What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Your Bubble: How to Connect Across the Political Divide, Skills and Strategies for Conversations That Work
As featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, TED Talks, and The Orange County Register, this practical, politically neutral book offers concrete skills for holding meaningful conversations that cut across today's intense political divide, showing readers how to connect to the people in their lives. Author featured on NPR's All Things Considered and NBC's The Today Show with Hoda Kotb and Jenna Bush Hager. Winner of the Next Generation Indie Book Awards for Self-Help This is a great read for all sides of the political spectrum. Inspired by the author’s experience leading countless workshops to bridge common ground among members of her community, this book shows how we can reach across the divide and bring Americans together, one conversation at a time. Political polarization is at an all-time high, and the consequences for our personal relationships are significant. Many people have friends and family members with whom they feel they can no longer communicate because of their extreme political views. In this book, psychologist Tania Israel presents her program for helping people have meaningful, constructive conversations with those they disagree with politically. Chapters show readers how to develop and use the scientifically-proven skills that are the foundation of constructive conversation, including strategies for effective listening, managing emotions, and understanding someone else’s perspective, as well as finding common ground, avoiding self-righteousness, and telling your own story. Throughout, conversation prompts, practical exercises, case examples, and self-quizzes help readers visualize and practice starting, sustaining, and ending challenging conversations.
178 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 11, 2020
52 people are currently reading
705 people want to read
About the author
Tania Israel
6 books24 followersTania Israel is a Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and award-winning author of Beyond Your Bubble: How to Connect Across the Political Divide, Skills and Strategies for Conversations That Work (APA, 2020). She has shared her expertise with the TODAY show, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR, and dozens of other media outlets. Her strengths as a scholar and storyteller are evident in her TEDx talks: How to Win a Political Argument, What Halibut Fajitas Taught Me About Bridging the Political Divide, and Bisexuality and Beyond. Tania’s presentations on a wide range of topics have been received enthusiastically by campuses, conferences, corporations, elected officials, and faith communities. She has received honors from Congress, the California State Legislature, and the American Psychological Association. To learn more, visit https://taniaisrael.com/ or connect with her on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, or TIkTok (@drtaniaisrael).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
January 26, 2023
I agree with this book's ideas in principle... But there are some positions you just SHOULDN'T respect. Like denying people basic human rights. I appreciate what the author's trying to do, I really do, but some of the people I violently disagree with are KILLING people. So.
I've literally been called a paedophile (and I'm a child sexual abuse survivor) for merely existing as a trans man. I will not "connect" with those people, and I really, really doubt they will do so with me.
I've literally been called a paedophile (and I'm a child sexual abuse survivor) for merely existing as a trans man. I will not "connect" with those people, and I really, really doubt they will do so with me.
January 14, 2023
I am often appalled by the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, although more from one side. This rhetoric makes my belly clench and want to avoid loved ones who have contrary perspectives. I don’t like that this is my first impulse.
Differences often feel threatening. Tania Israel argues that they don’t have to be. In her Acknowledgments, for example, Israel observed, “Our differences are woven into the fabric of our country; our ability to connect across these differences strengthens us collectively. I feel so fortunate to be part of this amazing mix of people” (p. 12). Our differences enrich us.
The US tends toward a debate culture; maybe all peoples are debate-oriented, although I don’t think so. However, Israel believes “to have true dialogue, I must listen and be open, even when the ideas presented feel threatening” (p. 17). In fact, she convincingly argues that from their own point of view and in the context of their own values their ideas and words make sense. In really listening, we may move from demonizing people holding other perspectives to humanizing them. This alone would be a good outcome from my point of view.
Of course, and this is an important point, both parties have to want to be in dialogue, want to listen to rather than debate each other. If both parties want this, "there are only two things you need to do [to create successful dialogue across political lines]: 1. try to understand people on the other side and 2. help them feel safe and understood" (p. 40). Easier said than done.
To do this, we need to be willing to be vulnerable, manage our emotions, demonstrate both intellectual and cultural humility, and build points of shared connections. These skills are possible although sometimes challenging.
Beyond Your Bubble's tone impressed me. It was neutral, warm, smart, and accessible. This is a book that is targeted at a lay audience but also appropriate for a professional one – we sometimes have difficulties transferring skills from one setting to another.
I have invited Dr. Israel to give a keynote for us based on having heard her on two other occasions – and her TED talk. A group of us also plan a group discussion of this book and others as a way of reaching across the political and other divides. I am often somewhat nervous about setting up book discussions, but this book should make me feel more confident.
Differences often feel threatening. Tania Israel argues that they don’t have to be. In her Acknowledgments, for example, Israel observed, “Our differences are woven into the fabric of our country; our ability to connect across these differences strengthens us collectively. I feel so fortunate to be part of this amazing mix of people” (p. 12). Our differences enrich us.
The US tends toward a debate culture; maybe all peoples are debate-oriented, although I don’t think so. However, Israel believes “to have true dialogue, I must listen and be open, even when the ideas presented feel threatening” (p. 17). In fact, she convincingly argues that from their own point of view and in the context of their own values their ideas and words make sense. In really listening, we may move from demonizing people holding other perspectives to humanizing them. This alone would be a good outcome from my point of view.
Of course, and this is an important point, both parties have to want to be in dialogue, want to listen to rather than debate each other. If both parties want this, "there are only two things you need to do [to create successful dialogue across political lines]: 1. try to understand people on the other side and 2. help them feel safe and understood" (p. 40). Easier said than done.
To do this, we need to be willing to be vulnerable, manage our emotions, demonstrate both intellectual and cultural humility, and build points of shared connections. These skills are possible although sometimes challenging.
Beyond Your Bubble's tone impressed me. It was neutral, warm, smart, and accessible. This is a book that is targeted at a lay audience but also appropriate for a professional one – we sometimes have difficulties transferring skills from one setting to another.
I have invited Dr. Israel to give a keynote for us based on having heard her on two other occasions – and her TED talk. A group of us also plan a group discussion of this book and others as a way of reaching across the political and other divides. I am often somewhat nervous about setting up book discussions, but this book should make me feel more confident.
October 26, 2020
“Dialogue isn’t about winning. It’s about understanding.” This is the premise of Tania Israel’s Beyond Your Bubble. “Dialogue has greater potential to change minds than debate.” Dialogue may not change our views but it does change our views about people who disagree with us. Dialogue helps us move beyond caricatures to the character of the person with whom we are communicating.
Listening is an act of humility because the focus is on understanding rather than proving our validity. Humility is multifaceted and can be cultivated when exposed to a growth mindset. “People who demonstrate intellectual humility...recognize that their beliefs might be wrong, can tolerate ambiguity and are more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments...People with a high degree of cultural humility are open to hearing others’ beliefs and are likely to prioritize connections with other people over proving the superiority of their own views.” “Vulnerability is not knowing how the other person will respond but making space for it anyway.”
I discovered that the political left prioritizes sympathy, compassion, nurturance, rights and justice; while the political right prioritizes loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity. While there may be two political parties, they are represented by three types of political animals: political panthers (fight), political peregrines (flight), and political possums (freeze). Oppositional tweeting is the Tower of Babel; the dialogue “bubble” is our common language.
Israel describes the topic of her title in two ways. First, bubbles in and of themselves are both beautiful and fun...and fragile and unsustainable. If we insulate ourselves from others who see the world differently than we do, we create a bubble around ourselves that will pop in conflict and prevent our growth. However, blowing bubbles causes our breathing to deepen, muscles to relax, and our mind to clear. Israel encourages us to adopt a bubble blowing mentality and confront conflict through conversation rather than combat!
Tania Israel’s Beyond Your Bubble reinforces and fleshes out the biblical proverb that “a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (15:1). Upon reflection on my experience as an international worker and English teacher in Asian and Middle Eastern cultural contexts, I found Tania Israel’s principles invaluable. “Focus on the relationship, and persuasion may follow.” Beyond Your Bubble should be on the prerequisite required reading lists for any travel. Pairs well with pizza!
Listening is an act of humility because the focus is on understanding rather than proving our validity. Humility is multifaceted and can be cultivated when exposed to a growth mindset. “People who demonstrate intellectual humility...recognize that their beliefs might be wrong, can tolerate ambiguity and are more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments...People with a high degree of cultural humility are open to hearing others’ beliefs and are likely to prioritize connections with other people over proving the superiority of their own views.” “Vulnerability is not knowing how the other person will respond but making space for it anyway.”
I discovered that the political left prioritizes sympathy, compassion, nurturance, rights and justice; while the political right prioritizes loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity. While there may be two political parties, they are represented by three types of political animals: political panthers (fight), political peregrines (flight), and political possums (freeze). Oppositional tweeting is the Tower of Babel; the dialogue “bubble” is our common language.
Israel describes the topic of her title in two ways. First, bubbles in and of themselves are both beautiful and fun...and fragile and unsustainable. If we insulate ourselves from others who see the world differently than we do, we create a bubble around ourselves that will pop in conflict and prevent our growth. However, blowing bubbles causes our breathing to deepen, muscles to relax, and our mind to clear. Israel encourages us to adopt a bubble blowing mentality and confront conflict through conversation rather than combat!
Tania Israel’s Beyond Your Bubble reinforces and fleshes out the biblical proverb that “a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (15:1). Upon reflection on my experience as an international worker and English teacher in Asian and Middle Eastern cultural contexts, I found Tania Israel’s principles invaluable. “Focus on the relationship, and persuasion may follow.” Beyond Your Bubble should be on the prerequisite required reading lists for any travel. Pairs well with pizza!
April 10, 2024
⭐️ 4.5 - “Dialogue isn’t about winning. It is about understanding.”
Wonderful tool if you are looking to expand your communication skills and encourage dialogue with others with varying views from your own ❤️
Wonderful tool if you are looking to expand your communication skills and encourage dialogue with others with varying views from your own ❤️
August 3, 2020
Beyond Your Bubble is a short book full of information on how to talk to people with whom you disagree passionately in order to come to a position of mutual respect. It has several exercises to help readers practice their cross-partisan dialogue and sample conversations between people with opposing viewpoints coming to an understanding that while they disagree, their disagreement is rooted in admirable values that should be respected.
The world is divided and families have fractured over partisan divisions on issues such as abortion, immigration, and universal health care. Tania Israel’s book is based on research on how to talk to people, research that demonstrates that facts not only do not matter, they actually work to harden people’s opposition and make them more extreme. She suggests talking about why we believe what we believe in terms of our lives and our values, not with facts or research.
I can see Beyond Your Bubble being useful for families who are fracturing over political division. Few families are free of the divide created by partisanship and the delegitimization of loyal opposition. I struggled with the book for a couple reasons. First, the text sounds like a transcript of a workshop. The language level and approach is overly-simplistic and often sounds condescending. What works for a Ted Talk does not work when it is in writing because we can grasp things more quickly and refer back. Using the language you would use in a workshop when writing set my teeth on edge.
The other challenge is just plain disagreement. She thinks coming to a position of mutual respect for each other’s values is a win. I can understand that anti-vaxxers value purity, keeping chemicals, and pollutants away from their children and how much they want to protect their children. On the other hand, they kill people and endanger us all with the risk of developing vaccine-resistant viruses. Sorry, mutual respect is just not possible. I don’t want to be okay with tolerating their position. While I am certain Tania Israel has strong values, there is this quality to these exercises that remind me of Alinsky’s tools for radicals that worked equally well for reactionaries.
Beyond Your Bubble will be released on August 4th. I received an ARC from the publisher through Shelf Awareness.
Beyond Your Bubble at the American Psychological Association
Tania Israel author site
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
The world is divided and families have fractured over partisan divisions on issues such as abortion, immigration, and universal health care. Tania Israel’s book is based on research on how to talk to people, research that demonstrates that facts not only do not matter, they actually work to harden people’s opposition and make them more extreme. She suggests talking about why we believe what we believe in terms of our lives and our values, not with facts or research.
I can see Beyond Your Bubble being useful for families who are fracturing over political division. Few families are free of the divide created by partisanship and the delegitimization of loyal opposition. I struggled with the book for a couple reasons. First, the text sounds like a transcript of a workshop. The language level and approach is overly-simplistic and often sounds condescending. What works for a Ted Talk does not work when it is in writing because we can grasp things more quickly and refer back. Using the language you would use in a workshop when writing set my teeth on edge.
The other challenge is just plain disagreement. She thinks coming to a position of mutual respect for each other’s values is a win. I can understand that anti-vaxxers value purity, keeping chemicals, and pollutants away from their children and how much they want to protect their children. On the other hand, they kill people and endanger us all with the risk of developing vaccine-resistant viruses. Sorry, mutual respect is just not possible. I don’t want to be okay with tolerating their position. While I am certain Tania Israel has strong values, there is this quality to these exercises that remind me of Alinsky’s tools for radicals that worked equally well for reactionaries.
Beyond Your Bubble will be released on August 4th. I received an ARC from the publisher through Shelf Awareness.
Beyond Your Bubble at the American Psychological Association
Tania Israel author site
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
June 30, 2020
This is one of the most helpful books I've come across when it comes to fostering meaningful dialogue with people who have very different believes or viewpoints from your own. Dr. Israel uses accessible language, filled with illuminating examples and anecdotes, examples, and actual strategies to use to foster crucial conversation on difficult topics. I want to give this to every fellow Midwesterner I know who has struggled to see eye to eye with friends and family members on hot-button issues. Dr. Israel highlights how differently conservatives and liberals see the world, pointing out the values they have, and how to approach subjects in a way that will matter to them.
