Send Wilk a text with your feedback! (incoming msgs only - I can't reply)
What does it mean to disagree well? That question sits at the center of Michael Lee’s work. As director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston and host of the podcast When We Disagree, Michael has spent decades studying how individuals and communities navigate conflict—and how to do it better.
In this episode of Derate the Hate, Wilk and Michael have a wide-ranging conversation about the skills, the mindset, and the nervous system work required to engage across difference. They talk about why the bridging space gets mischaracterized, what’s really behind conflict avoidance, and why apathy may be the biggest enemy of genuine connection.
Ask yourself: what’s my relational goal? Before engaging, knowing whether you’re trying to deepen a relationship or just protect yourself changes everything about how you show up.
Michael J. Lee is a professor of communication and the director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston. His research focuses on political identity in American politics. His first book, Creating Conservatism: Postwar Words that Made an American Movement, won five national book awards. His latest book is We Are Not One People: Separatism and Secession in American Politics Since 1776. He is also the host of When We Disagree, a podcast about the disagreements we can’t let go of.
Organization: College of Charleston
Website: Civility Initiative
LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/michael-lee-35258814
Instagram: @whenwedisagree
The world is a better place if we are better people. That begins with each of us as individuals. Be kind to one another. Be grateful for all you’ve got. Make every day the day that you want it to be!
Please follow The Derate The Hate podcast on:
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter(X) , YouTube
Subscribe to us wherever you enjoy your audio or from our site. Please leave us a rating and feedback on Apple podcasts or other platforms. You can share your thoughts or request Wilk for a speaking engagement on our contact page: DerateTheHate.com/Contact
The Derate The Hate podcast is proudly produced in collaboration with Braver Angels — America’s largest grassroots, cross-partisan organization working toward civic renewal and bridging partisan divides. Learn more: BraverAngels.org
Welcome to the Derate The Hate Podcast!
*The views expressed by Wilk, his guest hosts &/or guests on the Derate The Hate podcast are their own and should not be attributed to any organization they may otherwise be affiliated with.
[00:00:00:00] Wilk Wilkinson: Michael Lee has spent 25 years in and around debate. The man jokes. His tombstone will say his favorite debates were debates about debate. But his biggest takeaway isn't about arguing better. It's about learning to disagree better and maybe talking to a few more strangers. Stick with me. Welcome back, my friend, to the Derate the Hate podcast. I'm your host, Wilk Wilkinson, your blue collar sage calming outrage and helping to navigate a world divided by fog and those who would spread that fear, outrage and grievance. The Derate the Hate podcast is proudly produced in collaboration with Braver Angels, America's largest grassroots cross Partizan organization working toward civic renewal, this podcast amplifies the mission that we share to foster a more respectful and united America where civic friendship thrives even when we disagree. Each week, through the power of story, conversation, and connection with incredible guests, we work to build bridges instead of barriers, not to change minds on the issues, but to change how we see one another when we differ. Because friends, it really is about bettering the world one attitude at a time. We did not create the hate, but together we can Derate the Hate. So be sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcast, share it with a friend and visit Braver Angels to learn how you can get involved in the movement to bridge the partizan divide. Friends, I am so incredibly grateful that you have joined me for another powerful Derate the Hate episode. So let's get to it. Today, I'm sitting down with Michael Lee, a professor of communication at the College of Charleston and the director of their Civility Initiative. Michael came to civility, worked through an unlikely door competitive debate. And what he discovered is that debate, when it's done right, isn't about winning. It's about building the kind of understanding that makes real connection possible. Through the Civility Initiative, Michael and his team run workshops, trainings, and events that treat dialog and healthy conflict as learnable skills like dribbling a basketball or speaking a new language. His podcast, When We Disagree, on which I've been a guest, asks guests one simple question what's he disagreement that you can't get out of your head? The answers are always revealing. Today we're getting into the nervous system side of conflict. Why people confuse conversation with complicity and what it actually takes to have a productive disagreement in a world that rewards outrage. Let's get into it with my friend Michael Lee. Here we go. Michael Lee. Welcome to the Derate the Hate podcast, man. It is. It's great to see you again today.
[00:03:27:18] Michael Lee: This is a real honor. Thanks for having me.
[00:03:30:03] Wilk Wilkinson: Absolutely, Michael, I I've been looking forward to this conversation, mostly because I really enjoyed our conversation a while back when you had me on the When We Disagree podcast. That was just a great conversation. And, you know, I know we run a lot of similar circles. We have a lot of common friends. I know you're you're working with the Pro Human Foundation Board of Advisors now, which I've been on for a very long time. And so, so yeah, I am grateful to have you here today, and I'm looking forward to getting into this conversation, because I definitely want the listeners to know more about you, Michael, and your work with the Civility Initiative over at the College of Charleston. So, so let's let's get into you first, Michael. And just I want to I want to figure out and one of the one of the things that I always get into right away is, is what brought you to the the civility space, the bridge building space. How did you, Michael, get get interested in doing that. So let's start there.
[00:04:36:15] Michael Lee: Thanks for the question. And I spent the majority of my adult life trying to figure out the answer to that question. So I'll do my best. And I'm sure every guest favorite topic is themselves, the egocentric audience. And so thanks for starting there as well. I come to the civility space, the bridging space, the dialog space. Paradoxically, through debate. I was one of the very cool kids in high school who joined the debate team, and then I managed to get a scholarship to go continue debating with the really cool kids and college. And then I coached debate for a few years after I was done as an undergraduate debater, and then found my way into getting a PhD in communication. And so I've been teaching about American political communication for the past 20 years or so. But because of my debate background, I've integrated debates into every aspect of my writing and every aspect of my teaching. I happen to think that debate, when done very well, is very dialogic. It's very bridging is very connective. And so my favorite joke is to say that my tombstone will read, here lies Mike and his favorite debates or debates about debate.
[00:05:49:02] Wilk Wilkinson: Well, there we go. Yeah. And I want to get into that dialogic piece of that here in just a little bit. But I want to get a little bit deeper into, What this civility initiative is that you're working on now. And then once we once we talk a little bit about that civility initiative, I want to start breaking it down piece by piece and, and really get into how that debate piece becomes a bridging piece and what that dialogic aspect is. So, so talk to me a little bit about about the civility initiative over there at the College of Charleston then.
[00:06:30:14] Michael Lee: So the Civility Initiative, we do dialog and debate work to help individuals and communities have healthier relationships and make better decisions. So we have those as kind of twin goals, which is how do we achieve dialog across difference and how do we achieve better arguments, healthier arguments, healthier conflict? And to me, those are both dispositions, attitudes we have within ourselves and attitudes towards others, attitudes towards our own cognitive biases or our own blinders, or how good my view is of the world versus your view of the world. And then, of course, in a dialogic way, trying to find some curiosity and some compassion about how you feel versus how I feel. But also sometimes we have to make tough decisions in organizations and communities and elsewhere, and sometimes those decisions require us to have debates about what is true, what is probably true, what our values are, what do we do when values compete? And so to that end, with dialog and debate, as I sort of see it as a partial eclipse, it's not a total eclipse, but it is a partial eclipse for me between dialog and abate. So once that is the goal, then we do media production, which means lots of interviews and talks like this one. And of course our podcast which is called anywhere. So thoughtful on when we disagree. And that show is just every guest answers one question, which is what's a disagreement you can't get out of your head. And from there we talk about our relationships to conflict, why conflicts are sticky for us, how we can get a little better or more thoughtful at conflict. That's the idea. But then we do big events for the campus and the community at large around curious, interesting alliances between people you wouldn't think are our strange bedfellows, but they are authors of books who have written about how we can make connections in a polarized world. People who write about how we consume media and how we consume media and echo chambers, how we have algorithms of anger, all the ideas that you have talked about a lot on this show, and then finally is the Civility Initiative is dedicated to skill building. And so I think that you and I could spend the next 30 minutes talking about dribbling a basketball, and maybe your listeners would come away a little bit more thoughtful about how you dribble a basketball. But would they come away any better at dribbling a basketball? Probably not until they got into their driveway. That's right. So to some extent, dialog bridging, whatever you want to call it, democracy is a disposition, but it's also a skill and a skill like dancing or weightlifting or dribbling a basketball or speaking a language takes practice. And these are communicative skills. So we work with faculty, staff and students from very consistently in small groups to practice the skills of dialog, debate and democracy.
[00:09:26:20] Wilk Wilkinson: And that is a skill set, Michael, that that I well, it's a skill set that, that I think, I think too many people are lacking right now. And there's, there's a number of reasons for it. And I'd like to get into that a little bit. But but one of the things that that we're seeing a lot right now and in society is people's inability to have a dialog or a meaningful dialog about things that they disagree, you know, over which they disagree. Right? They, they, they either completely avoid it or or when they do it, one side or the other shuts down. They get angry at each other. They they, they begin to see each other not just as, as wrong, but as enemies. There are so many of these different things that are going on right now that have people on edge and just skeptical of anybody who they disagree with. I mean, and I think it's a well, it's a huge societal problem. And and where I want to go with this, Michael, is is a big problem that I'm seeing online. And I want to get your take on it because we have seen in, in this, you know, age of, of internet outrage and, you know, rage, bait, vendetta, ride politics and things like that. These are my words and certainly not yours or anybody else's that I, I'm quoting. But but we're seeing this thing where people like us, you and I, in the bridging space and other people in the bridging space who are, who are trying to bring people together for dialog, are seen as. In some way we're seen as the villain because it and this is this is what I've seen. And I want to get your take on it. The idea of bringing people together for civil dialog is being conflated and confused with trying to shut down the strongly held convictions and the the speech of people who are, I guess, outraged at the other side. But that's not what it is. Give me your thoughts on that, and we'll get a little bit deeper into that, because I think it's something that needs to be addressed. And, and I'm still working through a lot of these things in my mind. So hopefully, hopefully I'm coming across in the right way. But I think this is a real problem that needs to be addressed by people in the bridging space.
[00:12:09:22] Michael Lee: Yeah, it's three quick things. On a really thoughtful question we talked about. When we have certain attitudes towards conflict, we can be avoidant. When we have certain attitudes towards conflicts, we can be in a condition of excessive antagonism or a condition of fight. And it really does tails a lot with the way I talk about this, which is when people ask what kind of work the Civility Initiative does. Is this all about the two party system? Is this all about how different demographics interact with other demographics, kind of identity politics? What is this about? And I say, you know, this is about nervous system work towards our attitudes towards and skills for healthy conflict. And so some of that has to happen within ourselves, which is building a bandwidth for healthy conflict and novel information, perhaps information that doesn't already confirm things I already believe. And so really being thoughtful about the ways that I relate to conflict, either in terms of flight or avoidance, in terms of fight or excessive antagonism, or the other two is is freeze and fawn. Do I freeze up in uncomfortable conversations with people who disagree with me, or do I just try to make the conversation go away and falling all over them? Even people who are on my team or my tribe because I'm fearful of excommunication or being internally sanctioned by people that I want to show that I'm on the same side of. The second thing that comes up for me, nervous system, is the first. The second one is culturally in this world, and the relationship between this and screen culture and being able to customize our algorithms is that we have we have made conflation between having conversations and being complicit with ideas, which is to say that if you give attention to something, are you affirming something? And so trying to disentangle those which in the last 10 or 15 years, conversation and complicity and attention and affirmation is part of the work that bridging is trying to do. And then the third one is to what extent we're having genuine persuadable interactions when we interact online, you know? So to what extent are we are we behaving as groups behave, which is that, you know, I'm way more likely to maybe call you a bad name if I'm in my car and you're in your car. But if you and I are walking down the street, you know, we we have a different relationship there because we are vulnerable to one another in a way that we're not in a car. And the same is true when we're not online. And you and I have the keyboard courage that you and I might have.
[00:14:57:01] Wilk Wilkinson: Right, right. Okay. So there's a lot of things there that I want to get into because, you know, I think that the nervous system aspect of that, Michael, ties strongly into the skill building and why that's why that's important. I mean, when we start to build the muscle memory and, you know, use the the analogy of dribbling a basketball and, and yeah, we can see it happening or we can talk about how that works. But until we actually start to do it, we don't really get the full effect of of what that skill building is, building that muscle memory. I think a lot has to do, you know, a lot a lot of that applies to in in how we interact with people and especially people that we, we disagree with. Because, yeah, you're right. People will go into that fight or flight mode or they may completely shut down or, or to use a triggering term for some people, they get triggered and then they just lose their ability to, to, to function in the same way they might otherwise function. So they get they get scared. And then but I want to I want to dive into that. People conflating the conversation with complacency or complicity, because that is that is one of those things. And I think that goes to the heart of a lot of what we're seeing, you know, in terms of being attacked online, you know, and what I'm saying is, is, you know, the bridging space as a whole or different organizations being attacked by people is when when you refuse to have a conversation with somebody that you disagree with. I my mind goes in two places, right? Either you're afraid of being confused for being complacent or complicit, or you're afraid that somehow what you think is going to be somehow compromised by what somebody else is saying, you know? So so that just tells me that you might not be so sure in your beliefs. I don't know that. I mean, I don't think this is a is a complete either or. But but Michael, talk about that because when I think about dialog and I think about the ability to have a conversation, people people do confuse and conflate that, you know, for for complacency or complicity. Dive into that a bit deeper because because I think that's a think it's a genuine worry. But I think it's I think it's wrong. And I think we need to figure out how to help people out of that.
[00:17:56:11] Michael Lee: Well, part of the way I talk about it is to start to ask people to what extent they see people as completely integrated, fully formed versions of themselves. And the line I really love from a political scientist that was near and dear to me, which is that some of us deal with contradiction all of the time, and all of us deal with contradiction some of the time. But my contradictions are mine. They are normal to me. But your contradictions, because you're a relative stranger to me. Are crazy, asinine, weird. How can you live that way? How can you make peace with yourself? You're such a hypocrite. But there are so many ways in which I am a hypocrite to myself that I don't behave every day according to my stated beliefs. And the other thing too, is that to what extent everything looks filthy to a purist. And if my goal is to purify my life, my internal life, and purify all of my friendships and smooth over all the rough edges, the rough edges here being defined by disagreement or inconsistency, then I'm going to keep finding more and more rough edges, because my goal is an impossible one, which is to purify my life, to purify all of my commitments, to make sure that all of my behaviors flow cleanly from all of my fully formed commitments, and that everybody around me does, too. And you can find yourself ultimately completely alone with that kind of request. And so my goal then, whether we call it debate or dialog or whatever words you want to use, my goal is to find ways in which we can do perspective taking and perspective taking, for me, in a way, is devil's advocacy. And Saint Augustine talks about devil's advocacy as a way to strengthen his faith commitments and strengthen the faith commitments of lots of communities of believers. But it can also be deeply unsettling in the process, because you are, again risking vulnerability to another person and to other ideas. And so finding creative ways to engage in perspective taking is my number one goal. The other goal to maybe a secondary goal is to change our relationship to the stress that difference, novelty and disagreement causes. And to some extent, I think this the tribal polarized society we live in, which gives us puts pressure on us to to be these purists and to purify our lives and smooth over the rough edges. We also have a different relationship with stress. And so I talk about stress, distress and de-stress. So I was recently on a college campus, and I saw a sign that said for students to come inside of the Student Success Center and de-stress for success. And I thought, you know, I think that's exactly backwards. I think that you go to the gym to stress your body to get stronger. I think you learn a new language to expose how little you really know about the world and other languages, and that creates a kind of of stress. We travel, that creates stress. You don't know where stuff is, but those are controlled stresses, maybe even fun stresses and stresses, not distress. And it's certainly not trauma. But if our goal, like the purest, is to de-stress our lives. Then we're engaged in a fool's errand. We can never de-stress our lives, nor do we want to. Because if I had no stress about traffic, I would wander into traffic and we all know what would happen there. So not only is it foolish, but it's utterly impossible. So again, change our relationships with the rough edges, change our relationships with novel information and disagreement, and perhaps change our relationship with the stress that novelty can cause.
[00:21:39:12] Wilk Wilkinson: Yeah, and I think of a couple things there, Michael, that that are important that I want to I just want to emphasize because I think, you know, a life without stress is obviously a unattainable goal. It doesn't make any sense. But one of the main things I think about, and I say quite often, is, is all of our real growth comes outside of our comfort zone, and which is one of the big reasons that I have such a problem with the concept of safe spaces. You know, that was that was a big thing in recent years where, you know, they said, oh, come into our safe space like you're talking about there, the college come in and and de-stress yourself or whatever. Well, it's not distressing yourself and, and, and, and I think the analogy of going to the gym to work your muscles is a good one, because if we never expose ourselves to any kind of conflict, we lose our ability to deal with conflict. You know? And if we pretend that there is is no. Danger, whether it be rhetorical danger or otherwise, in society, we lose our ability to deal with with those situations, right? If you have no fear of traffic, you're going to wander out into traffic. If you have no fear of of of situations that you know are going to actually physically get you hurt, there's a good chance you're going to put yourself in a position where you are physically going to get hurt. So a strong sense of awareness and being able to recognize the difference in, in, you know, situational awareness, things like that, those are all hugely important. But then the next thing I want to think about here and talk about is how do we recognize situations that or recognize and then deal with situations in society today because they're becoming more prevalent, a lot of them online. Going back to your your point earlier, I mean, it's very different if, if we're if we're sitting face to face or walking down the same sidewalk or, or something, but when people are saying things that. That really rile up a person, you know, that really get to them, whether they be true or not true, if you know defamatory statements or, or or or things that that really would, going back to that word trigger somebody. What is the best advice that you can give to people, Michael, to work through those things in a productive way. I mean, we all see the, you know, any multitude of different ways to to deal with them unproductive. But working in the civility space and as somebody like, like you who have been doing this for a very long time, the civility initiative there in Charleston, there's a right way, in a wrong way to deal with those things. And I think more people need to do that. So I know some of it comes down to that skill building. But what is that first piece that the individual can take away and just say, you know, what's what's step one step?
[00:25:02:19] Michael Lee: First step for me is always what's the relational goal. And so if if somebody is in a space when they feel like they're the target of abuse, or somebody is being an agent provocateur or a conflict merchant, or it's trying to engage in a kind of Sheldon Freud just to get a rise out of you. And what's your relational goal? Is your relational goal deepening a relationship with this person? Okay. Well, that just dictates one set of strategies. And if your relational goal is just protection or avoiding uncomfortable situation, and I've got no problem telling you to walk away or to to set a boundary, I do think something that happens in this space is that people who are on, on the side of free expression or on the side of pluralism, or on the side of making bizarre, curious connections and being open to possibilities for connection in the world, feel a kind of evangelical zeal that you can't walk away from situations, that it's your kind of citizen burden to engage all difference, no matter how it comes at you. And I don't subscribe to that. I think that if if it becomes very clear that a person is unpersuasive, that a person is is truly out for trying to do you some sort of psychic harm to to limit exposure to that. I would say that in my 25 years in doing debates, being near debates, commissioning debates, my thought is that apathy or feigned apathy or alienation and withdrawal is typically a much greater enemy to connection than is negativity or antagonism. And I think that our online culture, for reasons that we all know over estimates and over, amplifies the voices that get more clicks. And so then you and I walk around in the world thinking that folks like that are everywhere, and every stray encounter could turn into every four letter word and the kind of scenarios for abuse. But in all likelihood, I think more often than not, the greatest enemy to you and I connecting is me pretending like I don't care, genuinely not caring or fearing conflict so much that it becomes a flight response. And I actually avoid that connection. So I do think when we talk about this stuff, where is the boundary? What do you do with the worst possible actors? I hesitate because I don't want to recreate the same negativity bias that I'm fighting against. I'm trying to tell people that there's greater opportunities for connection out there than is represented in our prominent social and popular media. And so I want to recreate that answer here, too, and say, weird stuff can happen, and you might find yourself with a friend you never thought was possible. And that's way more likely than somebody saying something horrible to you, especially offline.
[00:27:57:20] Wilk Wilkinson: No, that's absolutely right. That's absolutely right. And I love, you know, going back to to the initial point there on that question, is that relational goal piece, Michael, because one of the things, one of the great programs within Braver Angels that that I just love is that, you know, in the not I think it's the Navigating Difficult Conversations workshop. But but one of those one of the things there is, is, you know, really being able to say, look, I don't have to be. And I think this is my wording not, not, not that wording within that particular workshop. But but, you know, I don't have to be a martyr for anybody's cause, you know, and and as as much as I would love to continue this conversation and, and maybe you, you just just not you, but obviously the person that I'm speaking with has all kinds of horrible things to say. Maybe they are they are not fact based or whatever, but they aren't arguing in good faith. It's like, do I really think I'm going to develop a good, good relationship out of this? Am I going to to turn this into something positive? Because if I'm not, maybe I don't need to waste my precious time being a martyr for for their particular cause. So that relational thing I think is hugely important. And then just, just the idea and then to to take that full circle in, in what you were saying is but that unlikely relationship and I know you had said it earlier to in some of the skill building exercises and some of the things that you guys do with the Civility Initiative, you know, you you come across people who are unlikely allies. This is one of the greatest things about doing this kind of work, Michael, that I, that I love so much is finding two people who are who are very, very different and maybe disagree on most everything policy wise, maybe even a lot of things, values wise, but they find a connection in some way that brings them together in, in a way where they aren't going to be able to collaborate on all things. They're probably not going to find common ground on a lot of things, but they're able to work through their differences because they do have, you know, well, let's talk about that pro human mindset that we talk about at the Pro Human Foundation, right? We're all unique individuals, but we all have our shared humanity. You know, if if there's nothing else and we find in these conversations, you and I, Michael could could probably talk about this for, for another whole show. But one of the big things that we find is when we bring people together who think they have nothing in common, but at least start on that pro humanity footing. We often find that they have a lot more things in common than they ever believed possible in the beginning. So talk a little bit about that, because There's a perception gap between what we think we have in common and what we actually have in common with with the people that we are certain we have the least in common with.
[00:31:24:04] Michael Lee: That's a really good line. I'm going to steal that. And so forgive me when I play drives that in the future. The a few things come up for me there. And one of the peculiar ironies of our age is that at the same time, we have this tribal ization and each of us is siloed off to some extent into our self-selected groups. We also have a culture that celebrates individuality and says that you are a stranger to me, and I can never understand the eccentric and idiosyncratic journey that you have taken to get here in front of me now. Nor could you really ever understand my pain, my upbringing, the ways in which I have been oppressed and for us to even start to have a relationship, our fundamental differences from one another have to be reaffirmed and in some ways codified. And only then can we kind of get to sameness on the back end. And I really fight against that as hard as I can, which is to say, let's what do you call it, pro human, or let's put our commonalities or our sameness, or the fact that we all breathe air up front, or we or we all love pickleball or whatever it is. Let's try to start with some sameness, and maybe we can get to our peculiar differences on the back end. The other things that come up for me in terms of dealing with these difficult conversations are a few strategies that are that are extend from that same this agenda, one is calling in and calling out, which is a really well used way to talk about the difference between a gentle norm setting and an ex communication. So if I find that you're being particularly aggressive or abusive towards me, you know, I wonder if you're open to hearing how that word lands for me as a way to suss out your the extent to which you're approaching this conversation in a way that's persuadable or kind or compassionate. If it becomes clear from your answer to that question that you're not, then maybe I know how quickly we need to set that sort of a boundary. The other one is, is norm setting. You know, if I was engaged in sleight of hands or cleverness or insults, you might say something like, do you think this conversation is going to go better or worse? If we fling insults at each other? Usually that will get the response that you would think it would get. And we can create a kind of norm setting around the boundaries of conversation that we both agree to, that we consent to, we think will be kind of productive. And the last one is to get to the point of group dynamics and to what extent we're vulnerable to one another and accountable to one another. I think there's some decent conversational tactics that can get people into places of reciprocity. One of the places of reciprocity is very simple, which is giving compliments or giving compassion. You know, if I told you right now I really like your background, something inside of you might say, well, hey, I like your background two or whatever it is. There is a kind of very natural human impulse to engage in reciprocal communication. So what that means is if I'm giving very specific sources to back up my data, and you say something like, well, I saw the other day that and I'm like, well, I'm over here quoting studies and years and journals and, and author titles and you're like, well, the media says that lack of reciprocity can, can trigger people to behave that way. The same is true with conversational norms about are we insulting each other? Are we scoffing or we folding our arms? Am I rolling my eyes? And to all the kind of nonverbal ways that rejection can show up in conversation? And then finally, one way to do that is if I make a concession about doubts I have about my own side, or doubts I have about my own perceived team, that can help you a see me as more of an individual and less of a stereotype. And b might ask you then to confront the own what? Your own ways in which you're not 100% certain about the world, that you won't have it.
[00:35:20:08] Wilk Wilkinson: Right? Right? Yeah. There are so many things to to, I mean, so many ways that we can communicate more effectively and communication. The reciprocity thing, I think, stands out as much as anything for me, Michael, is, is when, when. Well, and I really like the norm setting thing too. But but the reciprocity thing and I talk about listening with intention and, and how listening with intention often leads to, you know, if I listen with intention, you have a much greater likelihood of listening to with listening with intention to me. And, and, and just the idea that we all have a story and, and none of us really know fully what the other, the other person is going through when we start to converse in such a way that that shows that we we value that other human being, they begin to value us. We start to work through our differences. We find out that we have a lot more in common than than we probably thought was possible. Like I said, there's a lot here that we could get into and and way too much for for a half hour conversation. Michael. But but I really wanted to bring to to the listeners a bit more about you, the work you do at the Civility Initiative, you coming on board with the advisors at the Pro Human Foundation. Just another great conversation with with somebody doing incredible work in this space.
[00:36:53:15] Speaker 3: And then. Yeah, and just, just.
[00:36:56:22] Wilk Wilkinson: In light of, of and directing this outwards towards, towards the listeners and anybody else who might be listening to this the first time. Do not be afraid to have conversations with people that you disagree with. And don't be afraid of the bridging space in general, because we're not the boogeyman that some people are making us out to be. Civility is really what it is. Civility. Being able to have conversations across differences without without demonizing that person that we're speaking with. I'm going to give you the last word, Michael, and then we will wrap up this this conversation. It's been fantastic.
[00:37:33:14] Michael Lee: Well, I'm grateful for this opportunity and grateful for the work that you do. And I grew up in the 1980s. And, you know, I learned that the number one, aside from quicksand and switchblades, the number one thing that you got to work out for is strangers and especially strangers and vans, and especially if they have candy. And so I'm really cutting against the grain when I say, I do think we need, of course, we need more bridge builders and, and maybe we need to talk to some more strangers to.
[00:38:02:03] Wilk Wilkinson: That's right, that's right. We'll keep your eyes out for that quicksand. Because anybody who grew up in the 80s saw it in every single television show, and I remember it all too well. Never seen any, but keep an eye out for it. And. But yeah, we definitely need to talk to more strangers. Every stranger can become a friend. Thank you, Michael Lee. I appreciate you, man. You're awesome and we will do it again.
[00:38:26:01] Michael Lee: Thank you so much for this is a real honor.
[00:38:28:17] Wilk Wilkinson: Friends, I want to thank you so much for tuning in. And if there's anything in this episode that provided exceptional value to you, please make sure to hit that share button. If you haven't done so already, please be sure to subscribe to get the Derate The Hate podcast sent to your email inbox every week. We really are better together. So please take a moment to visit Braver Angels and consider joining the movement towards civic renewal and bridging our political divide. This is Wilk wrapping up for the week saying get out there. Be kind to one another. Be grateful for everything you've got. And remember, it's up to you to make every day the day that you want it to be. With that, my friend. I'm going to back on out of here and we will catch you next week. Take care.
Comments & Upvotes