Political disagreements? Prof’s game helps see others’ points of view

On a freezing night recently, about a dozen people arrived at the Evanston Public Library to try playing a new game created by Steven Franconeri, a psychology professor at Northwestern University.

There were no dice or buzzers. People didn’t shout answers. Instead, they quietly debated some of the country’s hottest issues over which there were sharp disagreements.

There were no winners or losers, at least in the usual usage of the terms, and at the end of the evening people continued their friendly conversation, long after the match was over.

And this is exactly the result Franconeri expected.

Franconeri’s game is called Point Taken, and it’s designed to help people find a better way to find common ground on issues that typically lead to tantrums, name-calling, and a lack of acknowledgment of another person’s point of view.

He designed this game to help deal with his own exasperation with the state of public debate on important issues in the country.

“We see so much angry political disagreement,” he said. “And you know, there are solutions to how we can communicate better with each other. If you’re training to become a therapist or a mediator, you know how to help people have better conversations about difficult topics. But it’s not easy.”

Franconeri introduced the game at the Evanston Public Library by playing a few YouTube clips about how people debate most often today. Each participant has an agenda to overwhelm their “opponent” with information supporting their cause. Conceding a point that contradicts your original position means you “lose,” so the two people end up talking to each other.

In Point Taken, Franconeri flips the script, starting with the idea that someone “wins” the debate. Rather, the idea is to reach consensus on points of agreement between two people, even when they are far apart on the overall issue.

“The game is designed to create a framework that allows people to be more logical in their thinking,” says Franconeri. “You can learn the game in 10 minutes and play it in half an hour. This allows you to be able to sit down with your uncle at the kitchen table and be able to have a calm and clear discussion.”

“They don’t have to agree in the end – they probably won’t agree in the end – but we want to reestablish that connection.”

Franconeri used his own research, as well as that of his colleagues at Northwestern’s Litowitz Center for Enlightened Disagreement, to create the game’s structure, which was easy to understand from the start and designed to encourage people to take the time to understand their opponents’ best points.

“There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing,” Franconeri said. “But social media amplifies outrage and extreme opinions, and people with different beliefs are seen as bad or incompetent. »

Play the game

Point Taken is a writing game played between two people. All you need is a pen and a few pieces of paper. (You can play online at pointtaken.social, where you can also download templates, but it’s not necessary.) You write a question that is the point of contention. If you want to start by practicing on less controversial questions, Franconeri offers a sample list on the website, such as: “Is a hot dog a sandwich?” »

The goal of the game is not to convince the other, but to better understand their position. There is a small set of rules involving courtesy, mutual respect, and not questioning a person’s character or motives, but they all boil down to one basic principle: be kind.

Once the discussion question is agreed upon, each person writes two reasons supporting their position on separate sheets of paper. Once this is done, you respond to these reasons, in writing, with another piece of paper. (When done well, it’s a smooth play.) If you agree with the point made, congratulations, you’ve reached a point of agreement. If not, respond in writing why you disagree with this point on another piece of paper. These dots come and go from the center like the tentacles of an octopus.

Most people will find, even on controversial issues, that it is not that difficult to reach agreement on some points. You may also find that a deeply held position is not as strong as you first thought.

Franconeri sketched out the idea for the game in about three months and spent about a year developing it.

“I say this rally is like the 200th Test, or thereabouts,” he said. “Which means there were about 2,000 games played. I think the core elements we were lucky to capture early on – focusing on that spirit of collaboration. It seems to be working.”

The idea of ​​writing down your arguments came from a technique used by debaters.

“We just simplified it and made it so that you could put them on the table and work back and forth,” he said. “Another thing we emphasized early on is that it’s essential to listen to the other person. You have to force people to listen to each other. And when it’s written down, they have to do it.”

At the game night in Evanston, two-person teams debated topics including self-driving cars, cryptocurrency, student debt relief and religion in public schools. Some tables filled with exchanges of comments on paper, but even the most contentious teams eventually found common ground.

“It’s definitely something I see myself using in the future, when you have a disagreement,” said TC Ngandu, one of the library players, who lives in Wilmette. “It’s a way to get to know someone else better, rather than just shouting about these preconceived notions.”

“I got rid of my cell phone seven months ago because I was having a lot of battles with texting and social media,” said Colleen Shalom, of Chicago.

“I was a bully, yelling at people on the phone and needing to take a step back. I like that because when you slow down and really pause and think, it forces you to think before you speak…you’re responding to the argument they’re making, not the person.”

This feeling makes Franconeri smile. The game is free to download and its goal is simply to get more people to try it.

“I really worry about the division in America and the inability of good people to have a good conversation,” he said. “It literally keeps me up at night. I thought I’m a psychologist. It’s my moral duty to do something and not be a bystander. So we wanted to take these known rules for calm, civil conversations and put them into something that we could apply to anyone in the country.”

At least for one night in Evanson, the plan worked.