Don't Teach Your Kid Empathy; First Let Them See You Listening
Getting kids to disagree well is not a matter of teaching empathy or perspective-taking — it is a matter of proving with words that you are listening; the HEAR framework and the curiosity sandwich can be used immediately.
The video won't play here. Listen to the audio instead:
The argument · tap a timestamp to hear it
Well-meant moral conviction is freezing conversation inside the family
She starts with her own household: one of her daughters stopped her from saying ‘I'm so OCD’, because it is offensive to people who have OCD. What the daughter was really doing was defending a friend who was not in the room, out of a very strong moral impulse. The trend comes from good intentions, but it carries unintended negative consequences: a great many topics turn into forbidden territory, conversation freezes, the real worries parents and children have never get discussed, and both sides accumulate judgment. The point is not that kids are bad; it is that moral conviction, when it is never practised, leaves family members afraid to open their mouths.
— Julia MinsonTelling people to try harder at empathy changes almost nothing
Her experiments randomly assign people to ‘change your mindset’, ‘try harder to empathize’, or ‘stand in the other person's shoes’, and the results barely differ from the control group. One reason is that in a disagreement we presume we are right, and we believe we have already extended the other side plenty of latitude; actually thinking their position through often leaves us even more certain they are stupid. Another reason is that ‘trying hard to listen’ is invisible from the outside — you look to the other person like someone whose mind has wandered off. So what matters is making the processing visible to them.
— Julia MinsonListening that is never said out loud might as well not have happened
What works is ‘proving with words that you are listening’. When you want to understand someone, mark your curiosity and your willingness to learn out loud — for example: ‘It sounds like we see this issue differently, and I'd really like to know how you see it; from where I sit, this is what I think; but I know there are a lot of different views, so I want to understand where you're coming from.’ This does not amount to agreeing with them, and it does not require you to give up ‘I might be right’. When your own position is very firm you can also just say so: ‘I'm quite sure I'm right, but I'd like to hear why you disagree.’
— Julia MinsonInside a conversation, the child holds more power than the parent
Formal power is a boss over an employee, a parent over a child; power inside a conversation is a different thing. A teenager can walk out of the kitchen and slam the door at any moment, and the conversation is over. So wanting the other person to stay in the conversation is itself a form of power; even if you are a hundred percent right, the moment they cut off the exchange you have lost your chance to persuade. This is why adults need to acknowledge the disagreement and express curiosity first, rather than leaning on ‘I've lived several decades longer than you’.
— Julia MinsonWe demand teenagers discuss topics adults themselves will not touch
She turns the question around: grab any adult at random and ask whether they would talk with a colleague about genocide, transgender rights or abortion, and 99% will say absolutely not; so on what grounds do we ask teenagers to throw themselves enthusiastically at these extremely hard topics in front of their peers? The way out is to tie constructive disagreement to professional ambition — the Kennedy School tells students outright that if you are going to set policy for the country, you have to be able to hold this kind of conversation. Harvard College has already turned her research into a required pre-matriculation module for freshmen, and her lab is still building a version aimed at high school students.
— Julia MinsonArguing in front of the kids is a good thing; fighting is not
Her position is explicit: you can argue in front of your children, but do not ‘fight’ in front of them. The difference is that the first models disagreement with curiosity — one parent says the daughter should not go to a friend's house until her room is tidied, the other says the week has been too busy and she can play first and tidy up later — and what the child can absorb is that a disagreement can be voiced and handled this way. Modeling how to ask a question, how to offer a choice, how to ask about preferences has to start with very small children, so that by adolescence ‘I can actually talk to Mom’ is the default setting.
— Julia MinsonWe badly overestimate how extreme the other side actually is
She points to research on ‘false polarization’ and the ‘perception gap’: have Democrats and Republicans report their own views and then guess the other side's, and people badly overestimate how extreme the other side is while underestimating how complex and fine-grained their views are. In a real conversation, people are not caricatures. Media and social networks make their money on inflammatory content, so what gets pushed in front of your eyes is the most extreme material available. This is also why ‘it is hard to hate someone up close’ — once you have met the actual person and heard the whole account, the feeling of polarization comes down.
— Julia MinsonSwapping a few words is enough to change where a conversation goes
H is hedging: words like sometimes, maybe and perhaps lower your level of certainty, which usually fits the facts better anyway and keeps the other side from being provoked. E is emphasizing agreement: find the shared value or shared concern first, and put both of you back on the same side. A is actually restating the other person's view, rather than a perfunctory ‘I hear you’. R is reframing positively: swap no, can't and hate for ‘it would be great if…’ and ‘thank you for telling me’, because people mirror each other's tone; using a positive tone is in fact how you take control of where the conversation goes.
— Julia MinsonIn their own words · checked verbatim
I have a former student who is now a professor at UCLA. Her name is Hannah Collins. And she calls it listening with your words.
Julia Minson14:06
if they have the power to just walk out of the kitchen and slam the door, like you're done.
Julia Minson19:32
I absolutely think that constructive disagreement is something we should model, right, so, you know, I think you can argue in front of your kids.You shouldn't fight in front of your kids.
Julia Minson31:36
is my job at the moment to like enlighten her or is my job at the moment just to support her?
Julia Minson39:41
people tend to wildly overestimate the extremity of the other side and the thing we underestimate is how complicated and nuanced the other side's views are
Julia Minson40:49
I should very quickly and clearly say three.
Julia Minson50:34
Figures
| Julia Minson's number of daughters | 3 daughters | 4:56 |
| Share of adults willing to discuss sensitive issues with a colleague (her example) | 99% say no | 25:15 |
| Harvard College's required disagreement-communication training | Required for all incoming freshmen | 27:21 |
Glossary
- HEAR framework
- The four steps of constructive disagreement: hedge, emphasize agreement, restate the other person's view, reframe positively.
- curiosity sandwich
- A sentence pattern that names the disagreement and your curiosity, states your own view, and then invites the other person to elaborate.
- false polarization
- The cognitive bias by which people overestimate how extreme the opposing camp is and underestimate how complex it is.
- hedging
- Using words like sometimes, maybe and perhaps to lower the certainty of an assertion.
How to listen
Parents, educators, and anyone who has to open a hard conversation at home or at work; especially parents who keep hitting a wall with their teenagers.
The two ad breaks in the middle; everything else is dense.