How to Disagree Better

by Julia Minson

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Self Help, Audiobook, Relationships, Personal Growth

304 pages, Hardcover

Published March 24, 2026

Reviews

[Roy Ferguson]

The book has got good intentions and made me cognisant of the need to be more receptive to other peoples’ point of views and be more prepared to listen and respond carefully and constructively before engaging in responses that without thought could end up in conflict and a race to the bottom. However I did not find it a particularly easy read as I found that there was a lot of repetition in the book and the narrow differences between the theoretical examples and experiments were at times difficult to separate. I will try to use the spirit of the book to engage more positively in conversations with both people who I agree and disagree with.

[Jack Dalrymple]

AI generated summary to help me remember the key points later

Julia Minson’s How to Disagree Better explores how people can engage in productive disagreement without damaging relationships or becoming trapped in conflict. Drawing on research in psychology, negotiation, and behavioural science, Minson argues that the most effective disagreements are not won through stronger arguments alone, but through conversational receptiveness: communicating in a way that makes others feel heard, respected, and understood.

Her central insight is that people are more likely to consider opposing viewpoints when they believe the other person is genuinely engaging with their perspective. Receptiveness does not require agreement or abandoning your position; rather, it is a communication strategy that creates the conditions for meaningful dialogue.

The Importance of Conversational Receptiveness

Minson’s research shows that people often evaluate disagreements based on how they are communicated rather than simply the strength of the evidence. When someone feels dismissed or attacked, they become defensive and less open to changing their mind. Conversely, when people feel acknowledged, they are more willing to engage with alternative perspectives.

Conversational receptiveness involves several key behaviours:

1. Acknowledge the other person’s perspective

Before presenting your own argument, demonstrate that you understand the other person’s reasoning.

Examples:

* “I understand why you see it that way.”
* “I can see how you reached that conclusion.”
* “That’s an important concern.”

Acknowledgement does not mean agreement. It simply signals that you have listened and taken their perspective seriously.

2. Find areas of agreement

Successful disagreement often begins by identifying shared values, goals, or assumptions.

Examples:

* “We both want to improve the healthcare system; we disagree about the best approach.”
* “I agree that this is an important problem.”

Finding common ground reduces defensiveness and creates a foundation for constructive discussion.

3. Use intellectual humility

People are more receptive when you avoid presenting your views as unquestionably correct. Using careful language signals openness to learning.

Examples:

* “Based on what I’ve seen…”
* “My understanding is…”
* “I could be missing something…”

Humility does not weaken an argument; it communicates confidence combined with openness.

4. Show curiosity

Rather than immediately trying to persuade, seek to understand how someone reached their conclusion.

Useful questions include:

* “Can you tell me more about why you think that?”
* “What evidence shaped your view?”
* “What would change your mind?”

Curiosity transforms disagreement from a competition into a shared search for understanding.

5. Use respectful and constructive language

The way ideas are challenged matters. Criticise arguments rather than people, and avoid language that threatens someone’s identity or intelligence.

Instead of:

“That’s irrational.”

Try:

“I interpret the evidence differently.”

⸻

The HEAR Framework

Minson provides the HEAR framework as a practical approach for communicating receptively during disagreements.

H – Hedge your claims

Avoid excessive certainty, particularly on complex issues. Signal that you are open to being wrong or learning more.

Examples:

* “I might be mistaken, but…”
* “It seems to me that…”
* “Based on the evidence I’ve seen…”

E – Emphasize agreement

Begin by identifying genuine areas of agreement or shared goals.

Examples:

* “I think we both care about…”
* “We agree that this is an important issue.”

This creates a sense of partnership rather than opposition.

A – Acknowledge the other person’s perspective

Show that you understand their reasoning before explaining your own.

Examples:

* “I understand why that argument is compelling.”
* “That’s a reasonable concern.”

People are more willing to listen when they feel listened to.

R – Reframe to your perspective

After demonstrating understanding, explain your own viewpoint and reasoning.

Examples:

* “The way I see it is…”
* “What leads me to a different conclusion is…”

The goal is not to defeat the other person but to introduce another way of interpreting the issue.

⸻

Applying Minson’s Approach

A productive disagreement follows a different pattern from a debate:

1. Listen to understand, not just to respond.
2. Acknowledge the other person’s perspective.
3. Identify shared values or goals.
4. Explain your reasoning with humility.
5. Remain curious about what evidence might change your mind.

A receptive disagreement might sound like:

“I can understand why you came to that conclusion. I think we share the same goal, but I interpret the evidence differently. The reason I see it another way is…”

⸻

Key Takeaway

Minson’s core message is that receptiveness is not the opposite of persuasion—it is a pathway to persuasion. People are more likely to reconsider their views when they feel respected and understood. Effective disagreement requires balancing confidence in your own ideas with humility about what you might not know.

The goal of disagreement should not be to win a confrontation, but to improve collective understanding, uncover better solutions, and maintain relationships even when opinions differ.

[Tina Pogorzelski]

i think everyone should read this…

[Chris Boutté]

In addition to living in polarized times, I’m not super confrontational but have a lot of opinions on things. When I see a book about how to disagree better, I think, “Sign me up!” Minson has dedicated her life to researching the topic of disagreement, and this is a pretty great book. There’s some really interesting research in here about what makes people more likely to hear the other person out and can give you some tools you can use to have better conversations with people you disagree with.

I enjoyed the book so much that I had to fight my contrarionism toward the end of the book when Minson finally gets to the topic of political polarization. We live in a time where people have beliefs that are just repugnant. I just get really annoyed when books are intentionally ignorant, acting like political polarization is just about tax rates or environmental policies. The most heated, polarized topic where moralities clashed used to be abortion, and that’s something I can genuinely hear someone out on and understand their position.

Things are much different right now. There are people that genuinely think that trans people don’t have a right to exist. There are people who think we need to whitewash or completely eliminate our country’s history of how we treated Black people for centuries. There are people who support how ICE is terrorizing cities, breaking up families, and harassing immigrants, regardless of whether they’re legal or not. And during all this, innocent Americans are getting shot in the street, with no accountability for those who took their lives.

There are certain moral “disagreements”, especially ones based on propaganda and delusions, where I’m not going to “hear the other person out”. And listen, I get it. I get that there are people who are doing this work, and I respect the hell out of them. For example, Daryl Davis is a Black man who has spent his life befriending KKK members and getting hundreds to leave the Klan. I know that not everyone with these awful beliefs is a lost cause, but I’m not the guy who is going to spend my time trying to sway these people. More power to those who have the patience for it, but for most of us, I don’t think that’s something we’re willing to do.

[Prashansa]

My review might be biased as I attended Prof Minson's class. The class had much more nuance that was probably due to the questions and Prof Minson's frank engagement with students that I now appreciate even more. I heard the audiobook for this. I think that the book is helpful to become a better conversationalist and strengthen your personal relationships. I think that it has some good reminders and frameworks specially helpful at the workplace if you work with people from different backgrounds and cultures. In that way I found the book as a good reminder of her class and a nice tool to have. But also I was uneasy - as if disagreements are without consequences and accountability can be fudged. As if we can just disagree better. I understand the point is not convincing others but sometimes there is no room for disagreement. Sometimes the basic assumption of the person in front of you being a kind and rational thinker is not true. I think the ideas in the book work for the humility of challenging your own priors, but less well for bright line accountability or calling out and addressing evil. What if two people disagreed and two million people not party to the decision they disagreed about died as a result of accepting one side over the other? What about when there are real consequences and questions on morality, ethics and values to the disagreement? What if we prioritise an accommodation between two arguing parties, but that inflicts harm on a third party? There is a privilege to be so dispassionate and removed from disagreement that most people do not have. And just by packaging it in disagreement will not really do anything. Sometimes you just have to disagree badly.

[Anna Martinez]

This really surprised me. As a Comm Studies professor, of course I'm a bit critical of books with advice about comm, but this one aligned with a lot of our approaches, acknowledged that often others will not cooperate no matter what we do better, and even gave me some tools I plan to use next time I teach Interpersonal or Argumentation.
Love the thoughts at the end about using A.I. for practice.

[Douglass Morrison]

Psychology professor, Julia Minson, opens her provocative text, 'How to Disagree Better' by proposing:
“Trying to persuade people that they are wrong is a losing battle because they will simply conclude that you don’t get it… Instead, consider what information they might be missing… and what a smart and reasonable person might see differently.”
She emphasizes her point, “Trying to win an argument is a good way to start a fight.”
The author attributes this dilemma to a widely prevalent blind spot, she calls naive realism: “Most conflict stems from the simple fact that everyone thinks they are right.”
This ‘logic’ leads us to ask, Why doesn’t my opponent in this argument get it? Attributions of deficient intelligence, inadequate education, naivete, or even character flaws lead to implications of superiority and condescension that only harden resistance. Conflict is only one insult away.

Receptiveness is a better tactic – Minson urges readers to investigate the opinions of others. I find it helpful to consider the evolution of scientific knowledge: hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and hypothesis reformulation, in light of new observations and experiments. The scientific method requires us to embrace uncertainty and treat all hypotheses as tentative, rather than as laws. In these contexts, disagreement can be productive: No one knows all the facts, much less all of the perspectives. We all suffer from 'selective exposure' or 'congeniality bias' to our own ideas.
What does one need in this type of discussion? Intellectual humility and a tolerance of uncertainty can get us started toward learning something rather than fighting. Minson calls the combination of a curious mindset and respectful behavior receptiveness.

Receptiveness to opposing views includes a person’s willingness to access, consider, and evaluate both supporting and opposing views impartially. ‘Why would a thoughtful, reasonable, kind, decent person think that?’ Receptiveness is not the same as persuasion. It involves trade-offs: don’t lionize our own views, or villainize our opponent’s views. Minson suggests we need to consider four elements of our attitude as we try to develop receptiveness:
• Emotional equanimity – Don’t let other viewpoints make you angry, disgusted, frustrated, or annoyed.
• Intellectual curiosity – Be curious about the origins of other people’s beliefs, including conversations, reading, podcasts, and personal interactions with different perspectives or beliefs.
• Respect toward opponents – Examine your reactions to alternative ideas; what is really too extreme, not compelling, not fact-based, unscientific, ill-informed, or dishonest ?
• Tolerance of taboo issues – Which issues do I find: too offensive, not up for debate, immoral, illegal, dangerous, and/ or unholy (blasphemous)?
Receptiveness is about the mindset of curiosity and withholding judgment, and the behavior of listening with interest and without interrupting. Empathy is about feeling (and trying to understand) from another’s perspective. Feeling listened to and understood builds trust.
Responsiveness is contagious, “Acting receptively makes others do the same for you.”
In an argument, most people are likely to assume that their opponent only wants to convince them that they are right, not learn anything about their viewpoint. We have conversations for lots of different reasons, not just seeking a solution to a problem. Sometimes, we just want to feel heard. But most of us do not enter a discussion hoping to be proved wrong or lacking.
People in an argument feel much more positive about their opponent if they think their opponent is actually interested in their point of view. Convincing an opponent that you are listening is difficult; impatience, overconfidence, and pride all stand in the way.
Minson advises her readers to ask the right questions, specifically avoiding snarky or ‘gotcha’ questions – “A good mental rule of thumb is that if asking a question in a disagreement made you feel superior to your counterpart, you probably should not have asked it.”
Avoid 'boomerasking' where you fake curiosity, signal that you aren’t interested in their answer, and are only trying to set up your rebuttal – “Recipients recognize that a 'boomerask' is a fake question, which often makes this move backfire.”
Don’t be scared of sensitive questions, but be mindful of them. Elaboration questions and follow-up questions signal interest. Ask your conversation partner to develop her position. Be prepared to hear different views. Ask follow-up questions to clarify areas of difference and of agreement.
Minson describes the psychological construct of ‘perspective taking’ – the ability to see things from another person’s point of view. She tells readers that this is a difficult skill to learn, in part because even when we are trying to understand our fellow conversationalist’s point of view, we tend to fill in our knowledge gaps in their story with our assumptions and biases. She describes a mediation process between a citizens group and state officials where the two sides used ‘best available science’ to mean different things; eventually, they agreed that they were conflating data with science, and that what they really needed was some sort of agreement between groups on shared goals.
Psychologist Minson proposes a method she calls the ‘Listening Triangle’ to enable our curiosity and lead to understanding:
• Ask a question – We express the desire to learn.
• Listen to the answer - Resist the temptations to interrupt and to assume you ‘know’ their answer.
• Reflection – “So let me see if I ‘ve got this right…” or “Did I miss something?”
Repeat – “That’s what I think, but I’m curious to know how you see it.”
This mediation method is challenging to learn, and Minson suggests that we practice by asking friends or family questions that are neither controversial nor contentious in order to learn to not to interrupt our fellow conversationalists. Our goal is first curiosity, and then understanding.

The author proposes a mnemonic device, the HEAR framework, as a means of demonstrating receptiveness during a discussion:
• Hedge your claims
• Emphasize agreement
• Acknowledge your fellow discussant’s perspectives, and
• Reframe to the positive
Minson describes a number of studies of door-to-door canvassing used to elicit opinions and attempt to begin dialogue. Among the findings of these studies is the idea that telling a personal story can build trust and interest, as long as the story conveys the vulnerability and humanity of its teller. It is OK, she tells readers, to add facts and figures. But the human story helps establish the competence and trustworthiness of those ‘facts’.

Among the reservations expressed to Julia Minson regarding the notion of receptiveness:
o Why should I talk to crazy people?
o What if I’m actually right?
o Do we need to be receptive to immoral perspectives?
o What if being receptive makes people think I might change my mind?
o What if I’m being receptive, but they are being combative?
o What if I don’t want to have a miserable time?
o Does receptiveness vary between cultures?
o Doesn’t behaving receptively seem fake?
o What does courage have to do with it? What am I afraid of?
Minson tells us that many of these fears boil down to concern about how we will be perceived; she tells us that although courage may be required, usually our fears of what others will think are exaggerated. There remains the careful consideration of whether trying to solve the particular disagreement with the particular individual is worth the courage and effort needed.

Minson finishes her book with several suggestions for implementing her teaching into our conversational lives. Among my favorites are:
• Repetition – the mother of all learning
• Creating a practice plan with other conversationalists,
• Writing out before, during, and after conversation steps, and
• Identifying heroes of receptivity to emulate
I found How to Disagree Better useful, and I recommend it highly.

[Jonno]

This book has some useful advice. It's also pretty annoying.

I have some serious methodological critiques. On page xi, the third page of non-Table-of-Contents text, she writes, "A typical American experiences approximately 6.2 memorable disagreements every week. [. . .] Beyond the actual disagreement, people spend another 3.7 hours a week ruminating about and regretting their disagreements." There is NO citation for these numbers. Where did she get them? On page 52, she admits to p-hacking. On page 235, she makes a totally unsupported and non-specific claim about saving money.

I also have some unserious critiques. On page xxiv, she uses the idiotic term "thought partner". She doesn't really distinguish between small disagreements (who should pick up the kids from school tomorrow) and big ones (whether someone should change their religion). She uses her days as a ballroom dancer as an extended example from her own life and briefly mentions other people who work on the Middle East. Did those other people write a book? Their problems seem much more interesting. On page 94, she talks about research subjects struggling to do something in an experiment and then kind of says, "And these were Stanford students. Can you imagine dumb people trying to do this?" It did not surprise me to read on page 231 that after college she worked as a management consultant.

[Julie Simons]

Unlike most conflict‑resolution books that recycle platitudes about “active listening,” the author anchors her advice in decades of experimental psychology. The core concepts—receptiveness, loose vs. tight scaling, the difference between arguing to win vs. arguing to learn—feel fresh because they’re backed by real data. You can tell she actually ran the studies.

Where it stumbles: the “real world” shift
The second half tries to translate those findings into practical scripts and step‑by‑step techniques. And here, the book starts to feel oddly reductive. The author offers tidy formulas for disagreement, but real human conflict—especially under time pressure, ego threat, or genuine exhaustion—doesn’t follow tidy formulas.

[Elizabeth]

As heard on Self-Conscious with Chrissy Teigen - Julia Minson: Disagree Better: Hold Your Ground Without Lighting a Match

Harvard professor Julia Minson joins Chrissy to break down why most “conflict” isn’t about bad people—it’s about missing skills. She explains how disagreement turns toxic when we slip into judgment, certainty, and a win/lose mindset, and why “good intentions” don’t count if the other person can’t hear them. Then she gives a practical toolkit—naive realism, “listen with your mouth,” and her HEAR framework—to help you say what you mean, lower the temperature, and preserve the relationship for the next conversation.

 

Key Takeaways

Disagreement ≠ conflict: conflict starts when you judge the person (you’re ignorant / selfish / bad) instead of wrestling with the idea. Most fights are “missing skills,” not bad intentions: people aren’t trained to show curiosity, signal respect, or stay regulated when heat rises. Naive realism is the trap: we believe we’re seeing “objective reality,” so if you disagree, something must be wrong with you—and that’s how contempt enters. People don’t want to change their minds—so stop arguing like they do: we assume they’re threatened; really, they’re usually just annoyed you won’t accept their “obvious” truth. A good disagreement builds a bridge to the next one: success = the other person still wants to talk to you after, not “I won.”

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

https://rss.art19.com/episodes/415aa5...

[Christine]

In this book, the author - who is a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and a behavioral scientist - discusses something that we all run into (and probably now more than ever) - disagreement and how to handle it. Some people thrive on disagreement. Other people (me) try to avoid it whenever possible. But most of us can benefit from learning some tools to help us manage disagreement better.

What I like about this book is the author frames the idea of disagreement in a very practical way - whether at home, work or school. She also acknowledges that handling disagreement better doesn't necessarily mean ultimately agreeing with the person or persuading them to agree with your position. In fact, she admits that is typically not the result. The idea behind the book is how do we get to a place where we can disagree with someone and not end up in a bad place/relationship with that person. Using techniques such as listening better, asking questions to help you better understand why someone has taken the position they have, etc. can all be used to help diffuse situations.

In today's world where disagreement seems to be the norm, I think everyone could benefit from reading this book. While I think it does get a bit too detailed and might be easier for people to comprehend if it was a little more "to the point", I definitely got some good pieces of information out of it and some strategies that I plan to utilize.

I received an advance review copy for free and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

[Richard Thompson]

I didn't want to like this book. Ms. Minson has a somewhat whiny authorial voice, and I'm suspicious of many findings in social psychology, a field that is rife with P-hacking and non-reproducible results. Plus, I came to it thinking that it had little to teach me. My entire career is about getting people to "yes". I have been doing this for years, and I'm pretty damned good at it, even if I am not as perfect in my practice of calm, reasoned, persuasive discussion as I would like to be.

But as I read, I tried to keep an open mind and get into the spirit of the book. If resolving disagreement constructively is tied to having a receptive attitude and projecting that to others, then didn't I owe it to Ms. Minson to be receptive to her point of view? Once I started thinking that way, I could feel my doubt and bad attitude about this book melt away. Even if I do already practice much of what she is preaching here, there are always a few new tricks for an old dog like me to learn, and doing the things that are advised here is sometimes counterintuitive, so it's good to have her suggestions as a mental checklist to steer me back in the right direction.

[Don Moore Moore]

Members of a family have to learn to live harmoniously even when they disagree. Citizens in a democracy have to find compromise with others with whom they disagree. This is hard, and there is always the temptation to decide others are crazy and to write them off. That sort of hostility leads, predictably, to the breakdown of a family or a democracy.

Julia Minson’s words are a breath of fresh air and sanity in a world beset by hositility toward those with whom we disagree. A shortage of curiosity about how they came to their beliefs and compassion for their perspective so often leads to dysfunctional conflict that leaves everyone worse off. Divorce and civil war are exceedingly costly processes for resolving disagreements between partners or citizens. Minson offers us hope we can do better.

Read this book and get it for all those in your life with whom you value having a positive relationship.

[Christopher Hynes]

I usually avoid books in this sort of “self-help” genre as they tend to be long-winded and sort of tell me obvious things I already knew. Often it’s just one person’s random ideas that have no real science behind it.

But this book was surprisingly good, relevant to the world today, and I learned a lot from it. One thing unelectable love is that the end of each chapter provides a really nice summary of the key points. So instead of re-reading it, I will just refresh myself by a quick skim of the bullet points.

The author has spent a lifetime doing research I to how people disagree, so everything is backed by published research. I found the studies she constructed to be really clever and innovative.

I think this is a really important book that can help a lot of people get more out of interactions with others, rather than just stress.

[Alison]

A smart, practical, and very timely book about how to stay open, clear, and constructive in disagreement.

What I appreciated most is that Julia Minson treats disagreement not as something to avoid or “win,” but as a skill that can be practiced. The book is especially strong on receptiveness: how people signal that they are actually listening, how conversations become less defensive, and why better disagreement often leads to better decisions.

This felt highly relevant for leadership, negotiation, difficult conversations, and everyday relationships. Some of the concepts were familiar, but the framing was useful and memorable.

A strong 4-star read for anyone who wants less drama and better outcomes.

[Victoria]

I thought this was a really interesting book, full of great ideas, and a clear recognition that the ideas are not always easy to transfer to reality. I did appreciate that the author gave lots of ideas on how to practice disagreeing in the readers everyday life.
I was surprised that I already do many of the things that the author recommended for disagreeing better but, I do have some learning and practice to do in my everyday life.
The only thing I didn't enjoy was that the author had a tendency to repeat the same ideas in a very similar way throughout the book.
Overall a great read and I think this book would be perfect for anyone in a leadership role or entering the workforce.

[Catherine Gallagher]

I loved this book and have been recommending it to everyone I know! I think about it every single day when I am communicating with people. I loved the in depth scientific explanations given for every point she made. I do think you could learn the lessons from the book in far fewer pages, so for my friends who aren’t big readers or interested in the “why” I can point them to the conclusions sections. But for those interested in the reasoning, I feel it paints a very thorough and complete picture.

[Andrea (Hammock and Read)]

This was a super interesting and informative book about how to communicate not only in disagreements but in general I would say. It gave me ideas and will be. Book for the shelf to pull out and use not only at work but in daily life. So much right now is on opposite sides and this gave me ideas of how to look and use new tools for this conversations but also just little things as work especially when I’m on fire.

Julia reads the audiobook and did a really good job with that as well.

[Catherine Woeste]

We live in a world where conflicting viewpoints are immediately written off because someone is perceived to be “too [insert political stance]”. This book offers ways to handle debates or discussions in a way that lets you actually have a candid discussion where no one leaves feeling disregarded or brushed off. Would highly recommend!

[Rae Simpson]

Minuteman. Typical structure and format self-help book. Basic concept is that one needs to have a "receptive mindset" to disagreements, including emotional equanimity, intellectual uriosity, respect toward opponents, and tolerance of taboo subjects. Can rate yourself from a questionnaire at https://disagreeingbetter.com/

[Mmacharris]

Very research focused but on the balance a little dry. Great at explaining naive realism, receptiveness and actionable steps to engage with others who have different perspectives than you—critical for this polarizing time. Also explains why we often avoid difficult conversations. All makes sense and hoping to put into practice.

[Frank]

So yes it’s a great book and worth reading if you want to have better conversations and outcomes for all.

Do not sleep on the assessment tool on the website. This was very enlightening : bang there is my area I need to work on.

[Dave Moyer]

This book includes useful information under any circumstances, but considering where we are in society right now, it is particularly timely. I appreciate practical tips for managing opposing points for view during challenging discussions.

[Shauna]

This was book with “amen” all over it. As conflict arises, often times so does this tension. The author in this book doesn’t just teach language skills, but emotional intelligence and awareness is addressed. The book delivers the information intelligently yet simply. It’s a real gem.

[Arend]

Interesting and encouraging research, well presented and usefully summarized. It does get repetitive at times, and ironically, I found the personal anecdotes by the author off putting in their breezy exceptionalism.

[Camille]

Billerica Public Library 158.2/MINS 2026 Due 4/29/2026 33934005051520
Burlington Public Library XX(1702479.3) Being acquired by the library 1702479-3001
Lawrence Public Library 158.2 MIN

[Jean]

JFYI https://youtu.be/GigRB6bZ0MI?si=ZgSr1...

[Erica]

Both interesting and informative, including practical skills to try. Very applicable in the current state of the world we find ourselves trying to survive in.

[Douglas]

The author offers thought provoking insights and structures for methods for improving communication, perspectives and conflict resolution.

[Paul]

Interesting book, I hope that I can put some of the ideas into practice