What do you think?
Rate this book
Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together
A THE TIMES BOOK OF THE YEAR
Bringing valuable lessons from the cutting edge of communication science, Conflicted does for our verbal communication what Thinking Fast and Slow did for our inner decision-making.
'One of my favourite writers . . . Beautifully argued, desperately needed.'
MALCOLM GLADWELL
'Invaluable. The world will be a better place if everyone reads this book, and because it's so entertaining they probably will.'
PHILPPA PERRY
'Essential.' THE TIMES
'Fascinating.' FINANCIAL TIMES
What is the secret of happy relationships ?
How do companies build collaborative cultures?
What lies behind some of the greatest scientific and creative breakthroughs?
The surprising answer conflict .
Insight and empathy spring from the clash of different perspectives. In a world where it's easier than ever for people to share their opinions, we should be reaping the benefits of diverse views. Instead, we too often find ourselves mired in hostility or - worse - avoiding disagreement altogether. Ian Leslie argues that this is because most of us never learn how to air our differences in a way that leads to progress.
Conflicted draws essential lessons on how to disagree well from world-class interrogators, hostage negotiators, divorce mediators, diplomats and addiction counsellors. It tells inspiring stories of productive disagreements, from the invention of the aeroplane to the success of The Rolling Stones, and combines them with fascinating insights from the science of human communication.
Whether it's at work, at home, or in public, confronting our differences is the only way to make the most of them. Conflicted is about how to do that successfully.
'A cool bath of sanity in a world of frenzied hot takes.'
HELEN LEWIS
'Perspective-shifting in important ways.'
OLIVER BURKEMAN
Bringing valuable lessons from the cutting edge of communication science, Conflicted does for our verbal communication what Thinking Fast and Slow did for our inner decision-making.
'One of my favourite writers . . . Beautifully argued, desperately needed.'
MALCOLM GLADWELL
'Invaluable. The world will be a better place if everyone reads this book, and because it's so entertaining they probably will.'
PHILPPA PERRY
'Essential.' THE TIMES
'Fascinating.' FINANCIAL TIMES
What is the secret of happy relationships ?
How do companies build collaborative cultures?
What lies behind some of the greatest scientific and creative breakthroughs?
The surprising answer conflict .
Insight and empathy spring from the clash of different perspectives. In a world where it's easier than ever for people to share their opinions, we should be reaping the benefits of diverse views. Instead, we too often find ourselves mired in hostility or - worse - avoiding disagreement altogether. Ian Leslie argues that this is because most of us never learn how to air our differences in a way that leads to progress.
Conflicted draws essential lessons on how to disagree well from world-class interrogators, hostage negotiators, divorce mediators, diplomats and addiction counsellors. It tells inspiring stories of productive disagreements, from the invention of the aeroplane to the success of The Rolling Stones, and combines them with fascinating insights from the science of human communication.
Whether it's at work, at home, or in public, confronting our differences is the only way to make the most of them. Conflicted is about how to do that successfully.
'A cool bath of sanity in a world of frenzied hot takes.'
HELEN LEWIS
'Perspective-shifting in important ways.'
OLIVER BURKEMAN
258 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 23, 2021
243 people are currently reading
2817 people want to read
About the author
Ian Leslie
9 books73 followersLondon-based author who writes ideas-based non-fiction. He also writes and performs in the comedy show Before They Were Famous for BBC Radio 4. Ian appears as a commentator on current affairs and culture for the BBC, Sky, and NPR.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
October 30, 2025
I’ll start with one of the most interesting insights from the book. In Social Media, “fight is a smokescreen for flight”. Referring to how humans and other animals have fight or flight as the two basic responses to threat, it may seem like Social Media is activating the fight response. One study showed that social media users have more diverse news diets than others, which might make it seem like it is encouraging debate and discussion. But, what is really happening is people are using these “fights” to bond with in-groups about how disgusting the other side is. They aren't really engaging with people who disagree with them. This really rang true to me. Even though I try to curate a twitter feed limited to the smartest and most reasonable people I can find, it still seems like it is polluted by people doing performative “dunks” on the latest person on the other side to say something dumb. It’s really a shame how toxic it is.
You can think of the alternate world of the “dinner table”. There, when disagreements happen, they are more likely to be substantive and interesting. You might have shared experiences you can build upon to enrich the discussion, and companions might have a high regard for each other, which keeps the nastiness in check. However, arguing with friends and family is really stressful, so people might just avoid disagreements altogether. It’s much easier to keep conversations surface level.
Genuine engagement with people on subjects of disagreement is difficult. This book encourages us to not be so afraid of it. It can make us smarter. It can help us build deeper relationships. And in business contexts, it can help efficiently find the best ideas, and even help us collaborate to create new ideas. The book gives a lot of great tips for how to do this in a way that can bring out these benefits. And the tips aren't all just common sense stuff. For instance you might think the book would just encourage you to stay calm and ultra-rational at all times, but Leslie talks about how emotion and passion can often be productive.
Note this book is not about persuasion. There are a lot of books that can help you with persuasion. But that seems like too narrow a focus. If your goal is persuasion, you are assuming you’ve already found the right answer, and the only problem is convincing others. This book takes a step back and talks about conflict more generally.
This book is a fairly short read with lots of interesting anecdotes. I’d recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
You can think of the alternate world of the “dinner table”. There, when disagreements happen, they are more likely to be substantive and interesting. You might have shared experiences you can build upon to enrich the discussion, and companions might have a high regard for each other, which keeps the nastiness in check. However, arguing with friends and family is really stressful, so people might just avoid disagreements altogether. It’s much easier to keep conversations surface level.
Genuine engagement with people on subjects of disagreement is difficult. This book encourages us to not be so afraid of it. It can make us smarter. It can help us build deeper relationships. And in business contexts, it can help efficiently find the best ideas, and even help us collaborate to create new ideas. The book gives a lot of great tips for how to do this in a way that can bring out these benefits. And the tips aren't all just common sense stuff. For instance you might think the book would just encourage you to stay calm and ultra-rational at all times, but Leslie talks about how emotion and passion can often be productive.
Note this book is not about persuasion. There are a lot of books that can help you with persuasion. But that seems like too narrow a focus. If your goal is persuasion, you are assuming you’ve already found the right answer, and the only problem is convincing others. This book takes a step back and talks about conflict more generally.
This book is a fairly short read with lots of interesting anecdotes. I’d recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
March 28, 2021
This was the book I’d been waiting for. Conflicted breaks down all the ways we can approach our discourse with tact, humility, and compassion for our interlocutors. If everyone on social media read this book, we’d all be better off. I can’t recommend it enough.
February 28, 2022
Ian Leslie beschäftigt sich mit Konflikten und welche Kommunikationsstile einen produktiven Konfliktaustausch verhindern und welche zu einem konstruktiven Austausch beitragen.
Auch kulturelle Differenzen können zu Missverständnissen in der Kommunikation führen.
In dem Buch sind viele Kommunikationsbeispiele aus verschiedenen Bereichen des Lebens und wie diese von Expert:innen geführt werden. Wie sprechen Vernehmer mit Schwerverbrechern oder Psychologen mit Paaren.
Auch kulturelle Differenzen können zu Missverständnissen in der Kommunikation führen.
In dem Buch sind viele Kommunikationsbeispiele aus verschiedenen Bereichen des Lebens und wie diese von Expert:innen geführt werden. Wie sprechen Vernehmer mit Schwerverbrechern oder Psychologen mit Paaren.
Want to read
January 29, 2022I'm seeing this trend of users giving brief, anticipatory reviews of ARCs, preorders, newly acquired books with a great amount of expectation coming with them, so I'll jump on that here regarding my sample, for documentation, and just in case I end up purchasing and reading this in the future.
Amazon provides most of the first two chapters as available for their Kindle sample (much less so for their hardback sample). This seems more aiming to address the practical in relationships than theory of conflict (as the author discusses briefly in the prologue about his reading in the history of the theory), so I'm not sure whether I want to purchase it, even at its current (but probably short-lived) cost of $1.99. The push for simplistic language in this day and age from the wider cultural trends and publication houses or editors I think have hurt popular science and research in some ways, such as making their essays in their publications as chapters sound clunky and awkward in their inexactness. Some things are better explained with greater precision, and I think this is the fault of some of the writing here; it's too casual. Maybe it works better in the second parts of books such as these where application is mostly explicated. My initial thoughts. So somewhere close to 30 pages read, from this sample. Anticipating 3 stars or below, either average or just below average, depending. I usually don't like reading non-narrative non-fiction via audio or digital reading, but I'm also attempting to engage in digital reading more, and if I spend even in heavy dips in sales, I prefer to invest in nonfiction---for now. Referencing Lakoff is a definite plus, but probably expected for this subject and not particularly meaningful as far as new input for these studies go. The stated intent of the study is admirable and much needed, though. But I could be surprised in the end.
Stand out excerpts from this sample of the first two chapters are concerning: (1) our insufficient wording and language concerning conflict, which shows we're bad at talking about it, citing Lakoff's landmark study, The Metaphors We Live By (which I own because of the recommendation of a friend studying it in college a decade ago but have only started and not finished or read much of, though I was super excited to find it); and the evidence also showing that conflict is both helpfully informational and contextual to our relationships and the ever-iteratively-shifting growth as persons as well as personally-won mental models of those we come to know (which the author says often woefully remains static in us, hindering our communication and understanding of each other towards this unhealthy conflict---not all conflict is unhealthy, as we are often subconsciously by culture, business, familial, and otherwise, erroneously; the example given is the breakdown of start-ups from fracturing understanding and conflict by founders in their lack of honest dialogue, including healthy conflict.
Here are the excerpts I noted:
"It's telling that we don't have a good word for engaging in a non-hostile disagreement with the shared aim of moving the participants toward a new understanding, better decision, or new idea. 'Debate' implies a competition with winners and losers. 'Argument' comes tinged with animosity. 'Dialogue' is too bland, 'dialectic' too obscure. This linguistic gap is evidence of how unpracticed we are at productive disagreement...Words matter."
" 'Conflict provides us with information,' says Nicola Overall. 'The way people respond to us in conflict tells us a lot about how co-operative they are, whether they can be trusted, what they care about.' Conflict in a relationship is not an unfortunate accident. It's a way of learning about others, including and especially those we know well."a
Amazon provides most of the first two chapters as available for their Kindle sample (much less so for their hardback sample). This seems more aiming to address the practical in relationships than theory of conflict (as the author discusses briefly in the prologue about his reading in the history of the theory), so I'm not sure whether I want to purchase it, even at its current (but probably short-lived) cost of $1.99. The push for simplistic language in this day and age from the wider cultural trends and publication houses or editors I think have hurt popular science and research in some ways, such as making their essays in their publications as chapters sound clunky and awkward in their inexactness. Some things are better explained with greater precision, and I think this is the fault of some of the writing here; it's too casual. Maybe it works better in the second parts of books such as these where application is mostly explicated. My initial thoughts. So somewhere close to 30 pages read, from this sample. Anticipating 3 stars or below, either average or just below average, depending. I usually don't like reading non-narrative non-fiction via audio or digital reading, but I'm also attempting to engage in digital reading more, and if I spend even in heavy dips in sales, I prefer to invest in nonfiction---for now. Referencing Lakoff is a definite plus, but probably expected for this subject and not particularly meaningful as far as new input for these studies go. The stated intent of the study is admirable and much needed, though. But I could be surprised in the end.
Stand out excerpts from this sample of the first two chapters are concerning: (1) our insufficient wording and language concerning conflict, which shows we're bad at talking about it, citing Lakoff's landmark study, The Metaphors We Live By (which I own because of the recommendation of a friend studying it in college a decade ago but have only started and not finished or read much of, though I was super excited to find it); and the evidence also showing that conflict is both helpfully informational and contextual to our relationships and the ever-iteratively-shifting growth as persons as well as personally-won mental models of those we come to know (which the author says often woefully remains static in us, hindering our communication and understanding of each other towards this unhealthy conflict---not all conflict is unhealthy, as we are often subconsciously by culture, business, familial, and otherwise, erroneously; the example given is the breakdown of start-ups from fracturing understanding and conflict by founders in their lack of honest dialogue, including healthy conflict.
Here are the excerpts I noted:
"It's telling that we don't have a good word for engaging in a non-hostile disagreement with the shared aim of moving the participants toward a new understanding, better decision, or new idea. 'Debate' implies a competition with winners and losers. 'Argument' comes tinged with animosity. 'Dialogue' is too bland, 'dialectic' too obscure. This linguistic gap is evidence of how unpracticed we are at productive disagreement...Words matter."
" 'Conflict provides us with information,' says Nicola Overall. 'The way people respond to us in conflict tells us a lot about how co-operative they are, whether they can be trusted, what they care about.' Conflict in a relationship is not an unfortunate accident. It's a way of learning about others, including and especially those we know well."a
April 6, 2021
A book that offers some precious (starting) points about conflicts and how to handle them. First, realize that conflicts are not bad and disagreements can be productive. The question, then, becomes: how to have productive disagreements? One could think very well that the answer is "just to be logic", i.e. being fully into facts and logic. While this is certainly true, it is not the full answer, as the author shows how much conflicts are social phenomena ; how connecting to someone prior to a disagreement can make it less confrontational ; how certain conflicts are less about content level and more about relationship level, or can become unsolved when both sides focus on different levels.
In some sense, a lot of the advice here can be found by the golden rule of ethics, i.e. do not do onto others as you would not like others do to you: try to be curious -- best is to be curious for the sake of understanding, and not simply for the sake of winning an argument --, acknowledge when you are unsure or that you might not know the full truth, apologize when due, do not destroy people's sense of identity, be authentic.
Of course, that's a nice program, but it's easier said than done. I think one of two main shortcomings of the book (the other is using some narratives, and especially historical ones, in a way I suspect to be quite careless, i.e. without checking the work of modern historians) is that it gives almost no exercise to practice. Obviously, roleplaying conflicts, maybe having disagreements on the internet with this book in hand, and imagining scenarios in one's head are ways of that. So is, also, re-reading this book, something I most likely will do in the somewhat-near future.
In some sense, a lot of the advice here can be found by the golden rule of ethics, i.e. do not do onto others as you would not like others do to you: try to be curious -- best is to be curious for the sake of understanding, and not simply for the sake of winning an argument --, acknowledge when you are unsure or that you might not know the full truth, apologize when due, do not destroy people's sense of identity, be authentic.
Of course, that's a nice program, but it's easier said than done. I think one of two main shortcomings of the book (the other is using some narratives, and especially historical ones, in a way I suspect to be quite careless, i.e. without checking the work of modern historians) is that it gives almost no exercise to practice. Obviously, roleplaying conflicts, maybe having disagreements on the internet with this book in hand, and imagining scenarios in one's head are ways of that. So is, also, re-reading this book, something I most likely will do in the somewhat-near future.
February 11, 2022
Patiko. Knyga sukėlė nemažai pamąstymų apie tai, kaip aš ir mano aplinka stengiamės vengti konfliktų, kaip aršiai puolame kitaip galvojančius (antivax, šeimų maršai etc) ir kaip tokie puolimai tikrai prie niekur nepriveda. Svarbus ir pagrindinis gero konflikto elementas - smalsumas ir buvimas savimi. Dažnai prieštaraudami kitiems, siekiame tik įrodyti savo tiesą, nuoširdžiai nesidomėdami iš kur ta kitokia nuomonė atsirado pas oponentą.
Bėda ir ta, kad beveik visur konfliktas siejamas su neigiamumu, o žmonės, kurie yra agreeable vertinami kaip pozityvūs. Nes taip mus išmokė.
“visi mes ateinam su savo kultūromis, kurios yra vienodai keistos” ir “leisti kitiems numirti savo pragare” irgi gerai įstrigo galvoje.
Žodžiu - pykimės. Bet taikiai ir tikslingai.
Bėda ir ta, kad beveik visur konfliktas siejamas su neigiamumu, o žmonės, kurie yra agreeable vertinami kaip pozityvūs. Nes taip mus išmokė.
“visi mes ateinam su savo kultūromis, kurios yra vienodai keistos” ir “leisti kitiems numirti savo pragare” irgi gerai įstrigo galvoje.
Žodžiu - pykimės. Bet taikiai ir tikslingai.
May 30, 2025
کتاب رو خیلی دوست داشتم، درباره اختلاف نظر ها بود. چیزی که ما توی طول روز ممکنه خیلی تجربش کنیم. ما خیلی وقت ها ببشتر ازاینکه بخوایم نظرهای مخالف رو گوشبدیم بیشتر دوست داریم نظر خودمون و قالب کنیم. این کتاب داره طرز درست مخالف کردن رو بهتون یاد میده.
May 29, 2021
Disagreements arise everywhere, be it personal relationships or socio-political discourse, and most of us suck donkey balls at it. We usually feel a sense of victory/defeat or we withdraw from voicing our opinions. Leslie's deep dive into productive conflicts presents a much-urgently-needed paradigm shift.
In the first part, Leslie shows us how conflicts are important in most resilient relationships and how they can help us learn better and be more creative. Then he sets out a bunch of eye-opening "rules" of productive disagreements while warning that these should serve only as guides. Most of the content behind framing these guides is drawn from people highly skilled at conflicts: hostage negotiators, therapists, researchers and behavioural scientists.
Unarguably the topic of this book is of great importance, especially in today's times when we have become increasingly shrill at disagreeing and more worryingly, begun avoiding any disagreement because of its supposed futility. I had a lot of eye-opening moments where I'd reflect on how I fucked up disagreements that I had. My only minor complaint regarding the style is that the book has a self-help-y taste to it. But given the importance of the topic this style is perhaps warranted.
Here's Leslie's article as a teaser for the book. This article alone has a bunch of mind-expanders.
In the first part, Leslie shows us how conflicts are important in most resilient relationships and how they can help us learn better and be more creative. Then he sets out a bunch of eye-opening "rules" of productive disagreements while warning that these should serve only as guides. Most of the content behind framing these guides is drawn from people highly skilled at conflicts: hostage negotiators, therapists, researchers and behavioural scientists.
Unarguably the topic of this book is of great importance, especially in today's times when we have become increasingly shrill at disagreeing and more worryingly, begun avoiding any disagreement because of its supposed futility. I had a lot of eye-opening moments where I'd reflect on how I fucked up disagreements that I had. My only minor complaint regarding the style is that the book has a self-help-y taste to it. But given the importance of the topic this style is perhaps warranted.
Here's Leslie's article as a teaser for the book. This article alone has a bunch of mind-expanders.
July 10, 2022
How to Disagree: Lesson on Productive Conflict at Work and Home
Originally published as Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together and retitled How to Disagree. I think the new title is a better title, as well as being far more positive and Ian Leslie has plenty to say. How to disagree is how to be able to move your thinking forward without conflict, and that disagreeing can be a positive. It helps to move thinking forward, not back.
Ian Leslie rightfully argues that constructive disagreement is an effective and essential way in learning which in an academic setting it most definitely is. It is through disagreements we grow and learn and negotiate but there does have to be some sort of connection first. Healthy arguments are great for all relationships and this book certainly explores those ideas.
One essential arguments Leslie puts forward is that emotions and ideologies are often not rational, especially emotions which are by their very nature not rational. Trying to telling someone to calm down to do something because could push them against us and we know we would probably do the same.
The book's argument is that without disagreement we don't progress, a point made beautifully clear through many examples, throughout the book. This book even has a toolkit that you can use in your own life and something which I will do.
An interesting look at how disagreements can be good for us.
Originally published as Conflicted: Why Arguments Are Tearing Us Apart and How They Can Bring Us Together and retitled How to Disagree. I think the new title is a better title, as well as being far more positive and Ian Leslie has plenty to say. How to disagree is how to be able to move your thinking forward without conflict, and that disagreeing can be a positive. It helps to move thinking forward, not back.
Ian Leslie rightfully argues that constructive disagreement is an effective and essential way in learning which in an academic setting it most definitely is. It is through disagreements we grow and learn and negotiate but there does have to be some sort of connection first. Healthy arguments are great for all relationships and this book certainly explores those ideas.
One essential arguments Leslie puts forward is that emotions and ideologies are often not rational, especially emotions which are by their very nature not rational. Trying to telling someone to calm down to do something because could push them against us and we know we would probably do the same.
The book's argument is that without disagreement we don't progress, a point made beautifully clear through many examples, throughout the book. This book even has a toolkit that you can use in your own life and something which I will do.
An interesting look at how disagreements can be good for us.
September 15, 2022
A really useful book for current times, when there are such enormous and perhaps intractable issues that have a critical impact on people's lives now and going forward. And so many different ways to view them.
January 13, 2023
To be reviewed in the May-June issue of Global Business and Organizational Excellence, a Wiley publication.
June 8, 2023
I learned nothing new from this book. Below average IMHO.
September 12, 2025
Phenomenal book on welcoming disagreements in order for growth
Top takeaways
Disagreements are needed for growth however they triggered the part of the brain that feels like an actual attack
LEARN TO SEEK OUT OTHERS VIEWPOINTS SO YOU CAN EXPAND YOURS, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH HIM
Conflict brings us closer
CONFLICT MAKES US SMARTER
EXAMPLE OF WARREN BUFFETT WHEN THE BOARD WANTED TO PUSH A DEAL THROUGH AND THE CONSULTANT WAS PAID CONTINGENT ON THE DEAL GOING THROUGH. HE BROUGHT UP AN IDEA OF BRINGING ON SOMEONE AGAINST THE DEAL GOING THROUGH AND MAKING THEIR PAYMENT CONTINGENT ON IT NOT GOING THROUGH AND THIS WAS REVOLUTIONARY.
THE KEY TO PROPER ARGUING IS TRUST AND LISTENING
RULES OF DISAGREEMENT
FIRST CONNECT
Start where they’re at by meeting their emotional state.
Don’t look to argue, instead look to understand how difficult it must be for them and ask questions.
Give face
Get curious
When you make a mistake or say something wrong, own it right away and sincerely apologize
Disrupt the script
DON’T CONTINUE A MISTAKE BECAUSE YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME MAKING IT
IF YOU FIND YOURSELF, GETTING FRUSTRATED OR ANGRY, ASK YOURSELF WHY AND THEN WHAT IT IS YOU’RE WANTING AS AN OUTCOME AND THEN YOU CAN PIVOT FROM THERE
YOU MUST FEEL AND BE REAL
Top takeaways
Disagreements are needed for growth however they triggered the part of the brain that feels like an actual attack
LEARN TO SEEK OUT OTHERS VIEWPOINTS SO YOU CAN EXPAND YOURS, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH HIM
Conflict brings us closer
CONFLICT MAKES US SMARTER
EXAMPLE OF WARREN BUFFETT WHEN THE BOARD WANTED TO PUSH A DEAL THROUGH AND THE CONSULTANT WAS PAID CONTINGENT ON THE DEAL GOING THROUGH. HE BROUGHT UP AN IDEA OF BRINGING ON SOMEONE AGAINST THE DEAL GOING THROUGH AND MAKING THEIR PAYMENT CONTINGENT ON IT NOT GOING THROUGH AND THIS WAS REVOLUTIONARY.
THE KEY TO PROPER ARGUING IS TRUST AND LISTENING
RULES OF DISAGREEMENT
FIRST CONNECT
Start where they’re at by meeting their emotional state.
Don’t look to argue, instead look to understand how difficult it must be for them and ask questions.
Give face
Get curious
When you make a mistake or say something wrong, own it right away and sincerely apologize
Disrupt the script
DON’T CONTINUE A MISTAKE BECAUSE YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME MAKING IT
IF YOU FIND YOURSELF, GETTING FRUSTRATED OR ANGRY, ASK YOURSELF WHY AND THEN WHAT IT IS YOU’RE WANTING AS AN OUTCOME AND THEN YOU CAN PIVOT FROM THERE
YOU MUST FEEL AND BE REAL
November 28, 2022
Really insightful book!
It made me see arguments in a slightly more positive light and helped me understand some of my own biases in feeling I need to be right and not being comfortable with losing arguments. Never thought of the perspective of conflicts escaleting into identity and groups of belonging, which will make us more defensive and less likely to be opened to discussion.
Really interesting to hear the stories form expert negotiators like diplomats, police, investigators etc
It made me see arguments in a slightly more positive light and helped me understand some of my own biases in feeling I need to be right and not being comfortable with losing arguments. Never thought of the perspective of conflicts escaleting into identity and groups of belonging, which will make us more defensive and less likely to be opened to discussion.
Really interesting to hear the stories form expert negotiators like diplomats, police, investigators etc
December 29, 2025
A useful and accessible discussion of how to disagree constructively and actually benefit from situations where we would otherwise argue and achieve, at best, nothing. Perhaps a bit too focused on those who need to de-escalate conflict as part of their job, such as police officers, but there’s still much to be learnt for more mundane differences of opinion.
March 21, 2023
Pretty boring, lots of relatively mundane takeaways. Some interesting anecdotes and summaries of studies/academic literature, but far too long a book for how little I learned.
May 21, 2024
I found myself thinking of this book as I witnessed my community work through a conflict. This book opened my eyes to different approaches to conflict and the value of conflict. Definitely recommend.
June 14, 2022
A book I will keep coming back to. Inspiring and realistic with lots of useful content on disagreeing well - something we seem to have lost the ability to do in society.
January 3, 2023
في عام 2010 ، قام الباحثان الأمريكيان جيم ماكنولتي وميشيل راسل بتحليل البيانات من دراستين للعلاقات. ووجدوا أن الأزواج الذين انخرطوا في بداية الدراسة في خلافات وغضبوا بشأن مشاكل تافهة نسبيًا كانوا أقل احتمالية لتحقيق السعادة في علاقتهم بعد أربع سنوات. ومع ذلك ، فإن الأزواج الذين كانت لديهم خلافات حول مشاكل أعمق ، مثل المال أو تعاطي المخدرات ، كانوا أكثر عرضة للشعور بالرضا عن علاقتهم بنهاية فترة الدراسة.
في بحث منفصل ، وجد ماكنولتي أنه بالنسبة للأزواج الجدد الذين يعانون من مشاكل خطيرة ، فإن أنواع السلوكيات "الإيجابية" التي تشجعها النصائح المعتادة ، مثل أن تكون دائمًا حنونًا وكريمًا ، قد تضر ببعض العلاقات لأنها توقف الأزواج عن مواجهة مشاكلهم. . يمكن أن يعمل التعاون غير المباشر - النهج الأكثر نعومة والأكثر رقة - على حل المشكلات البسيطة ، مثل من يجب أن يرافق الأطفال إلى مباراة كرة القدم في عطلات نهاية الأسبوع ، ولكنه ليس رائعًا عندما يكون لدى الزوجين أمر مهم حقًا للعمل من أجله ، مثل ما إذا كان أحدهما يشرب كثيرا.
يبدو أن "السلوك السلبي" مهم لحل المشكلات المعقدة. أخبرني راسل ، "على المدى القصير ، يمكن للسلوكيات السلبية أن تجعلك تشعر بالغثيان ؛ لا أحد يحب أن يلام على شيء ما أو إخباره بأنه مخطئ. ولكن يمكن أن يكون لها تأثير تحفيزي على المدى الطويل ؛ يمكن حقًا الوصول إلى جذر المشكلة."
في بعض الأحيان ، لا يدرك أحد الشركاء ببساطة أن شيئًا ما يمثل مشكلة كبيرة ؛ إنهم بحاجة إلى أن يكونوا مستنيرين عبر عبارات لا لبس فيها. قال لي راسل: "يمكن أن تكون هناك حاجة إلى استجابة عاطفية قوية ، كالصراخ والغضب ، لإثبات للشخص الآخر مدى أهمية شيء ما لشريكه".
.
Ian Leslie
Conflicted
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
في بحث منفصل ، وجد ماكنولتي أنه بالنسبة للأزواج الجدد الذين يعانون من مشاكل خطيرة ، فإن أنواع السلوكيات "الإيجابية" التي تشجعها النصائح المعتادة ، مثل أن تكون دائمًا حنونًا وكريمًا ، قد تضر ببعض العلاقات لأنها توقف الأزواج عن مواجهة مشاكلهم. . يمكن أن يعمل التعاون غير المباشر - النهج الأكثر نعومة والأكثر رقة - على حل المشكلات البسيطة ، مثل من يجب أن يرافق الأطفال إلى مباراة كرة القدم في عطلات نهاية الأسبوع ، ولكنه ليس رائعًا عندما يكون لدى الزوجين أمر مهم حقًا للعمل من أجله ، مثل ما إذا كان أحدهما يشرب كثيرا.
يبدو أن "السلوك السلبي" مهم لحل المشكلات المعقدة. أخبرني راسل ، "على المدى القصير ، يمكن للسلوكيات السلبية أن تجعلك تشعر بالغثيان ؛ لا أحد يحب أن يلام على شيء ما أو إخباره بأنه مخطئ. ولكن يمكن أن يكون لها تأثير تحفيزي على المدى الطويل ؛ يمكن حقًا الوصول إلى جذر المشكلة."
في بعض الأحيان ، لا يدرك أحد الشركاء ببساطة أن شيئًا ما يمثل مشكلة كبيرة ؛ إنهم بحاجة إلى أن يكونوا مستنيرين عبر عبارات لا لبس فيها. قال لي راسل: "يمكن أن تكون هناك حاجة إلى استجابة عاطفية قوية ، كالصراخ والغضب ، لإثبات للشخص الآخر مدى أهمية شيء ما لشريكه".
.
Ian Leslie
Conflicted
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
February 18, 2024
Really good, listened to it twice to not miss any detail (but definitely overestimated my attention span and energy lol). A lot of things made sense, some didn't (but I don't have any other information to contradict the author). By the end of my second time listening I kind of grew tired of all the advice and kind of concluded it all boils down to basically how skilled you are at manipulating other's perception of your words and tone, so idk how much I'll actively be applying his advice, but it was certainly worth reading and becoming aware of certain patterns.
Notes I made of concepts I want to remember:
Always useful to remember: most disagreements are at least partly about how we feel about each other.
Conflicts are a way of learning about others, including and especially the ones closest to us.
The only thing worse than having arguments is not having arguments at all. The benefits of avoiding a disagreement are immediate, the benefits of having one are long term.
Evidence points that social media users have more diverse news diets than non users, so they tend to get wider exposure to different viewpoints (though they may prefer sources that reaffirm their already established worldview). The internet is actually bursting bubbles, generating anger, hostility, fear.
Healthy fights make a relationship closer. Too much conflict destroys relationships.
Talking about things doesn't always help. Also apparently couples who don't internalise each other's behaviour have better relationships, because they can have disagreements where they update the other on their preferences.
Also interesting (but sad): people are pretty bad at making empathic guesses and men are particularly bad at it because they can't be bothered (author's words). In an experiment where they were offered money for their guesses on another person's state of mind, they performed just as well as women (I think the study was binary), so if they're motivated enough, they are able to do it. Sad that a lot of them choose not to.
Data says husbands think about themselves more than about their partners and wives do the opposite, leading to miscommunications (i.e. men will typically focus on the content of the conversation whereas women will focus on the meta-aspect which is what the relationship between the people is). The conflict will naturally affect the person who is more sensitive about the relationship level. Disappointing. This applies to all relationships where there is a power imbalance. If there's a power/status imbalance, the more powerful party will focus on the matter at hand, while the down party will focus on the relationship (because there's more at stake for them).
People are not fully rational and acting as if they are leads to dysfunction.
Leave your ego at the door, no one wins if the discussion turns into a struggle for dominance.
Nobody likes being told what to do - a lot of mediating conflict is about manipulation of perception: convincing the other person to do the thing they don't want to do or share by thinking it is their choice to do it. Being judged or told what to do, instructed makes people think of all the reasons they do not want to change.
Positioning oneself as an authority figure might make a counsellor feel better but it reinforces the addict's determination to carry on. Developing a relationship of trust and mutual understanding helps more than insisting on change and instigating confrontation, because the patient will naturally reach their own conclusions and thus be more motivated to implement them.
A therapist can help a patient learn how to win their own internal battle not by lecturing, but by listening.
Often, there is a kernel of truth to a false belief.
We make a lot of choices to reinforce a sense of identity and belonging to a group.
Suspend judgement, get curious. Curiosity trumps knowledge. And connection trumps winning.
We are all biased, and especially people who think they are objective. Also intelligent people, because they can more easily mold new information to fit their already existing perspectives. People don't form opinions based on facts, and we are shaped by our culture, be that a country, a town, a family, a workplace, and so on.
What we describe as rationality is usually instrumental rationality: acting in a logical way, designed to achieve a material goal. According to sociologist Max Weber, there are three other types of rational behaviour: affective rationality: making the relationship central to what we say or do, traditional rationality: when we accept the steer that previous generations have given us, values rationality: when everything we do is in service of some higher value, almost regardless of outcome. Most of us switch between types or use more than one at once. Think about the deeper logic of the other person's behaviour (and your own).
Don't continue a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Cleverness is stupidity: never assume you're smarter than someone else. A mentally ill person, for example, is just ill, not stupid. People see right through tricks, so be genuinely curious, open, angry, apologetic or whatever it is you are trying to convey. Be humanly authentic, not bureaucratic or technical (for public figures, for example).
Disagreeing well requires a bond of trust, a sense that we are working with each other. Again, emotional, not rational.
The knowledge illusion: we know a lot less than we think we do.
It should be called my side bias instead of confirmation bias: it only kicks in when your identity or status is threatened.
Even scientific enquiry is prone to dysfunctional group behaviour, herding towards majority opinion.
For a disagreement to generate insight instead of anger, we have to manage the relationship issues that disagreements inevitably create.
Apparently studies on perception have shown that American liberals and conservatives live in completely different worlds. Conservatives were better though at predicting what liberals would say.
Giving people facts doesn't make them less subjective.
We care more about people than about being right, so it's hard to change your opinion if you think your community will exclude you based on it. We perceive what preserve our identity and ignore what does not.
Curiosity is energy, time and attention-consuming, which explains why people are more likely to defer to judgement and prior knowledge. Being curious is very advantageous in conflicts.
Trying to avoid making mistakes or triggering a dispute only ensures that the conversation is superficial and impersonal. Errors usually have positive effects if handled skillfully.
Polite discourse is a luxury to some people, so never forget about privilege. Politeness can get in the way of honesty. Some things are worth getting angry over.
Politeness can also be a way of controlling the conversation and preserving the status quo. People are scared of conflict when they have a lot to lose.
Notes I made of concepts I want to remember:
Always useful to remember: most disagreements are at least partly about how we feel about each other.
Conflicts are a way of learning about others, including and especially the ones closest to us.
The only thing worse than having arguments is not having arguments at all. The benefits of avoiding a disagreement are immediate, the benefits of having one are long term.
Evidence points that social media users have more diverse news diets than non users, so they tend to get wider exposure to different viewpoints (though they may prefer sources that reaffirm their already established worldview). The internet is actually bursting bubbles, generating anger, hostility, fear.
Healthy fights make a relationship closer. Too much conflict destroys relationships.
Talking about things doesn't always help. Also apparently couples who don't internalise each other's behaviour have better relationships, because they can have disagreements where they update the other on their preferences.
Also interesting (but sad): people are pretty bad at making empathic guesses and men are particularly bad at it because they can't be bothered (author's words). In an experiment where they were offered money for their guesses on another person's state of mind, they performed just as well as women (I think the study was binary), so if they're motivated enough, they are able to do it. Sad that a lot of them choose not to.
Data says husbands think about themselves more than about their partners and wives do the opposite, leading to miscommunications (i.e. men will typically focus on the content of the conversation whereas women will focus on the meta-aspect which is what the relationship between the people is). The conflict will naturally affect the person who is more sensitive about the relationship level. Disappointing. This applies to all relationships where there is a power imbalance. If there's a power/status imbalance, the more powerful party will focus on the matter at hand, while the down party will focus on the relationship (because there's more at stake for them).
People are not fully rational and acting as if they are leads to dysfunction.
Leave your ego at the door, no one wins if the discussion turns into a struggle for dominance.
Nobody likes being told what to do - a lot of mediating conflict is about manipulation of perception: convincing the other person to do the thing they don't want to do or share by thinking it is their choice to do it. Being judged or told what to do, instructed makes people think of all the reasons they do not want to change.
Positioning oneself as an authority figure might make a counsellor feel better but it reinforces the addict's determination to carry on. Developing a relationship of trust and mutual understanding helps more than insisting on change and instigating confrontation, because the patient will naturally reach their own conclusions and thus be more motivated to implement them.
A therapist can help a patient learn how to win their own internal battle not by lecturing, but by listening.
Often, there is a kernel of truth to a false belief.
We make a lot of choices to reinforce a sense of identity and belonging to a group.
Suspend judgement, get curious. Curiosity trumps knowledge. And connection trumps winning.
We are all biased, and especially people who think they are objective. Also intelligent people, because they can more easily mold new information to fit their already existing perspectives. People don't form opinions based on facts, and we are shaped by our culture, be that a country, a town, a family, a workplace, and so on.
What we describe as rationality is usually instrumental rationality: acting in a logical way, designed to achieve a material goal. According to sociologist Max Weber, there are three other types of rational behaviour: affective rationality: making the relationship central to what we say or do, traditional rationality: when we accept the steer that previous generations have given us, values rationality: when everything we do is in service of some higher value, almost regardless of outcome. Most of us switch between types or use more than one at once. Think about the deeper logic of the other person's behaviour (and your own).
Don't continue a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Cleverness is stupidity: never assume you're smarter than someone else. A mentally ill person, for example, is just ill, not stupid. People see right through tricks, so be genuinely curious, open, angry, apologetic or whatever it is you are trying to convey. Be humanly authentic, not bureaucratic or technical (for public figures, for example).
Disagreeing well requires a bond of trust, a sense that we are working with each other. Again, emotional, not rational.
The knowledge illusion: we know a lot less than we think we do.
It should be called my side bias instead of confirmation bias: it only kicks in when your identity or status is threatened.
Even scientific enquiry is prone to dysfunctional group behaviour, herding towards majority opinion.
For a disagreement to generate insight instead of anger, we have to manage the relationship issues that disagreements inevitably create.
Apparently studies on perception have shown that American liberals and conservatives live in completely different worlds. Conservatives were better though at predicting what liberals would say.
Giving people facts doesn't make them less subjective.
We care more about people than about being right, so it's hard to change your opinion if you think your community will exclude you based on it. We perceive what preserve our identity and ignore what does not.
Curiosity is energy, time and attention-consuming, which explains why people are more likely to defer to judgement and prior knowledge. Being curious is very advantageous in conflicts.
Trying to avoid making mistakes or triggering a dispute only ensures that the conversation is superficial and impersonal. Errors usually have positive effects if handled skillfully.
Polite discourse is a luxury to some people, so never forget about privilege. Politeness can get in the way of honesty. Some things are worth getting angry over.
Politeness can also be a way of controlling the conversation and preserving the status quo. People are scared of conflict when they have a lot to lose.
February 18, 2023
Fantastic book. The title captures the basic idea, but this book review is a helpful sunmary: https://insidestory.org.au/the-art-of...
Also, the author summarizes the nine rules of productive argument:
1. First, Connect
Before getting to the content of the disagreement, establish a relationship of trust.
2. Let Go of the Rope
To disagree well, you have to give up on trying to control what the other person thinks and feels.
3. Give Face
Disagreements become toxic when they become status battles. The skillful disagreer makes every effort to make their adversary feel good about themselves.
4. Check Your Weirdness
Behind many disagreements is a clash of cultures that seem strange to each other. Don’t assume that yours is the normal one.
5. Get Curious
The rush to judgement stops us listening and learning. Instead of trying to win the argument, try to be interested – and interesting.
6. Make Wrong Strong
Mistakes can be positive if you apologise rapidly and authentically. They enable you to show humility, which can strengthen the relationship and ease the conversation.
7. Disrupt the Script
Hostile arguments get locked into simple and predictable patterns. To make the disagreement more productive, introduce novelty and variation. Be surprising.
8. Share Constraints
Disagreement benefits from a set of agreed norms and boundaries that support expression. Rules create freedom.
9. Only Get Mad on Purpose
No amount of theorising can fully prepare us for the emotional experience of a disagreement. Sometimes your worst adversary is yourself.
Golden Rule: Be Real
All rules are subordinate to the golden rule: make an honest human connection.
Also, the author summarizes the nine rules of productive argument:
1. First, Connect
Before getting to the content of the disagreement, establish a relationship of trust.
2. Let Go of the Rope
To disagree well, you have to give up on trying to control what the other person thinks and feels.
3. Give Face
Disagreements become toxic when they become status battles. The skillful disagreer makes every effort to make their adversary feel good about themselves.
4. Check Your Weirdness
Behind many disagreements is a clash of cultures that seem strange to each other. Don’t assume that yours is the normal one.
5. Get Curious
The rush to judgement stops us listening and learning. Instead of trying to win the argument, try to be interested – and interesting.
6. Make Wrong Strong
Mistakes can be positive if you apologise rapidly and authentically. They enable you to show humility, which can strengthen the relationship and ease the conversation.
7. Disrupt the Script
Hostile arguments get locked into simple and predictable patterns. To make the disagreement more productive, introduce novelty and variation. Be surprising.
8. Share Constraints
Disagreement benefits from a set of agreed norms and boundaries that support expression. Rules create freedom.
9. Only Get Mad on Purpose
No amount of theorising can fully prepare us for the emotional experience of a disagreement. Sometimes your worst adversary is yourself.
Golden Rule: Be Real
All rules are subordinate to the golden rule: make an honest human connection.
Read
April 18, 2021This book not only taught me how to disagree with people productively, it also taught me what I’ve been doing wrong in my interactions with a particularly vexatious person in my life.
This is a very well written and engaging book. Often, when I read a book that is labeled as a business book, it consists of a central thesis that could have been stated in a short article. The thesis is then padded with examples and restatements that make reading the book tedious and boring. Not here. Leslie weaves in the main point of each chapter with engaging and enlightening illustrations that serve to make that concept crystal clear. If only all “business” books could be like this one, the genre wouldn’t get such a bad rap.
As I read the chapters in this book, I was reminded of a person who I recently cut out of my life. This person is an inveterate conspiracy theorist, addicted to contrarianism to the point that he believes that Covid vaccines turn people into butterflies. As I read each chapter in the book, my mind would go to some error I’d made when interacting with this person. I felt pretty bad about this until I reached Chapter 14. That chapter said that not all disagreements are worth your time. It’s OK to refuse to engage with people who consistently operate in bad faith or who are totally closed to new ideas. While I won’t talk to this person ever agaon if I can help it, I’m going to remember these tips when I engage with others.
This is an eye opening book, accessible yet packed with too many insights to mention. I highly recommend it.
This is a very well written and engaging book. Often, when I read a book that is labeled as a business book, it consists of a central thesis that could have been stated in a short article. The thesis is then padded with examples and restatements that make reading the book tedious and boring. Not here. Leslie weaves in the main point of each chapter with engaging and enlightening illustrations that serve to make that concept crystal clear. If only all “business” books could be like this one, the genre wouldn’t get such a bad rap.
As I read the chapters in this book, I was reminded of a person who I recently cut out of my life. This person is an inveterate conspiracy theorist, addicted to contrarianism to the point that he believes that Covid vaccines turn people into butterflies. As I read each chapter in the book, my mind would go to some error I’d made when interacting with this person. I felt pretty bad about this until I reached Chapter 14. That chapter said that not all disagreements are worth your time. It’s OK to refuse to engage with people who consistently operate in bad faith or who are totally closed to new ideas. While I won’t talk to this person ever agaon if I can help it, I’m going to remember these tips when I engage with others.
This is an eye opening book, accessible yet packed with too many insights to mention. I highly recommend it.
October 26, 2025
Are you avoiding conflict to keep the peace?
What if I told you that productive disagreements can actually improve your relationships, your thinking—and even make you more interesting?
Conflicted by Ian Leslie is a smart, science-backed deep dive into how we argue, why it matters, and how to do it better.
It blends brain science, human behavior, and anthropology to unpack how our biases, egos, and social instincts can get in the way of real understanding.
But here’s the growth piece: if you’re willing to put in some introspection and effort—like questioning your own identity and opinions—you’ll walk away from this book with tools to make every disagreement a little more productive.
One of my favorite takeaways? Ask more questions.
Curiosity doesn’t weaken your argument—it strengthens your humanity.
This book is for the thinkers, the communicators, and yes, the logophiles too.
If you want to sharpen your mind and deepen your conversations, Conflicted just might change the way you disagree for the better.
What if I told you that productive disagreements can actually improve your relationships, your thinking—and even make you more interesting?
Conflicted by Ian Leslie is a smart, science-backed deep dive into how we argue, why it matters, and how to do it better.
It blends brain science, human behavior, and anthropology to unpack how our biases, egos, and social instincts can get in the way of real understanding.
But here’s the growth piece: if you’re willing to put in some introspection and effort—like questioning your own identity and opinions—you’ll walk away from this book with tools to make every disagreement a little more productive.
One of my favorite takeaways? Ask more questions.
Curiosity doesn’t weaken your argument—it strengthens your humanity.
This book is for the thinkers, the communicators, and yes, the logophiles too.
If you want to sharpen your mind and deepen your conversations, Conflicted just might change the way you disagree for the better.
October 30, 2021
بعد خوندن این کتاب فهمیدم که دریای مهارتهای نرم (سافتاسکیل) ته نداره و ما ایرانیها چقدر در آموزشوپرورش چرتوپرت به خردمون میدن!
این کتاب خوب بود از این نظر که نمیخواست ادای این رو در بیاره که «وای دعوا بده» و بگه که «نفس عمیق بکشید و صلوات بفرستید» و میاد به زبون آدمیزاد و منطقی میگه که وجود اختلافات در زندگی روزمره نه تنها غیرقابلاجتنابه، که ضروری هم هست؛ مخصوصاً در کار و ازدواج. و میاد ریشههای فرگشتی این قضیه رو هم بررسی میکنه. و میگه که چرا شبکههای اجتماعی محیط خوبی برای بحث نیستن. و در انتها هم میاد روشهایی برای داشتن یک مخالفت / بحث مفید و ارزشمند رو میگه.
بینظیر بود کتاب.
حتما بخونیدش.
این کتاب خوب بود از این نظر که نمیخواست ادای این رو در بیاره که «وای دعوا بده» و بگه که «نفس عمیق بکشید و صلوات بفرستید» و میاد به زبون آدمیزاد و منطقی میگه که وجود اختلافات در زندگی روزمره نه تنها غیرقابلاجتنابه، که ضروری هم هست؛ مخصوصاً در کار و ازدواج. و میاد ریشههای فرگشتی این قضیه رو هم بررسی میکنه. و میگه که چرا شبکههای اجتماعی محیط خوبی برای بحث نیستن. و در انتها هم میاد روشهایی برای داشتن یک مخالفت / بحث مفید و ارزشمند رو میگه.
بینظیر بود کتاب.
حتما بخونیدش.
March 8, 2021
How to argue and why you should
This is a terrific book, written with a wit and lightness of touch that moves you forward effortlessly. It's also full of surprises and counter intuitive facts. Whilst it's hugely enjoyable, it's also useful and I shall certainly try to use the toolkit in here in future disagreements. The crux of the book's argument is that without disagreement we don't progress, a point made beautifully clear through many examples. Recommended.
This is a terrific book, written with a wit and lightness of touch that moves you forward effortlessly. It's also full of surprises and counter intuitive facts. Whilst it's hugely enjoyable, it's also useful and I shall certainly try to use the toolkit in here in future disagreements. The crux of the book's argument is that without disagreement we don't progress, a point made beautifully clear through many examples. Recommended.
October 8, 2021
Plenty of examples of how being good or bad at arguing makes a difference, but other than that, didn't find the book too compelling.
September 28, 2022
Saya jarang baca buku psikologi, tapi tertarik pinjem buku ini setelah 'menonton' perdebatan antar netizen yang nggak jelas juntrungannya. Kasihan waktunya sia-sia. Padahal, konflik bisa bermanfaat dan produktif jika dilakukan dengan cara tertentu, begitu argumen buku ini.
Ian Leslie adalah jurnalis Inggris yang banyak menulis tentang psikologi dan perilaku manusia, dan sudah menelurkan 3 buku : Born Liars, Curious, dan Conflicted.
Tidak sekadar cuap-cuap penulisnya, buku ini mengangkat studi dan riset akademik bidang psikologi dan neurosains, observasi langsung dan analisa training para profesional yang sering berhadapan dengan konflik seperti kepolisian, FBI, badan anti terorisme, diplomat, negosiator, psikiater, psikolog konsultan rumah tangga, dan konsultan korporasi.
Mengapa manusia cenderung menghindari konflik? Karena perselisihan pendapat, terutama yang berkaitan dengan kepercayaan yang dipegang kuat, memicu area otak yang sama dengan yang bereaksi terhadap ancaman. Konflik membuat kita merasa terancam.
Dalam antropologi terdapat dua macam budaya komunikasi : tinggi konteks dan rendah konteks. Komunikasi tinggi konteks banyak diterapkan di Asia dan sudah menjadi tradisi, di mana komunikasi dilakukan secara tersirat, tidak langsung, dan 'tahu sama tahu'. Kesopanan dan formalitas dianggap penting. Budaya barat cenderung rendah konteks, karenanya komunikasi disampaikan secara eksplisit, lugas, dan kadang konfrontasional. Era internet memperkuat budaya komunikasi rendah konteks karena kita kehilangan akses ke makna tersembunyi di balik yang tertulis. Emoji hanya sedikit membantu. Karena itu kita sering berselisih di internet karena salah paham.
Apalagi, orang lebih termotivasi untuk berkomentar kalau tidak setuju, bukan? Pantas saja netizen berantem melulu.
Konflik bermanfaat untuk mengekspos adanya masalah, sehingga pihak yang berselisih bisa berubah (ke arah lebih baik). Jika dilakukan dengan baik, bahkan bisa mendorong inovasi dan ide-ide baru.
Ketika kita menganggap konflik sebagai ancaman personal, pikiran rasional kita terganggu, jadi nggak bisa mikir! Akibatnya malah kita jadi semakin keras kepala, dan cuma mau menerima informasi yang memperkuat pendapat sendiri. Membuktikan pendapat kita benar (bahkan ketika sebenarnya kita salah) jadi lebih penting dari mencari kebenaran itu sendiri. Dan hal ini juga terjadi pada orang-orang yang level kecerdasannya tinggi. Bahkan, yang pintar malah lebih jago membuat argumen yang membenarkan posisinya.
Jadi bagaimana sih adab berselisih yang bermanfaat? Leslie menyebutkan serangkaian aturan dan perangkat untuk diterapkan dalam menghadapi konflik. Tapi menurut saya semua bisa ditarik menjadi sebagai berikut:
1. Mulai dengan niat baik, untuk belajar, untuk mencari jawaban, untuk mencapai tujuan bersama.
2. Saling menghargai. Mendengarkan lawan bicara adalah bentuk penghargaan. Di balik layar komputer itu ada manusianya, dan dia juga ingin diperlakukan seperti kita ingin diperlakukan. Golden rule.
3. Tidak memaksa. Sifat manusia, kalau dipaksa malah makin keras, tidak mau berubah. Beri pilihan dan ruang untuk berpikir bersama-sama.
4. Kalau berbuat salah, minta maaf. Meminta maaf tidak berarti lemah, malah dalam situasi tertentu bisa memperkuat posisi dan membawa progres dalam konflik.
5. Tidak menghakimi dan tidak menghina, karena hal ini malah membuat lawan bicara semakin keras melawan.
6. Jangan kabur ngomel di belakang 😅
Di buku ini ada contoh bagus sekali, ketika white supremacists Afrikaners di Afrika Selatan berdemo karena tidak suka negaranya 'diambil alih' oleh kulit hitam, bahkan ingin membunuh Nelson Mandela. Waktu itu Mandela memimpin partai ANC sudah bergabung di pemerintahan koalisi, jadi sebetulnya bisa saja menghukum tokoh Afrikaners, Jendral Viljoen. Tapi dia tidak melakukannya. Dia malah mengundang Viljoen berdialog di rumahnya, menerimanya dengan ramah dan menyajikan teh sendiri.
Viljoen bisa menangkap kerendahan hati dan ketulusan Mandela dalam sikapnya, dan dialog tersebut membuahkan hasil: Jendral Viljoen memerintahkan para pendemo untuk tidak mengganggu pemilu, dan bahkan mendorong mereka ikut serta dalam demokrasi.
Cara Mandela menghadapi konflik telah memadamkan api perlawanan Viljoen. Memang pantas dapat Nobel Perdamaian.
Mudah-mudahan mulai sekarang kita bisa berdebat dengan lebih baik. Saling panggil nama jelek itu nggak ada gunanya deh.
-dydy-
Ian Leslie adalah jurnalis Inggris yang banyak menulis tentang psikologi dan perilaku manusia, dan sudah menelurkan 3 buku : Born Liars, Curious, dan Conflicted.
Tidak sekadar cuap-cuap penulisnya, buku ini mengangkat studi dan riset akademik bidang psikologi dan neurosains, observasi langsung dan analisa training para profesional yang sering berhadapan dengan konflik seperti kepolisian, FBI, badan anti terorisme, diplomat, negosiator, psikiater, psikolog konsultan rumah tangga, dan konsultan korporasi.
Mengapa manusia cenderung menghindari konflik? Karena perselisihan pendapat, terutama yang berkaitan dengan kepercayaan yang dipegang kuat, memicu area otak yang sama dengan yang bereaksi terhadap ancaman. Konflik membuat kita merasa terancam.
Dalam antropologi terdapat dua macam budaya komunikasi : tinggi konteks dan rendah konteks. Komunikasi tinggi konteks banyak diterapkan di Asia dan sudah menjadi tradisi, di mana komunikasi dilakukan secara tersirat, tidak langsung, dan 'tahu sama tahu'. Kesopanan dan formalitas dianggap penting. Budaya barat cenderung rendah konteks, karenanya komunikasi disampaikan secara eksplisit, lugas, dan kadang konfrontasional. Era internet memperkuat budaya komunikasi rendah konteks karena kita kehilangan akses ke makna tersembunyi di balik yang tertulis. Emoji hanya sedikit membantu. Karena itu kita sering berselisih di internet karena salah paham.
Apalagi, orang lebih termotivasi untuk berkomentar kalau tidak setuju, bukan? Pantas saja netizen berantem melulu.
Konflik bermanfaat untuk mengekspos adanya masalah, sehingga pihak yang berselisih bisa berubah (ke arah lebih baik). Jika dilakukan dengan baik, bahkan bisa mendorong inovasi dan ide-ide baru.
Ketika kita menganggap konflik sebagai ancaman personal, pikiran rasional kita terganggu, jadi nggak bisa mikir! Akibatnya malah kita jadi semakin keras kepala, dan cuma mau menerima informasi yang memperkuat pendapat sendiri. Membuktikan pendapat kita benar (bahkan ketika sebenarnya kita salah) jadi lebih penting dari mencari kebenaran itu sendiri. Dan hal ini juga terjadi pada orang-orang yang level kecerdasannya tinggi. Bahkan, yang pintar malah lebih jago membuat argumen yang membenarkan posisinya.
Jadi bagaimana sih adab berselisih yang bermanfaat? Leslie menyebutkan serangkaian aturan dan perangkat untuk diterapkan dalam menghadapi konflik. Tapi menurut saya semua bisa ditarik menjadi sebagai berikut:
1. Mulai dengan niat baik, untuk belajar, untuk mencari jawaban, untuk mencapai tujuan bersama.
2. Saling menghargai. Mendengarkan lawan bicara adalah bentuk penghargaan. Di balik layar komputer itu ada manusianya, dan dia juga ingin diperlakukan seperti kita ingin diperlakukan. Golden rule.
3. Tidak memaksa. Sifat manusia, kalau dipaksa malah makin keras, tidak mau berubah. Beri pilihan dan ruang untuk berpikir bersama-sama.
4. Kalau berbuat salah, minta maaf. Meminta maaf tidak berarti lemah, malah dalam situasi tertentu bisa memperkuat posisi dan membawa progres dalam konflik.
5. Tidak menghakimi dan tidak menghina, karena hal ini malah membuat lawan bicara semakin keras melawan.
6. Jangan kabur ngomel di belakang 😅
Di buku ini ada contoh bagus sekali, ketika white supremacists Afrikaners di Afrika Selatan berdemo karena tidak suka negaranya 'diambil alih' oleh kulit hitam, bahkan ingin membunuh Nelson Mandela. Waktu itu Mandela memimpin partai ANC sudah bergabung di pemerintahan koalisi, jadi sebetulnya bisa saja menghukum tokoh Afrikaners, Jendral Viljoen. Tapi dia tidak melakukannya. Dia malah mengundang Viljoen berdialog di rumahnya, menerimanya dengan ramah dan menyajikan teh sendiri.
Viljoen bisa menangkap kerendahan hati dan ketulusan Mandela dalam sikapnya, dan dialog tersebut membuahkan hasil: Jendral Viljoen memerintahkan para pendemo untuk tidak mengganggu pemilu, dan bahkan mendorong mereka ikut serta dalam demokrasi.
Cara Mandela menghadapi konflik telah memadamkan api perlawanan Viljoen. Memang pantas dapat Nobel Perdamaian.
Mudah-mudahan mulai sekarang kita bisa berdebat dengan lebih baik. Saling panggil nama jelek itu nggak ada gunanya deh.
-dydy-
July 30, 2021
5 stars! It has to be. The best books, fiction or non-fiction, make you think differently about being human or feel alive in a new way, and this is one of those. This book guided me through so many fascinating anecdotes and studies and I learned so much, some of it intuitive and some of it surprising. The first part was a little slow, a little thick, but necessary, before it got into the meat of how the experts make conflicts good ones. It started to toe a line between ~meaningful~ human connection and... here's how to influence people to be more likely to agree with you, but it came back around in the end and didn't read as a manipulation manual to me. Beyond the wisdom on the page, it kept prompting me to think about my own opinions, the arguments I have avoided because I hate conflicts, random encounters I have had or witnessed. I saw a show and watched two characters argue and thought oh, this is a textbook example of an unproductive disagreement! So little giving face or successful rapport creation when face and trust matters so much to both of them!
And let me not even get started on the posts on Facebook from this guy from high school who has gotten very COVID conspiracist/ anti-lockdown/ masks are oppression, posts which the algorithm has been showing me every day when I have very deliberately not engaged with them at all. It must be able to tell I pause for a long time, breathing steadily and deliberately, mental argument points formulating while my brain also feels like it's in a blender. Possible responses kept springing to mind from the different points in the book on how to optimally argue, things I had thought about so well I could almost imagine saying them, but then I'd only have to read some comments on a new post and see how this guy was responding with rigid scorn to someone thoughtfully presenting their very best science, with someone on his side leaping in to add more dismissive disparaging, and all my newly learned theory flew out the window and the surging anger came back and no, I would never engage with that on purpose. It comes back to the point the author makes in the final part about how employing all the wisdom, all your honesty and curiosity and humanity means nothing if the other party isn't willing to engage and listen too. Some people don't want to do that and some hateful points of view shouldn't be humoured for arguments sake. You can believe your own side very strongly and may not end up changing your mind but you have to actually want to listen to what the other person has to say, not just want to WIN, to embarrass, to knock them down. You have to see them as a whole human and engage with them as one.
You can see I have many thoughts here. I've been plotting a show about conflict and midway through the book it clicked to me that of course I have to weave things from this book through it. How could I not? Risks becoming didactic, maybe, but adds a whole new angle! I'm sure I'll end up borrowing the book from the library again to refer to. The author really covers so many different angles and prompts so much thinking for the reader (well, for me), and I can't possibly summarise it all properly. So much was churning around in my mind about myself and humanity as a whole and how we could all do better. I would love everyone in politics or any kind of power to read this book and see what could come of it. Surely things wouldn't stay the same.
PS have to note down the anecdote on page 190 about a computer programmer who made a chatbot that could engage in conversation but whenever it didn't have a clear cue on how to respond would insult the person. Flinging an insult when it didn't understand or have a good answer? If there is a better way to describe internet comment discourse then I HAVE NOT FOUND IT.
And let me not even get started on the posts on Facebook from this guy from high school who has gotten very COVID conspiracist/ anti-lockdown/ masks are oppression, posts which the algorithm has been showing me every day when I have very deliberately not engaged with them at all. It must be able to tell I pause for a long time, breathing steadily and deliberately, mental argument points formulating while my brain also feels like it's in a blender. Possible responses kept springing to mind from the different points in the book on how to optimally argue, things I had thought about so well I could almost imagine saying them, but then I'd only have to read some comments on a new post and see how this guy was responding with rigid scorn to someone thoughtfully presenting their very best science, with someone on his side leaping in to add more dismissive disparaging, and all my newly learned theory flew out the window and the surging anger came back and no, I would never engage with that on purpose. It comes back to the point the author makes in the final part about how employing all the wisdom, all your honesty and curiosity and humanity means nothing if the other party isn't willing to engage and listen too. Some people don't want to do that and some hateful points of view shouldn't be humoured for arguments sake. You can believe your own side very strongly and may not end up changing your mind but you have to actually want to listen to what the other person has to say, not just want to WIN, to embarrass, to knock them down. You have to see them as a whole human and engage with them as one.
You can see I have many thoughts here. I've been plotting a show about conflict and midway through the book it clicked to me that of course I have to weave things from this book through it. How could I not? Risks becoming didactic, maybe, but adds a whole new angle! I'm sure I'll end up borrowing the book from the library again to refer to. The author really covers so many different angles and prompts so much thinking for the reader (well, for me), and I can't possibly summarise it all properly. So much was churning around in my mind about myself and humanity as a whole and how we could all do better. I would love everyone in politics or any kind of power to read this book and see what could come of it. Surely things wouldn't stay the same.
PS have to note down the anecdote on page 190 about a computer programmer who made a chatbot that could engage in conversation but whenever it didn't have a clear cue on how to respond would insult the person. Flinging an insult when it didn't understand or have a good answer? If there is a better way to describe internet comment discourse then I HAVE NOT FOUND IT.
July 22, 2022
I had Conflicted lent to me and read it over a holiday break. I've read a few 'conflict' 'difficult conversation' type books so kinda had an expectation of not much new - HOWEVER I was pleasantly surprised.
Conflicted has that kind of 'journalistic' style where each chapter has a story which is returned to throughout the chapter, interspersed with descriptions of studies and explanations of the chapter topic. Its very well written and managed and I actually enjoyed learning about various topics such as Nelson Mandela's election, the Waco disaster and most surprisingly Reddit's r/Changemyview a sub that I may have a few Deltas earned myself!
At first I also felt that Conflicted seemed a bit aimless, each chapter just seemed to be a different but similar story about an element of conflict, but in an odd meandering way the chapters blended and meshed well, feeling both fresh and relevant. I wouldn't say its the sort of book where you put it down read to solve all your workplace and political conflicts BUT what I think the strength of the book is it feels like an informative and realistic dive into several elements of conflicts that are generally useful and important.
For an example interrogation techniques might seem pretty far afield from online political debates, but what Conflicted does is link the human and psychology elements of these scenarios and explains them in informed but straightforward ways.
I think what I liked best about the book is it never felt preachy or opiniated despite probably containing material that some would find quite challenging, such as talking about police de-escalation techniques or differences in political personalities.
Much recommended.
Conflicted has that kind of 'journalistic' style where each chapter has a story which is returned to throughout the chapter, interspersed with descriptions of studies and explanations of the chapter topic. Its very well written and managed and I actually enjoyed learning about various topics such as Nelson Mandela's election, the Waco disaster and most surprisingly Reddit's r/Changemyview a sub that I may have a few Deltas earned myself!
At first I also felt that Conflicted seemed a bit aimless, each chapter just seemed to be a different but similar story about an element of conflict, but in an odd meandering way the chapters blended and meshed well, feeling both fresh and relevant. I wouldn't say its the sort of book where you put it down read to solve all your workplace and political conflicts BUT what I think the strength of the book is it feels like an informative and realistic dive into several elements of conflicts that are generally useful and important.
For an example interrogation techniques might seem pretty far afield from online political debates, but what Conflicted does is link the human and psychology elements of these scenarios and explains them in informed but straightforward ways.
I think what I liked best about the book is it never felt preachy or opiniated despite probably containing material that some would find quite challenging, such as talking about police de-escalation techniques or differences in political personalities.
Much recommended.
May 22, 2025
I picked up this book to help me create content for a training on “Difficult Conversations with Stakeholders."
At first, I had no idea what to include, but this book gave me way more than I expected.
Not only did it help me build the training, but it also shifted how I think about conflict in general—at work, at home, and in everyday life.
Leslie makes a strong case that disagreement isn’t something to avoid. In fact, it’s necessary for learning and growth. The book shows how conflict, when handled well, can actually strengthen relationships. But to get there, we need to feel safe and connected first—otherwise, facts alone won’t help.
As someone who tends to avoid conflict, this was eye-opening.
One quote that really stayed with me was:
“Instead of trying to win the argument, try to be interested and interesting.”
It reminded me that good conversations aren’t about “winning,” they’re about listening, learning, and understanding the other person.
The book also shares examples from real-life situations—like hostage negotiations and FBI interviews—which made the ideas even more powerful. One part that really stood out to me was the comparison of how different cultures (German, American, British, Chinese) handle disagreements. It helped me reflect on how I work with people from different backgrounds.
There’s even a practical toolkit at the end of the book to help you apply what you’ve learned.
If you’re someone who avoids conflict or wants to get better at having honest, respectful conversations, this book is definitely worth reading.
At first, I had no idea what to include, but this book gave me way more than I expected.
Not only did it help me build the training, but it also shifted how I think about conflict in general—at work, at home, and in everyday life.
Leslie makes a strong case that disagreement isn’t something to avoid. In fact, it’s necessary for learning and growth. The book shows how conflict, when handled well, can actually strengthen relationships. But to get there, we need to feel safe and connected first—otherwise, facts alone won’t help.
As someone who tends to avoid conflict, this was eye-opening.
One quote that really stayed with me was:
“Instead of trying to win the argument, try to be interested and interesting.”
It reminded me that good conversations aren’t about “winning,” they’re about listening, learning, and understanding the other person.
The book also shares examples from real-life situations—like hostage negotiations and FBI interviews—which made the ideas even more powerful. One part that really stood out to me was the comparison of how different cultures (German, American, British, Chinese) handle disagreements. It helped me reflect on how I work with people from different backgrounds.
There’s even a practical toolkit at the end of the book to help you apply what you’ve learned.
If you’re someone who avoids conflict or wants to get better at having honest, respectful conversations, this book is definitely worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews