Both/And Debate Prep: How We Hear Both Sides

Consider yourself lucky. 

In 1858, two future Presidential candidates Stephen Douglas and one Abraham Lincoln squared off in 9 in-person debates for the Illinois State Senate seat. With more than 10,000+ in attendance at each stop, the two squared off in a format that saw the first speaker give their 60-minute opening statement, followed by the second speaker’s 90-minute rebuttal, only then to be followed up by the opening speaker’s 30-minute closing statement. That’s one hundred and eighty minutes of debate. 

Those were the days.

While tonight presents a slightly different palette of candidates, it still is about an exchange of thoughts, presumptions, ideas, jabs, takes and taunts in what we call our Presidential Debates. Since 1960, since the first Presidential Debate that took place on TV between a “young” Kennedy and a “sweaty” Nixon, what has taken place every four years in what I'll call the Great American Debacl- I mean debate, the candidates stand, speak, and as the cameras roll, the audience—a divided sea of red and blue—sits at home, ready to pick sides. 

But how do we hear the “other” candidate? And what happens inside us when we do?

In this edition of The Both And of It, let's step back and look not at the candidates, but at ourselves. What’s happening in our minds when our beliefs are challenged, and why do we hold on so tightly to "our side"? 

Spoiler alert: It’s not just stubbornness—it’s biology, history, and your Patriotic duty?. 

A Mind Divided Can Stand Against Itself: Cognitive Dissonance at the Heart of Debate

Imagine this: you sit down for the debate tonight, feeling confident in your choice. Well, a version of confident. These days I’m not sure anyone feels confident. Or good. Or interested.

I digress. 

The “opposing” candidate speaks, and suddenly, something they say makes sense. But instead of acknowledging it, you feel… uncomfortable. You squirm. You scoff. You make that noise you make when your Dad says something that he shouldn’t say out loud. And then you feel a bit of insecurity, and a sinking feeling hits your gut. 

Could that candidate be right? 

In a short and most simple for a newsletter way, that’s cognitive dissonance, a term we’ve heard a lot lately but originally coined by Leon Festinger. It’s what happens when new information conflicts with the beliefs you’ve held for so long. Or since 2020. Your mind doesn’t like this contradiction, so it does what it can to push the discomfort away. You cling to what you know, not out of ignorance, but out of instinct. 

Festinger’s research showed that when we experience dissonance, we often reject the new idea immediately—not because it's wrong, but because it feels safer to stay with what we believe. We lean into what we’ve already felt because well, it feels good. This doesn’t make it wrong because like a sneeze, we don’t have much control over the reaction

But here’s the catch: that doesn't mean minds can't change, it just means it takes more than one debate stage to do it. What your nephew or Grandma or maybe yourself needs, is to notice the reaction and then work to change or evolve the reaction to the reaction. 

But here’s the greatest paradox of all: changing or evolving past the dissonance takes actually listening to these debates. Hearing the gnashing of teeth that is your “opponent” candidate actually helps you. You might say it’s therapeutic. 

Did you spit out your drink? I’m sorry. 

But I’m not wrong. Festinger posited that people are motivated to reduce dissonance, because it’s uncomfortable psychologically by avoidance above all. In short: They change multiple behaviors. How? Let’s look at someone that doesn’t like flying:

-Behavior Change: Hate flying, good grab the Greyhound bus.

-Change their beliefs: those Wright brothers were anti-American you know.

-Justify their behaviors before action: Taking the Greyhound bus across the country is good for our economy, environment and it’s my patriotic duty. 

Keeping yourself away from the nuclear reactor that is our political climate isn’t a bad idea for 3 years plus, but engaging in making an informed and thoughtful decision is important for all of us. So the debates……help?

What’s more, when you throw in the fact that political debates consist of two candidates who are part of a party or “team” and now you really have the making for a perfect storm of entrenchment. 

Tribalism: The Brain's Love (no need) for Group Identity and Color Coordination

Why do the candidates wear the colors they wear? Because it looks good on them? 

You think hilariously long ties and pant suits are “peak Fashion choices? Then you might be a perfect political consultant. 

They wear what they wear because much like fans who wear their team’s gear to a game, home or away, we want ourselves and our candidates to signal we and they “in”. 

Studies show that when we identify with a group—be it a political party, a sports team, or even a belief system—our brain rewards us. That sense of belonging? It's literally lighting up the reward centers of your brain, thanks to neurotransmitters like oxytocin. Neuroscience tells us that when we reinforce our group identity, we feel good; it’s a biological advantage that helped our ancestors survive. Back then, sticking to the tribe meant safety and survival.

Neuroscientists like Marco Lacoboni found that our brain even perceives out-group members—those who don’t share our views—with a hint of fear. Our amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for processing threats, flares up when we see or hear something from “the other side”. 

So, is it any wonder that debates become more about defending our camp than truly listening?

When I was 10 years old I used to listen to University of Nebraska Cornhusker Football games while riding along on my bike with my radio taped to my handlebars. I’d listen as my team, the Huskers, took on foes and vanquished most of them.

I would also purposefully avoid one house near the end of my block.

Why? Because it had an Oklahoma Sooner flag up on most Saturdays in the fall and the feeling of riding by on Gameday legitimately made the hair on my neck stand up straight. I wanted nothing to do with that house. With that maroon-ick of a color and “Boomer Sooner” chants. 

No, I didn’t much like that. I wanted to avoid it. So I did. 

But what if I just walked up and said “Hi” and asked to watch a game? Besides not being optimal behavior for a 10 year old, I might have learned they weren’t all bad. And Sooner fans aren’t. I have many great friends who are Sooner fans and if we play each other on a Saturday in fall then that’s one day. 

But you can’t change my mind, the Huskers will always win. 

Can Minds Be Changed?

Here’s the rub: minds can change. 

It's just not as simple as throwing facts into the mix. Research on empathy and intergroup contact—that is, meaningful, positive interaction with people from the “other side”—can reduce this tribal tension. According to Pettigrew and Tropp, frequent and constructive interactions between opposing groups foster empathy, which lowers prejudice. 

And this is where the magic of both/and comes in. 

What if instead of focusing on our differences, we started with common ground? Empathy—like the butterfly wings in Lorenz's Chaos Theory from my last newsletter in (checks notes) February—can have ripple effects beyond the moment. It shifts our focus from the black-and-white, "us vs. them" thinking into a more nuanced appreciation of both sides with a grey calming color palette. 

Here’s the obvious paradoxical reminder: it’s possible to hold two opposing thoughts at once. 

When we embrace “both/and” instead of being trapped in “either/or”, this means listening to both sides, recognizing the value in each, and holding space for what may seem contradictory. It’s impact is slight. You’re not supposed to change your mind right away. You’re not expected to all-of-a-sudden change your Party affiliation, your candidate or your ways. 

But remaining open to the idea, to listening to an opposing viewpoint is a slight “nudge” towards gray and away from the dark and light extremes that polarity bring. 

Remember Lorenz’s butterfly? The minute shift of a wing changes weather patterns halfway across the world. Well, that’s not accurate (more than likely) for weather systems. But ideas? Or new ones and how your mind encodes them? 

That’s actually how it works with minds. In Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness’ Thaler and Sunstein talk about how in order to change behavior, or influence decisions, one of the more impactful ways to do this isn’t by browbeating someone over the head with rhetoric and dogma on the brightest of stages, no, it’s to change your default decision matrix.

While their work focused more on altering behavior rather than directly changing someone’s mind or beliefs, nudging is about influencing choices and actions in a way that is beneficial without forcing or coercing. For example, making the healthier option the default choice can nudge people towards better health decisions, but it doesn’t necessarily change their underlying beliefs about health or their intentions. 

If you go to the drive-thru window tomorrow at your favorite fast food spot (is it Runza or In and Out, or both?) and default to a healthier option, instead of not going at all, you might be able to both enjoy an indulgence and have to give in to the worst of the options available.

For this debate, that means defaulting to open-mindedness, or no thoughts whatsoever. Hearing both sides and then formulating your reaction to the reaction afterwards. There’s beauty in holding onto both.

The small shift of open-mindedness in today’s debate could have far-reaching consequences, long after the winner is declared.

And if tonight is that bad….there’s always a Patriotic ride on Greyhound somewhere. 

References:

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2013). The effects of intergroup contact on intergroup prejudice: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 709-730.

Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein's Book: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision Changes in the Person and in the Situation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1-34). Academic Press.

Tribalism: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/abs/tribalism-in-america-behavioral-experiments-on-affective-polarization-in-the-trump-era/9587F190ADE5C838F709FCF460BFCB98

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism