyalty, authority, and sanctity; libertarians cherish liberty. Effective conversation depends on reframing arguments in the listener’s moral dialect—e.g., discussing gun control in terms of safety and freedom to protect loved ones rather than statistics.

Talking to the Close-Minded

Ideologues tie beliefs to virtue: good people believe as they do. To converse, affirm their moral identity first (“I can see you care deeply about fairness”), then question how their process of knowing aligns with that value (“How did you come to that belief?”). By separating being good from being right, you create space where truth can emerge without moral threat.

Moral reframing isn’t manipulation—it’s empathy in action. It proves that reason alone seldom moves hearts; understanding what goodness means to your partner does.