Tania Israel is amazing. I will have to buy a copy when it comes out to recommend and loan out to people. Huge thank you to NetGalley for providing me with this fantastic ARC. Full review to come when it’s published.
Tania Israel is amazing. I will have to buy a copy when it comes out to recommend and loan out to people. Huge thank you to NetGalley for providing me with this fantastic ARC. Full review to come when it’s published.
June 26, 2020
I received an electronic ARC from American Psychological Association through NetGalley.
Practical information to enter into dialogue with those who do not agree with you. Israel presents steps to take to develop skills to talk with family, friends and others about uncomfortable topics. The exercises and examples provided let readers think through how they want to approach dialogue and avoid angry responses or withdrawal and avoidance.
This is a book readers can refer to over and over again as they develop this skill set.
Practical information to enter into dialogue with those who do not agree with you. Israel presents steps to take to develop skills to talk with family, friends and others about uncomfortable topics. The exercises and examples provided let readers think through how they want to approach dialogue and avoid angry responses or withdrawal and avoidance.
This is a book readers can refer to over and over again as they develop this skill set.
July 7, 2020
Helpful! Basic ways to help understand and listen to others maintaining different political views. Israel uses practical conversational tools, offers research and data, and a case study to provide wrap-around explanations of her points. Israel is clearly an expert and her career and education make her just the right person to write this. This has already aided personal relationships.
December 3, 2020
FULL DISCLOSURE HERE--I am the acquisitions editor who signed this book, so I might be a bit biased. But it really is good and, my gosh, so incredibly needed right now. Readable, user-friendly, and actionable.
August 30, 2020
I entered a sweeps for this book because it was written for me: I’m one of those people avoiding Facebook because people I love dearly are expressing views I disagree with, and I’m afraid to have a confrontation that might devolve to yelling and loss—even if it’s virtual. I’m upset to see the same kind of unrest I grew up with in the 1970s repeating. I know the media is highlighting extremists to sell stuff, but I sputter into incoherence when talking politics—so how do I find out the reasons my neighbors might have for voting for platforms that seem deeply dangerous (to me)? I need help. The psychologist author advocates dialogue as the route to cross the divide, rather than debate or even civil discourse; that sounds doable, even for introverts.
It’s worth the wade through stilted prose to read this book; it’s also a refresher on your freshman speech class. Using cousins Kevin the liberal and Celine the conservative, whose kids want them to socialize again, the author walks you through careful conversations. Aside from the clunky suggested scripts, the principles are sound, and it’s full of further resources. The first thing the author asks you to do is figure out your motivations for talking. Discourse is proving your point, debate is for conversion, but dialogue means listening and understanding. We all want the other guy to switch to our way of thinking, but that’s not realistic or useful. One party or another is going to prevail and the rest of us have to deal, so I really do want to find common ground and understanding of others—even if we do agree to disagree. That might be the true definition of democracy, after all.
What I found most immediately helpful in this book were two charts: one that shows the Miserable Majority, where studies find that only 33% of us are extremists, and the other 66% of us really do just want to get along; the other shows the moral underpinnings of conservatives and liberals—and everyone I know uses both sides of this chart that references loyalty, respect, justice, and compassion.
I have more hope for our country after reading this book. If I’m not quite ready to have a dialogue yet, I’m ready for the work.
It’s worth the wade through stilted prose to read this book; it’s also a refresher on your freshman speech class. Using cousins Kevin the liberal and Celine the conservative, whose kids want them to socialize again, the author walks you through careful conversations. Aside from the clunky suggested scripts, the principles are sound, and it’s full of further resources. The first thing the author asks you to do is figure out your motivations for talking. Discourse is proving your point, debate is for conversion, but dialogue means listening and understanding. We all want the other guy to switch to our way of thinking, but that’s not realistic or useful. One party or another is going to prevail and the rest of us have to deal, so I really do want to find common ground and understanding of others—even if we do agree to disagree. That might be the true definition of democracy, after all.
What I found most immediately helpful in this book were two charts: one that shows the Miserable Majority, where studies find that only 33% of us are extremists, and the other 66% of us really do just want to get along; the other shows the moral underpinnings of conservatives and liberals—and everyone I know uses both sides of this chart that references loyalty, respect, justice, and compassion.
I have more hope for our country after reading this book. If I’m not quite ready to have a dialogue yet, I’m ready for the work.
October 5, 2020
I am one of the people that has left social media (except for Goodreads and Letterboxd) because of the difference in communication between face-to-face and Facebook-to-Facebook. Even in person, my family and friends are generally more interested in snide remarks than discussion (love you tho!). And I have resorted to biting my tongue to a pretty alienating point. So, this book really spoke to me- inspired me and encouraged me to keep trying to connect. And to be wary of some of the most prevalent political strategies that are clearly ineffectual.
Here are a few of my favorite thoughts from this short book:
-Motive attribution asymmetry. "People's tendency to believe that people on their side are motivated by love and people on the other side are motivated by hate appears to be at the root of the world's most intractable conflicts." An interesting study to follow up on https://www.pnas.org/content/111/44/1...
-Intellectual humility vs moral threat. "There's a risk...that we might glimpse an idea that makes sense to us, we might resonate with something on the other side."
-The effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on dialogue vs alienation. "Maladaptive strategies such as suppressing, avoiding, and ruminating are associated with emotional dysregulation."
Some other quotes I marked:
"I found myself articulating my own values with greater nuance than I typically had occasion to express within my [likeminded] circles." Opportunities to become more articulate- there's a positive :)
"Some of the distress people are feeling arises from being mystified about other's views...Insight into others alleviates some of this distress." True- how often to do you hear upset rants that start with "I don't understand how...!"
Here are a few of my favorite thoughts from this short book:
-Motive attribution asymmetry. "People's tendency to believe that people on their side are motivated by love and people on the other side are motivated by hate appears to be at the root of the world's most intractable conflicts." An interesting study to follow up on https://www.pnas.org/content/111/44/1...
-Intellectual humility vs moral threat. "There's a risk...that we might glimpse an idea that makes sense to us, we might resonate with something on the other side."
-The effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on dialogue vs alienation. "Maladaptive strategies such as suppressing, avoiding, and ruminating are associated with emotional dysregulation."
Some other quotes I marked:
"I found myself articulating my own values with greater nuance than I typically had occasion to express within my [likeminded] circles." Opportunities to become more articulate- there's a positive :)
"Some of the distress people are feeling arises from being mystified about other's views...Insight into others alleviates some of this distress." True- how often to do you hear upset rants that start with "I don't understand how...!"
September 28, 2025
A quick and much-needed book. At times, the material comes across as overly simplified, but the author's central message—prioritizing understanding over winning—is a valuable one.
October 7, 2024
The last time I read one of the political books my aunt left us, I had meant to grab this one, but somehow chose the other.
I almost feel like this book should be required reading for everyone in a politically charged, divided nation. I say "everyone should read" so seldom that I don't even remember the last time that I said such a thing.
This book is about how to have constructive dialog across political lines, written for the 2020 election, by a professor of counselling psychology, someone well versed in helping people work through difficult topics. The book is supposed to be written neutrally, not trying to slam either the right or the left, but trying to get us to communicate calmly and well. With a couple minor caveats, I would call it very well done.
Personally, I very seldom enter into political discussions, mainly because everyone is angry, no one is listening, and I doubt my capacity to influence anyone. At the very least, I doubt angry discourse is the way to go. I tend to think of other things I value more than political agreement and avoid the topic altogether, although I do have strongly-held beliefs on the matter. Other strongly-held beliefs are more important to me.
In short, I am not one of the gung-ho political activists, although yes, I do vote.
I thought "The Flowchart That Will Resolve All Political Conflict in Our Country" was a funny concept, and perhaps oversimplified, but there was some truth in it, too.
What if you actually do "want to vent, have an argument, or generate conflict?" - which is where I think much of America is at. At that point, you follow the yes bubble, do some unconstructive things, and never get directed back around into improving your attitude or your goals. So I don't really think that this flowchart would resolve all conflict. That's too ambitious for a flowchart.
But supposing that most rational people would not choose that route, the flow chart might help.
It is possible to agree with someone emotionally, but not intellectually, or to agree with them intellectually, but not emotionally.
The flow chart said that if you are seeking to persuade someone on the left, "appeal to sympathy, compassion, nurturance, rights, justice," and if you are seeking to appeal to someone on the right, "appeal to loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity." While the list for the left does seem apt for those that I know on that side, the list for the right does not seem apt for those that I know on the right. It feels a little off, and I'm not convinced that appealing to these things would help. I suppose that reading this list made me feel contrarian, and I wanted to come up with a better articulation of a list to represent those I know on the right. But at least this is an attempt. I will come back to this list later in this review.
"What would it take for you to allow something you see as untrue to go unchallenged?" It's a fair question. For me, it depends a lot on the individual and whether I think they're open to reason. I happen to think that most people are open to reason, except when it comes to politics.
I like the list of things for successful dialog:
"1. try to understand people on the other side and
2. help them feel safe and understood."
So the book spends a great deal of time working on those two things.
"Look for something you can appreciate about people with differing views and try to view them through the lens of positive characteristics." I love this, and I have tried it before over the vaccine debate. However, I found that some people were horrified that I was even trying to respect people on the other side.
In a different interpersonal struggle, in trying to find common ground, I came to the conclusion that we both valued taking care of our parents.
Thoughts to add to the 3 examples of invitations for political discourse. I heard this one from the Jefferson Fisher, attorney videos on conflict: "Do we have to agree right now?" And, "It's okay to disagree." I feel he has some good advice as well.
Back to this book.
"It's wise to treat people as if they are intelligent, moral, and well-intentioned."
"Ask questions from a place of curiosity rather than judgment."
"You can each choose what to share and when." Just because people around you are talking about an issue doesn't mean that we have to say every fact or every thought we have on it. We might just decide not to.
"You get to decide if it's more important to say something because it came into your head or to build connection with the other person."
"Distinguish between discomfort that you can tolerate and red flags that indicate a high level of distress." I'm not sure what those red flags would be, but yes, there is a difference.
"If you feel like I'm being disrespectful, let me know." I like the idea of being accountable on that.
"It's important to acknowledge that your dialogue partner may be stretching beyond their comfort zone to do this."
"In addition to increasing your understanding of another person, active listening can communicate to dialogue partners that you care about and understand what they have to say."
"First, demonstrating that you understand can reduce conflict and help to build the kind of connection that promotes dialogue."
"You might think therapists listen to gather information, so we can offer insight or guidance ... Listening helps therapists develop a supportive relationship, which is actually the greatest contributor to therapeutic healing."
"There's a deep humility to listening because the focus is more on understanding the other person than on saying everything that comes into your mind."
On reflective listening: "People like having their thoughts and feelings reflected back to them."
"Listening to understand does not require, or even benefit from, interpretation or moving a conversation toward a deeper level."
"It's more important to simply be present than to be brilliant."
Even agreement is "an evaluative position" that "puts the focus on your preference, and implies the importance of your judgment, rather than signaling to the speaker you have understood their assertion... It inhibits their sense of being understood for what they've said verses what you think about it."
Questions "shows that you were listening, but moves the conversation in the direction of your curiosity and might, in so doing, lead you to miss the chance to explore what's meaningful to the speaker."
The best questions are open-ended, brief, and may repeat back a key word with an upward intonation to get them to talk more about that word.
"Ask questions in neutral manner that doesn't imply agreement or disagreement on your part and that doesn't challenge the speaker's point of view."
"Some people think in order to speak, and some people speak in order to think." Sounds like one difference between introverts and extraverts.
"Silence and reflection invite elaboration and exploration, which is not a process everyone wants to engage in, and in such cases, active listening may create discomfort."
"... others may experience humor as disregard for the seriousness of their experiences or values."
"maladaptive strategies, such as suppressing, avoiding, and ruminating, are associated with emotion disregulation."
Self-righteous views are "the feeling of superiority [that] may be based in one's own evaluation of being more intelligent more aligned with God, more caring, or more virtuous compared with others."
Righteousness without self-righteousness is "virtuousness without elevating oneself over others for it."
Intellectual humility is the ability to "hold multiple possibilities, respecting all perspectives, valuing all experiences."
It's interesting to me that asking someone to give a "mechanistic explanation may help people assess their own comprehension with greater accuracy," more so than opposing data. "Providing mechanistic explanations makes people less polarized in their own views and more humble in their assessment of their understanding of policies."
I love this: "When you're ready to bring the conversation to a close, you can express appreciation" with insights and something gained.
The book mentions it's important that people speak "about their views as being their own opinions, not as moral or rational truths." The realm of opinions is huge, ranging far and wide, but there really are also truths outside the realm of opinion.
"The problem is not that our facts are inaccurate, it's that they're insignificant without the context of how we came to form these views in the first place." In engineering, no, that's not true. I care more about whether your design will injure somebody than how you reached your conclusion. Then, after we determine that statistic, we can go back and work through the design's math (that is, the thinking) to find the error or improve the functionality. I do think facts are more important than the journey we took towards our views. In engineering, facts are more important than how we feel about them, and we always have to be ready to lay down our designs for better designs down the road, whether or not we're eager or nostalgic or possessive.
And finally, I'll return to that list of ways to appeal to those on the right: "loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity." I'm not convinced that anyone on either side of the political divide treasures authority anymore. Both sides will resist and resent authority whenever their political opponents are in power. I can remember those in the Greatest Generation, and the generation before that respecting authority, even when it came from the opposite political side more than people today would do such a thing. I can remember my grandmother saying, "He is the president," emphasizing the word president with a certain amount of awe and maybe even reverence. But I'm not aware of Republicans respecting Biden's authority, or Democrats respecting Trump's authority.
So even if in the past those on the right are swayed by authority and respect, I don't feel like that case can be made for today's society.
The same can be said for tradition. There are people who view tradition as the most important goal, but those people are far and few between. I do know a couple. But as society changes more and more quickly, both political sides have let various traditions go. It becomes harder to hold on to them throughout each change, and the motivations to hold on to them decreases in this different world. I don't see that as a major factor in the right's motivations either. To be honest, there are not many older people left alive who would still cling to tradition.
The person I know that talks most about loyalty isn't on the right, but on the left. I think those on the right are more loyal to what they view as the right thing to do rather than to a specific person, but some Trump supporters would be a counter-example to that, devoted to him come what may.
Obligations or personal responsibility are motivations on the right.
Sanctity may or may not be, depending on the individuals. I know of secularists, not holding anything sacred, who are among those more ardent on the right.
Although I usually pass along books after I read them, I plan on keeping this book, and would like to thank my aunt for it.
I almost feel like this book should be required reading for everyone in a politically charged, divided nation. I say "everyone should read" so seldom that I don't even remember the last time that I said such a thing.
This book is about how to have constructive dialog across political lines, written for the 2020 election, by a professor of counselling psychology, someone well versed in helping people work through difficult topics. The book is supposed to be written neutrally, not trying to slam either the right or the left, but trying to get us to communicate calmly and well. With a couple minor caveats, I would call it very well done.
Personally, I very seldom enter into political discussions, mainly because everyone is angry, no one is listening, and I doubt my capacity to influence anyone. At the very least, I doubt angry discourse is the way to go. I tend to think of other things I value more than political agreement and avoid the topic altogether, although I do have strongly-held beliefs on the matter. Other strongly-held beliefs are more important to me.
In short, I am not one of the gung-ho political activists, although yes, I do vote.
I thought "The Flowchart That Will Resolve All Political Conflict in Our Country" was a funny concept, and perhaps oversimplified, but there was some truth in it, too.
What if you actually do "want to vent, have an argument, or generate conflict?" - which is where I think much of America is at. At that point, you follow the yes bubble, do some unconstructive things, and never get directed back around into improving your attitude or your goals. So I don't really think that this flowchart would resolve all conflict. That's too ambitious for a flowchart.
But supposing that most rational people would not choose that route, the flow chart might help.
It is possible to agree with someone emotionally, but not intellectually, or to agree with them intellectually, but not emotionally.
The flow chart said that if you are seeking to persuade someone on the left, "appeal to sympathy, compassion, nurturance, rights, justice," and if you are seeking to appeal to someone on the right, "appeal to loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity." While the list for the left does seem apt for those that I know on that side, the list for the right does not seem apt for those that I know on the right. It feels a little off, and I'm not convinced that appealing to these things would help. I suppose that reading this list made me feel contrarian, and I wanted to come up with a better articulation of a list to represent those I know on the right. But at least this is an attempt. I will come back to this list later in this review.
"What would it take for you to allow something you see as untrue to go unchallenged?" It's a fair question. For me, it depends a lot on the individual and whether I think they're open to reason. I happen to think that most people are open to reason, except when it comes to politics.
I like the list of things for successful dialog:
"1. try to understand people on the other side and
2. help them feel safe and understood."
So the book spends a great deal of time working on those two things.
"Look for something you can appreciate about people with differing views and try to view them through the lens of positive characteristics." I love this, and I have tried it before over the vaccine debate. However, I found that some people were horrified that I was even trying to respect people on the other side.
In a different interpersonal struggle, in trying to find common ground, I came to the conclusion that we both valued taking care of our parents.
Thoughts to add to the 3 examples of invitations for political discourse. I heard this one from the Jefferson Fisher, attorney videos on conflict: "Do we have to agree right now?" And, "It's okay to disagree." I feel he has some good advice as well.
Back to this book.
"It's wise to treat people as if they are intelligent, moral, and well-intentioned."
"Ask questions from a place of curiosity rather than judgment."
"You can each choose what to share and when." Just because people around you are talking about an issue doesn't mean that we have to say every fact or every thought we have on it. We might just decide not to.
"You get to decide if it's more important to say something because it came into your head or to build connection with the other person."
"Distinguish between discomfort that you can tolerate and red flags that indicate a high level of distress." I'm not sure what those red flags would be, but yes, there is a difference.
"If you feel like I'm being disrespectful, let me know." I like the idea of being accountable on that.
"It's important to acknowledge that your dialogue partner may be stretching beyond their comfort zone to do this."
"In addition to increasing your understanding of another person, active listening can communicate to dialogue partners that you care about and understand what they have to say."
"First, demonstrating that you understand can reduce conflict and help to build the kind of connection that promotes dialogue."
"You might think therapists listen to gather information, so we can offer insight or guidance ... Listening helps therapists develop a supportive relationship, which is actually the greatest contributor to therapeutic healing."
"There's a deep humility to listening because the focus is more on understanding the other person than on saying everything that comes into your mind."
On reflective listening: "People like having their thoughts and feelings reflected back to them."
"Listening to understand does not require, or even benefit from, interpretation or moving a conversation toward a deeper level."
"It's more important to simply be present than to be brilliant."
Even agreement is "an evaluative position" that "puts the focus on your preference, and implies the importance of your judgment, rather than signaling to the speaker you have understood their assertion... It inhibits their sense of being understood for what they've said verses what you think about it."
Questions "shows that you were listening, but moves the conversation in the direction of your curiosity and might, in so doing, lead you to miss the chance to explore what's meaningful to the speaker."
The best questions are open-ended, brief, and may repeat back a key word with an upward intonation to get them to talk more about that word.
"Ask questions in neutral manner that doesn't imply agreement or disagreement on your part and that doesn't challenge the speaker's point of view."
"Some people think in order to speak, and some people speak in order to think." Sounds like one difference between introverts and extraverts.
"Silence and reflection invite elaboration and exploration, which is not a process everyone wants to engage in, and in such cases, active listening may create discomfort."
"... others may experience humor as disregard for the seriousness of their experiences or values."
"maladaptive strategies, such as suppressing, avoiding, and ruminating, are associated with emotion disregulation."
Self-righteous views are "the feeling of superiority [that] may be based in one's own evaluation of being more intelligent more aligned with God, more caring, or more virtuous compared with others."
Righteousness without self-righteousness is "virtuousness without elevating oneself over others for it."
Intellectual humility is the ability to "hold multiple possibilities, respecting all perspectives, valuing all experiences."
It's interesting to me that asking someone to give a "mechanistic explanation may help people assess their own comprehension with greater accuracy," more so than opposing data. "Providing mechanistic explanations makes people less polarized in their own views and more humble in their assessment of their understanding of policies."
I love this: "When you're ready to bring the conversation to a close, you can express appreciation" with insights and something gained.
The book mentions it's important that people speak "about their views as being their own opinions, not as moral or rational truths." The realm of opinions is huge, ranging far and wide, but there really are also truths outside the realm of opinion.
"The problem is not that our facts are inaccurate, it's that they're insignificant without the context of how we came to form these views in the first place." In engineering, no, that's not true. I care more about whether your design will injure somebody than how you reached your conclusion. Then, after we determine that statistic, we can go back and work through the design's math (that is, the thinking) to find the error or improve the functionality. I do think facts are more important than the journey we took towards our views. In engineering, facts are more important than how we feel about them, and we always have to be ready to lay down our designs for better designs down the road, whether or not we're eager or nostalgic or possessive.
And finally, I'll return to that list of ways to appeal to those on the right: "loyalty, obligations, authority/respect, traditions, social order, purity/sanctity." I'm not convinced that anyone on either side of the political divide treasures authority anymore. Both sides will resist and resent authority whenever their political opponents are in power. I can remember those in the Greatest Generation, and the generation before that respecting authority, even when it came from the opposite political side more than people today would do such a thing. I can remember my grandmother saying, "He is the president," emphasizing the word president with a certain amount of awe and maybe even reverence. But I'm not aware of Republicans respecting Biden's authority, or Democrats respecting Trump's authority.
So even if in the past those on the right are swayed by authority and respect, I don't feel like that case can be made for today's society.
The same can be said for tradition. There are people who view tradition as the most important goal, but those people are far and few between. I do know a couple. But as society changes more and more quickly, both political sides have let various traditions go. It becomes harder to hold on to them throughout each change, and the motivations to hold on to them decreases in this different world. I don't see that as a major factor in the right's motivations either. To be honest, there are not many older people left alive who would still cling to tradition.
The person I know that talks most about loyalty isn't on the right, but on the left. I think those on the right are more loyal to what they view as the right thing to do rather than to a specific person, but some Trump supporters would be a counter-example to that, devoted to him come what may.
Obligations or personal responsibility are motivations on the right.
Sanctity may or may not be, depending on the individuals. I know of secularists, not holding anything sacred, who are among those more ardent on the right.
Although I usually pass along books after I read them, I plan on keeping this book, and would like to thank my aunt for it.
September 1, 2020
I knew this would be good because I know Israel's scholarly work. But what surprised and delighted me was how PRACTICLE this book can be. The author has actual scripts that you can borrow and modify if you want to invite a relative into a conversation about an upcoming election. It's all about safety and Dr. Israel helps the reader to create a climate that is conducive to finding common ground. I'll keep this book handy as we head into November 2020!!
August 3, 2020
Thank you to NetGalley and the American Psychological Association for the eARC of this thoughtful and potentially very useful guide to dialogue with those we may not agree with.
As someone who has made great use of similar books to this in my career, I approached Beyond Your Bubble with a little bit of sense that I knew fairly well what to expect. The books Difficult Conversations, and Working with Emotional Intelligence have been touchstones for me in terms of productive conversations in order to achieve performance goals, and/or desired behaviors in the workplace, as well as to better understand where people in my personal life may be coming from when we have a disagreement. As both in one way or another grew out of the Harvard Negotiation Project, they share a certain features - background to what people go through when preparing for a tough interaction, sample scripts, etc. - although they go to different lengths and have different overall focuses.
Beyond Your Bubble aims to be a manual to help people get talking to each other again in the face of our seemingly-intractable political divide. Tania Israel deserves credit for facing up to the political question in a direct manner throughout this book, and yet maintains a fairly even keel in not favoring either side. In chapters that deal with preparing for dialogue, listening, managing emotions, and cultivating understanding, Israel gives us a valuable foundation of skills that some in life may come to fairly naturally, while others, like me, need real focus and attention. I believe that the chapter on listening is the longest chapter in the book, as well, which seems oh so appropriate for our time.
All in all, Beyond Your Bubble practically provides a seminar on how to approach these difficult topics, and even touches on Black Lives Matter in a late sample conversation. This is all to the good, and while there are resources listed at the back of the book on organizations that are devoted to the art of dialogue in communities and across political lines, I fear that her laudable and touching appeals to integrity and grace are many magnitudes more likely to be heeded by one side than the other.
As someone who has made great use of similar books to this in my career, I approached Beyond Your Bubble with a little bit of sense that I knew fairly well what to expect. The books Difficult Conversations, and Working with Emotional Intelligence have been touchstones for me in terms of productive conversations in order to achieve performance goals, and/or desired behaviors in the workplace, as well as to better understand where people in my personal life may be coming from when we have a disagreement. As both in one way or another grew out of the Harvard Negotiation Project, they share a certain features - background to what people go through when preparing for a tough interaction, sample scripts, etc. - although they go to different lengths and have different overall focuses.
Beyond Your Bubble aims to be a manual to help people get talking to each other again in the face of our seemingly-intractable political divide. Tania Israel deserves credit for facing up to the political question in a direct manner throughout this book, and yet maintains a fairly even keel in not favoring either side. In chapters that deal with preparing for dialogue, listening, managing emotions, and cultivating understanding, Israel gives us a valuable foundation of skills that some in life may come to fairly naturally, while others, like me, need real focus and attention. I believe that the chapter on listening is the longest chapter in the book, as well, which seems oh so appropriate for our time.
All in all, Beyond Your Bubble practically provides a seminar on how to approach these difficult topics, and even touches on Black Lives Matter in a late sample conversation. This is all to the good, and while there are resources listed at the back of the book on organizations that are devoted to the art of dialogue in communities and across political lines, I fear that her laudable and touching appeals to integrity and grace are many magnitudes more likely to be heeded by one side than the other.
August 9, 2020
A point by point primer on navigating challenging conversations, specifically across political divides. The author is a psychologist and draws on professional training as well as what is clearly a deep and intentional thoughtfulness to common politically divisive issues. The structure of the book is logical, following a made-up conversation and it's branching possibilities as a structure for demonstrating how to think about having such a dialogue, inviting someone to participate, actively listening, sharing one's thoughts, dealing with strong emotions that arise during the conversation, sussing out goals (truly understanding vs changing someone else's mind), and how to end a conversation or avoid one in the first place. I really like the emphasis on listening skills and on the point of these skills - that this is NOT a way to change people's minds, even in a sneaky way. It's really about listening, understanding, and extending compassion and an agreement to disagree.
Probably the two strongest takeaways are that one thing that absolutely doesn't work is to shout (or tweet) politically divisive messages to people who disagree with you. Research shows this entrenches them further in their positions, whether liberal or conservative. Engaging in authentic dialogue with a focus on understanding, and asking people to walk through describing exactly how their thought process is working has the best chance of bringing someone to a more moderate view - but it shouldn't be done with the goal to bring them to a moderate view but of listening and understanding. I'm a bit skeptical that two people from such different points of view could hold a dialogue as shown in the book, especially if both have not read it and are actively applying the skills, but I'm interested to try out the approach to see what happens. It's unlikely to go as badly as a conversation wherein I'm trying to change someone else's mind, after all! Thanks to the publisher for a NetGalley; opinions are my own.
Probably the two strongest takeaways are that one thing that absolutely doesn't work is to shout (or tweet) politically divisive messages to people who disagree with you. Research shows this entrenches them further in their positions, whether liberal or conservative. Engaging in authentic dialogue with a focus on understanding, and asking people to walk through describing exactly how their thought process is working has the best chance of bringing someone to a more moderate view - but it shouldn't be done with the goal to bring them to a moderate view but of listening and understanding. I'm a bit skeptical that two people from such different points of view could hold a dialogue as shown in the book, especially if both have not read it and are actively applying the skills, but I'm interested to try out the approach to see what happens. It's unlikely to go as badly as a conversation wherein I'm trying to change someone else's mind, after all! Thanks to the publisher for a NetGalley; opinions are my own.
July 4, 2020
"Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." --often attributed to Theodore Roosevelt
This is a slim, easily-digestible little volume. It's an introductory crash course in communication for the age of bipartisan rifts among friends, family, and acquaintances.
For those of you who aren't sure whether to choose this out of the sea of related self-help books, here are the Cliffs Notes -- how to have productive dialog about difficult topics:
1. Attend and reflect.
2. Ask open-ended, neutral questions.
3. Use grounding and breathing techniques to keep yourself calm.
4. Maintain cultural and intellectual humility and a growth mindset.
4.5 Utilize mechanistic explanations -- "how does that work, step by step?" This moderates one's position better than explaining why one maintains a certain stance or being presented opposition.
5. Focus on building relationship and persuasion MAY follow.
6. Dialog benefits from understanding and making the opposition feel safe and understood.
I repeat -- this book is so short!
Fortunately, it names additional resources (read: books and websites) in an appendix at the end. I'm sure another book will have filled in more gaps, but this one meanwhile was a good starting place.
Communication skills are yet another muscle that has been atrophied by our trend toward screens in lieu of in-person relations. In my opinion, this should be taught as a discrete skill in all secondary schools. Our nation's future may depend on it.
This is a slim, easily-digestible little volume. It's an introductory crash course in communication for the age of bipartisan rifts among friends, family, and acquaintances.
For those of you who aren't sure whether to choose this out of the sea of related self-help books, here are the Cliffs Notes -- how to have productive dialog about difficult topics:
1. Attend and reflect.
2. Ask open-ended, neutral questions.
3. Use grounding and breathing techniques to keep yourself calm.
4. Maintain cultural and intellectual humility and a growth mindset.
4.5 Utilize mechanistic explanations -- "how does that work, step by step?" This moderates one's position better than explaining why one maintains a certain stance or being presented opposition.
5. Focus on building relationship and persuasion MAY follow.
6. Dialog benefits from understanding and making the opposition feel safe and understood.
I repeat -- this book is so short!
Fortunately, it names additional resources (read: books and websites) in an appendix at the end. I'm sure another book will have filled in more gaps, but this one meanwhile was a good starting place.
Communication skills are yet another muscle that has been atrophied by our trend toward screens in lieu of in-person relations. In my opinion, this should be taught as a discrete skill in all secondary schools. Our nation's future may depend on it.
August 2, 2020
I received this book as an ARC from ShelfAwareness. This has not influenced my review.
I think this book is great for people who never learned to talk about hard topics. I was fortunate enough to have a professor early in my studies of Political Science who taught each class how to communicate effectively across the political divide. This book was a refresher for me, a welcome reminder that we all need to stay on top of how we react to the world at large as well as our smaller worlds personally.
I think people look at communication like it is easy and anyone with a little common sense can manage it. I maintain that this isn't the reality of communication. As this book points out in simple steps, things aren't always as easy as they seem. Working through emotional reactions is hard for all parties involved. Coming from a place of intention is hard to maintain when our feathers get ruffled. I found the flow charts helpful. I particularly found the idea of expressive writing helpful and I intend on reading the works cited.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand and communicate with those who do not agree with them. In the age of trolling and anonymous internet battles, it would be great if we could get back to face to face (or zoom, skype, etc during the pandemic) interactions and really listen to one another. This book stresses learning where and why someone thinks and feels the way that they do.
I think this book is great for people who never learned to talk about hard topics. I was fortunate enough to have a professor early in my studies of Political Science who taught each class how to communicate effectively across the political divide. This book was a refresher for me, a welcome reminder that we all need to stay on top of how we react to the world at large as well as our smaller worlds personally.
I think people look at communication like it is easy and anyone with a little common sense can manage it. I maintain that this isn't the reality of communication. As this book points out in simple steps, things aren't always as easy as they seem. Working through emotional reactions is hard for all parties involved. Coming from a place of intention is hard to maintain when our feathers get ruffled. I found the flow charts helpful. I particularly found the idea of expressive writing helpful and I intend on reading the works cited.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand and communicate with those who do not agree with them. In the age of trolling and anonymous internet battles, it would be great if we could get back to face to face (or zoom, skype, etc during the pandemic) interactions and really listen to one another. This book stresses learning where and why someone thinks and feels the way that they do.
January 29, 2021
At first, this book rubbed me the wrong way (seemed like the author has expectations that everyone be therapists, minimizing trauma backgrounds, etc.) but after sitting with it and reflecting I've gained many take aways.
Mechanistic explanation was extremely helpful. This is where one is asked to think and describe how something might play out step by step (i.e. focus on the process and not so much the product). This can be empowering when, instead of asking someone the "why" of their beliefs but, rather, "how would that work?" Research finds that this type of dialogue and thinking creates less polarization and fosters connections.
Another nugget that was illuminating, for me, was the concept of cultural humility and intellectual humility in reducing naive realism (the tendency for humans to attribute their own bx to rational and loving motives while thinking the other side is driven by irrational or hateful values).
There's about to be said about these concepts and we might need different rules/roles depending on the situation (i.e. safety, power dynamics, etc). The author provides a pizza analogy that was really accessable too in her context chapter. My version doesn't have a glossary and I hope the final one does!
Mechanistic explanation was extremely helpful. This is where one is asked to think and describe how something might play out step by step (i.e. focus on the process and not so much the product). This can be empowering when, instead of asking someone the "why" of their beliefs but, rather, "how would that work?" Research finds that this type of dialogue and thinking creates less polarization and fosters connections.
Another nugget that was illuminating, for me, was the concept of cultural humility and intellectual humility in reducing naive realism (the tendency for humans to attribute their own bx to rational and loving motives while thinking the other side is driven by irrational or hateful values).
There's about to be said about these concepts and we might need different rules/roles depending on the situation (i.e. safety, power dynamics, etc). The author provides a pizza analogy that was really accessable too in her context chapter. My version doesn't have a glossary and I hope the final one does!
August 18, 2020
Thank you to American Psychological Association for sending me this ARC to review. This is a needed read for many with upcoming elections upon us and the continue divide across the political aisle. I found this book to not only be pertinent to political discussions, but life in general. My take away's- work on my listening, communicate with others whose views are different than mine so that I can get a better picture and understanding of fellow humans/community I'm surrounded with, be vulnerable (share your views/opinions and be OK when others don't agree with you) and lastly- let people know why I care, not how much I know, by sharing my personal stories that connect myself with my political opinions.
Easy, quick read. A definite starting point for those who want to decrease the political divide.
Easy, quick read. A definite starting point for those who want to decrease the political divide.
August 4, 2020
"The United States is in turmoil."
"Political polarization is at an all-time high, and it is affecting us."
"Divisiveness is taking a toll on the mental health of Americans."
Very good book on improving our communication skills: how to handle constructive dialogue, listen without interrupt, reflect, and much more. Those are much needed skills as our country has become so divisive. We need to respect others' political stands and learn to communicate with those who do not share our beliefs. Learn to agree to disagree with respect toward our interlocutor(s) while understand where they are coming from, where they grew up, what community they are a part of, and much more.
Thank you Net Galley and APA for this e-galley in exchange for my honest review.
"Political polarization is at an all-time high, and it is affecting us."
"Divisiveness is taking a toll on the mental health of Americans."
Very good book on improving our communication skills: how to handle constructive dialogue, listen without interrupt, reflect, and much more. Those are much needed skills as our country has become so divisive. We need to respect others' political stands and learn to communicate with those who do not share our beliefs. Learn to agree to disagree with respect toward our interlocutor(s) while understand where they are coming from, where they grew up, what community they are a part of, and much more.
Thank you Net Galley and APA for this e-galley in exchange for my honest review.
November 12, 2020
Oh my, what a useful book. You still have time to read it before Zoom Thanksgiving 2020!
This is a guidebook to developing the skill of thinking before you speak and considering how your words will be heard and received by your audience. Rather than just dismissing Uncle Biff as a fool who's been made into a raving lunatic by social media algorithms, and speaking to him accordingly, Israel helps you understand what values and feelings might have led the Biffster to that QAnon chat room in the first place. And once you understand your audience, you can speak in a way that doesn't shut them down.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for a digital ARC for the purpose of an unbiased review.
This is a guidebook to developing the skill of thinking before you speak and considering how your words will be heard and received by your audience. Rather than just dismissing Uncle Biff as a fool who's been made into a raving lunatic by social media algorithms, and speaking to him accordingly, Israel helps you understand what values and feelings might have led the Biffster to that QAnon chat room in the first place. And once you understand your audience, you can speak in a way that doesn't shut them down.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for a digital ARC for the purpose of an unbiased review.
October 8, 2025
Perfectly good book, though more of a workbook than a book I'd say. Wouldn't recommend reading as an audiobook - I think it would be helpful to have a physical copy to reference. It's very practical in its advice, which is great, but meant that just absorbing it through audio doesn't do a whole lot - you need to engage.
My overall impression is that this is useful if you're actually putting it in practice, but not so much if you're just changing your mindset or wanting to think about theory. It's also pretty basic and concrete, which I think is exactly it's purpose, but was less useful for me as someone who has already read a lot on this topic.
TL;DR: read this book when you already have a situation to practice the skills in.
My overall impression is that this is useful if you're actually putting it in practice, but not so much if you're just changing your mindset or wanting to think about theory. It's also pretty basic and concrete, which I think is exactly it's purpose, but was less useful for me as someone who has already read a lot on this topic.
TL;DR: read this book when you already have a situation to practice the skills in.
October 14, 2022
I was a bit hesitant at first when a friend recommended this book. I've read a few other books out there and they offer different approaches. What is so different about this one? This book transformed how I think about conversations with my friends, partner and colleagues. This book teaches you to how to really listen and connect with those who disagree with you from various topics including politics. Honestly if you're looking for ways to be a good listener, manage emotions, and cultivate understanding, I highly recommend this psychological perspective to everyone. It might just save your relationship with loved ones.
December 16, 2020
This is a much needed book for anyone who wants to know how to deal with differing opinions (not always just political opinions either!) or dealing with people who can't deal with your own differing opinion. We all have them, but it hasn't been talked about near enough in many circles. This book will help people to not only deal with it, but respect it and, hopefully, have others respect yours as well. There are lessons and writing exercises to help you dig deeper, as well as communication guidelines and examples. An insightful book I wish many would read.
January 6, 2022
Finding effective ways to communicate across the political aisle is so important, and Beyond Your Bubble provides actionable strategies for listening and being heard. Recognizing that a mutual willingness to engage in civil dialogue is key, this book offers thoughtful approaches to starting the conversations and keeping one's own emotions in check while maintaining a focus on the ultimate goal or purpose.
I received a digital pre-publication copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I received a digital pre-publication copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
December 9, 2022
The first few chapters kinda turned me off. They consisted of a lot of advice that people already know(take deep breaths when you're nervous, active listening, fight or flight). But it picked up after that into actually useful information. It gives good guidelines on how to have respectful dialogues across political lines, with examples. I'm glad I got it before Thanksgiving. I would recommend it if you have a crazy uncle or differing opinions with family members. Or maybe with people in your community. Very useful.
May 14, 2023
Things that got us here won't be things that will lead us to the future. Great book about how to have a meaningful dialogues which in crease safety, understanding and make understanding other people possible. Instead of focusing on arguments, facts, we first need to create a room where other person feels listened and understood. After that it might happen that we respect our disagreements but have created a strong relationship. Read the book and practice these skills.
October 1, 2021
I actually enjoyed this way more than I thought I would. Some of the stuff she spoke about I already had a good grasp on and it seemed like common sense, but I feel like some people may need to hear what she says in this book. Regardless, this book felt like I was having coffee with a psychologist and we were discussing how to have dialogue with difficult people, and I enjoyed that!
October 5, 2021
This book is ok. I would not say it is great. It is mostly about how to approach a dialog with someone who has different political, or general opinions, without getting into a quarrel. Most of the ideas here are common sense, but some of them can be useful. For instance, how to change the mindset towards people who have opposite opinions, and try to learn their point of view.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews