Podcasts about Peter Coleman

A conversation with Peter Coleman at the National Citizens Coalition.

Years ago, Case wrote a radio script that crossed over Superman with The Shadow. Now, he's gathered a host of actors to read it with full orchestration and foley!    Overview   In the Creative Collaboration and Script Reading meeting titled "The Shadow Meets Superman in The Searing Silhouette," hosted by Case Aiken and Jmike Folson, participants including Rachel Quirky Schenk, Geoff Moonen, Olivia Gilliatt, Ben Goldsmith, Peter Coleman, and Sarah Moonen engaged in a collaborative reading of the script. The meeting began with introductions and role assignments, followed by a two-part reading that introduced the characters of The Shadow and Superman, set against the backdrop of a major metropolitan law firm and a kidnapping plot. The discussion segment allowed participants to share feedback on the script, explore its historical context, and draw comparisons with other media crossovers. Additionally, tangential discussions covered related topics, such as pinball machines and potential sequels. The meeting concluded with a wrap-up where participants exchanged final thoughts and social media information, and Case Aiken outlined the action items, including editing the script for sound effects and encouraging ongoing conversations in a dedicated Discord server.   Notes Introduction and Script Reading (00:00 - 09:24) Case Aiken introduces the Men of Steel podcast Participants introduced: Rachel Quirky Schenk, Geoff Moonen, Olivia Gilliatt, Ben Goldsmith, Peter Coleman, Sarah Moonen Jmike Folson as co-host Script Reading Part 1 (09:24 - 18:08) Reading of 'The Shadow meets Superman in the searing silhouette' script begins Introduction of characters: Lamont Cranston (The Shadow), Margo Lane Setting established: Major metropolitan law firm Kidnapping plot introduced Script Reading Part 2 (18:08 - 28:35) Superman's introduction in the script Crossover between The Shadow and Superman storylines Investigation of the kidnapping case Interaction between Clark Kent and Margo Lane ️ Discussion and Feedback (28:35 - 40:33) Participants share thoughts on the script reading Case Aiken explains script background and influences Discussion of radio show era and character portrayals Comparison to other media crossovers Tangential Discussions (40:33 - 49:08) Conversation about pinball machines related to The Shadow Discussion about potential sequels or extensions of the script Participants share personal experiences and connections to the material Wrap-up and Social Media (49:08 - 58:48) Final thoughts from participants Sharing of social media handles and upcoming projects Case Aiken provides contact information and podcast details Discussion of Discord server for further conversations  

Wolf 359 creator Gabriel Urbina is back to present a quick preview of his new show Dracula: The Danse Macabre. It's a four-part adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, bringing the horror classic to audio fiction. Performed by just two performers - the incredible Evangeline Young and Change of Mind's Peter Coleman - who bring 15 distinct characters to life, it tells the story of the evil Count Dracula's plan to bring death and destruction to the new world... as well as those who would risk everything to stop him. Featuring a new score from Wolf 359 composer Alan Rodi and sound design by Unwell producer Jeffrey Nils Gardner. To listen to full episodes of Dracula: The Danse Macabre, visit their website or subscribe to the show's feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Pocket Casts. TRANSCRIPT OF TODAY'S MESSAGE: Gabriel Urbina: Hey everyone. My name is Gabriel Urbina. I'm the creator of Wolf 359, and the co-creator of Zero Hours, Time:Bombs, and Unseen. I'm back here on the feed to send you all a short transmission to tell you about a new audio fiction podcast I've made, and which you can listen to right now. It's called Dracula: The Danse Macabre, and it's a new adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. Over four episodes, it tells the story of the evil Count Dracula, his plans to leave his home of Transylvania to terrorize the new world, and the married couple who do everything in their power to stop him. It's the timeless horror classic given a new coat of podcast paint for the 21st Century, and the whole thing is performed by just two actors, who together bring 15 different different characters to life.  I wrote every installment of this adaptation, and I also got to work with some amazing people on these four episodes. Our two actors, Evangeline Young and Peter Coleman - the latter of whom you may remember from our Change of Mind special here on Wolf 359 - they are both unstoppable forces of nature. It has a new gorgeous score from Wolf 359 composer Alan Rodi and incredible sound design from Unwell producer Jeffrey Nils Gardner. And I was even able to twist our old friend Sarah Shachat's arm enough that she agreed to come by the studio and direct an episode.  You're about to hear a little preview of the show in just a second, but the first two episodes are actually out right now. So if you find yourself at all intrigued and you need some new spooky content in your life for the end of the year, please consider checking out Dracula: The Danse Macabre. There are links in the episode description for all the places where you can hear it. I hope you'll check it out, I hope you'll enjoy it, and - as always - thank you for listening.  TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRAILER: Woman: The rules that govern the vampire are well known. (Thunder crashes behind her. A storm grows in power beneath the following:) Woman: He does not die, but clings to life forever. (Dark, foreboding music plays beneath her words.) Woman: Having lost his own life, he must steal the life of others by drinking their blood. Woman: If a place is a home, he may only enter after he's been invited in. Woman: He is destroyed by the sun and cowers at the sight of religious symbols. Woman: He can be put to rest by a stake through the heart, or by the removal of his head, or by means of fire. Woman: And when he crosses a mirror... he leaves behind no reflection. Woman: And though the vampire may look like a man, all traces of intelligence vanish upon death, leaving behind nothing but a beast. There are no vampires that can think like a man. Man: None... except for one. (A powerful crash of thunder.) Announcer: Dracula: The Danse Macabre. A four-part fiction podcast event from Gabriel Urbina, the creator of Wolf 359, bringing Bram Stoker's timeless horror classic to audio. Coming November 13th, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tehani co-owns of Muses of Mystery, Melbourne's ‘go-to' store for all things magical, metaphysical and other-worldly. She is an initiated priestess, tarot card reader, reiki and shamanic healer- and she also has a quirky sense of fun and humour! Tehani joins Shannon and Laura to delve into her brand new book, Dark Arts and Crafts- Co-authored with Peter Coleman- this is a funny, practical and gorgeously illustrated guide for making magical items at home. Perfect for any budding witches or enthusiastic crafters - with an occult edge. Other topics included in this episode include Eclectic witchcraft, spell casting, and Tehani's Witchcraft journey. Charmed, and charming indeed! The Book!- Dark Arts and Crafts -13 Spells for Love, Money and Self-Care by Tehani Perham and Peter Coleman.  “Have you ever wondered what would happen if Wednesday Addams did a collab with Martha Stewart? If your answer to these questions is 'yes', then this is the book for you!” Buy your copy here.   Catch Tehani over on Instagram @Dominion Wept Get your shop on at Muses of Mystery Support Turns Out She's a Witch- over on Patreon, click below I want in!- The Patreon Coven!   Visit ⁠⁠AshaMoon⁠⁠ Of Earth and Ether Oracle ⁠⁠Get in touch, we would love to hear your questions and stories Email infobloom@bigpond.com Follow us, and DM on Instagram ⁠⁠@turnsout_shesawitch⁠⁠ Produced & Presented by Shannon Cotterill & Laura Turner. Post Production & original music by Matt Turner ⁠⁠@turnzout_media⁠⁠ 

This episode of No Hair Just Finance, we're excited to have Dr Peter Coleman as our guest. Peter holds a PhD in cultural studies from Monash University, where he also tutored in Eastern religion and philosophy. After transitioning from academia, he embarked on a career in the not-for-profit sector, where he now works as a consultant. Beyond his professional career, Peter is a registered marriage celebrant and even an occasional tarot-card reader. Peter's latest book, Australia's Most Bizarre Crimes, was published in July of this year and is available in all good bookstores through Affirm Press. Jean-Pierre (JP) is a distinguished co-founder of the SLA Group of companies, with over two decades of expertise in lending and banking. His journey is defined by spearheading intricate commercial transactions within the organisation. JP's extensive portfolio covers a wide range of lending transactions, including substantial commercial investment loans, leverage deals, structured equipment finance, and construction loans, some exceeding $750 million. In summary, Jean-Pierre is a luminary in commercial lending, celebrated for his leadership, extensive experience, and a record of accolades that reflects his unwavering commitment to excellence. With his recent awards in 2023, he continues to set the standard in the industry. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jpgortan/ His journey, marked by both business failures and personal successes, has forged him into a passionate individual with resilience and determination at his core. Notably, Dino established National Finance Brokers Day in 2015, further reflecting his dedication to raising awareness in the finance industry. For more information, please visit the website at:  https://www.nationalfinancebrokersday.com.au https://www.linkedin.com/in/dinopacellaofficial/ https://www.instagram.com/dinopacellaofficial/ https://www.facebook.com/dinopacellaofficial/ https://nationalfinancebrokersday.com.au/ Podcast Producer: https://piccolopodcasts.com.au/

Send us a textThe best bits from Mark and Caroline for breakfast on 92.7 MIX FM5 to 9am weekdays LISTEN LIVE: https://www.mixfm.com.au/More Mark and Caroline Podcasts here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2038628

Dr. Peter Coleman's book "Australia's Most Bizarre Crimes" is actually a pretty compassionate look at the mistakes made by people who've decided to attempt to commit a crime. People who really should have thought better of it. In many cases, the people featured in this book just weren't cut out for the criminal life. Dr. Peter Coleman joins us on Australian True Crime to share some highlights from his extensive research into Australia's most bizarre crimes.You can learn more about Dr. Peter Coleman, and purchase his book at the link here.Click here to subscribe to ATC Plus on Apple Podcasts and access all ATC episodes early and ad-free, as well as exclusive bonus episodes. For Support: Lifeline  on 13 11 1413 YARN on 13 92 76 (24/7 crisis support phone line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples)1800RESPECT: 1800 737 732CREDITS:Host/Editor: Meshel Laurie. You can find her on Instagram Guest: Dr. Peter ColemanExecutive Producer: Matthew TankardGET IN TOUCH:https://www.australiantruecrimethepodcast.com/Follow the show on Instagram @australiantruecrimepodcast and Facebook Email the show at AusTrueCrimePodcast@gmail.com Become a subscriber to Australian True Crime Plus here: https://plus.acast.com/s/australiantruecrime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a "Shortcut" episode. It's a shortened version of this week's more detailed full episode, which is also available on our feed.Dr. Peter Coleman's book "Australia's Most Bizarre Crimes" is actually a pretty compassionate look at the mistakes made by people who've decided to attempt to commit a crime. People who really should have thought better of it. In many cases, the people featured in this book just weren't cut out for the criminal life. Dr. Peter Coleman joins us on Australian True Crime to share some highlights from his extensive research into Australia's most bizarre crimes.You can learn more about Dr. Peter Coleman, and purchase his book at the link here.Click here to subscribe to ATC Plus on Apple Podcasts and access all ATC episodes early and ad-free, as well as exclusive bonus episodes. For Support: Lifeline  on 13 11 1413 YARN on 13 92 76 (24/7 crisis support phone line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples)1800RESPECT: 1800 737 732CREDITS:Host/Editor: Meshel Laurie. You can find her on Instagram Guest: Dr. Peter ColemanExecutive Producer: Matthew TankardGET IN TOUCH:https://www.australiantruecrimethepodcast.com/Follow the show on Instagram @australiantruecrimepodcast and Facebook Email the show at AusTrueCrimePodcast@gmail.com Become a subscriber to Australian True Crime Plus here: https://plus.acast.com/s/australiantruecrime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Retired Olympian Debbie Flintoff-King reflects on the Olympics; Dr Jen explains what it means to be in a “flow state”; Nat shares the story of how she got her ears pierced; film reviewer Simone Ubaldi reviews Irish film Kneecap; Peter Coleman talks about his new book Australia's Most Bizarre Crimes; the team discuss situations where one would make a scene; and director Adam Elliot chats about his latest stop-motion animation film Memoir of a Snail which is premiering at the Opening Night Gala of the Melbourne International Film Festival. With presenters Monique Sebire, Daniel Burt & Nat Harris.Website: https://www.rrr.org.au/explore/programs/breakfasters/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Breakfasters3RRRFM/Twitter: https://twitter.com/breakfasters.

Waffle On about Young Sherlock Holmes A brand new episode hits your ears with this 1985 romp starring Nicholas Rowe, Alex Cox and Sophie Ward.  Regular guest host Peter Coleman joins us again and along with meds  they jump straight into the episoder after watching the film.  Does Meds still have that hatred he had when he was twelve or has he grown up a bit, lets wait and see.  As always do please share our show, we always appreciate it. 

Columbia University Professor, Dr. Peter Coleman joins Max and Colleen on the Mindful Negotiating Podcast to discuss Toxic Polarization and The Way Out. Dr. Peter Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education, Director of the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (MD-ICCCR); Co-Director, Advanced Consortium for Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity (AC4), The Earth Institute at Columbia University

An exploration of Bahá'í-inspired approaches to depolarization building on what we've been learning over the past few episodes from the world's leading luminaries in this discourse.Part One explores what we can do to limit the influence of toxic polarization in our own lives and how we can best regulate our own behavior so we don't unintentionally contribute to the problem.Show notes:Dr. Peter Coleman's Polarization Detox Challenge: https://startswith.us/pdc/Gary Friedman: https://understandinginconflict.org/training/Chapters0:00 Introduction8:09 Five Principles for Depolarization10:26 Polarization as Social Pollutant21:41 An Etiquette of Expression29:10 Training for Depolarization31:32 Closing Thoughts

This week, psychology and education professor at Columbia University, Peter Coleman explains why in turbulent times at home and across the globe, Costa Rica remains peaceful and stable. In the aftermath of bloody conflicts, Coleman says, Costa Rica intentionally chose to stop war and designed their country around that vision.

How To Detox From Toxic Political PolarizationIn this episode, Columbia Prof. of psychology Peter Coleman joins Julian Adorney to discuss the concept of affective polarization and its role in fostering toxic polarization. He explains how affective polarization operates as an attractor, drawing individuals into cycles of animosity and antipathy towards opposing viewpoints. Coleman emphasizes the importance of sustained contact and engagement with individuals holding divergent political perspectives. He also discusses the need for guardrails and structural changes to combat toxic polarization effectively. The episode concludes with a call to action, encouraging listeners to participate in the Polarization Detox Challenge.TakeawaysAffective polarization operates as an attractor, drawing individuals into cycles of animosity and antipathy towards opposing viewpoints.Sustained contact and engagement with individuals holding divergent political perspectives is crucial for combating toxic polarization.Guardrails and structural changes are needed to address the deep divisions and hate in society.Times of destabilization present opportunities for individuals and communities to reassess their priorities and choose a more decent path forward.Who is Peter T. Coleman?Dr. Peter T. Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint-appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute. Dr. Coleman directs the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (MD-ICCCR), is founding director of the Institute for Psychological Science and Practice (IPSP), and is co-executive director of Columbia University's Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity (AC4).   Chapters00:00 Introduction and Gratitude03:15 Understanding Affective Polarization06:01 Affective Polarization as an Attractor09:18 Complexity Systems and Affective Polarization13:00 The Importance of Sustained Contact21:37 The Prisoner's Dilemma in Politics25:08 The Rise of Political Violence27:31 The Need for Guardrails and Structural Changes32:19 Opportunities in Times of Destabilization38:42 Taking Action: The Polarization Detox Challenge45:13 Conclusion and Call to ActionWhat have you done today to make your life a better life? What have you done today to make the world a better place? 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 everything you've got. Make each and 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 directly from our site. Please leave us a rating and feedback on Apple podcasts or other platforms. Not on social media? You can share your thoughts or request Wilk for a speaking engagement on our site's contact page: DerateTheHate.com/Contact If you would like to support the show, you're welcome to DONATE or shop Amazon by going through our Support Us page and I'll earn through qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you. I look forward to hearing from you!

Soon after Joe Biden became president he said in his inaugural address that wanted to bring Americans together, to forge unity. But maybe unity isn't what we should aim for. Our guest this week says instead of focusing on that elusive goal, Americans need to concentrate on what's damaging all of us: toxic polarization. In this episode we look at what toxic polarization is, how it got worse in recent decades, and how to end it, person-by-person. We learn about the role played by Common Ground Committee and other groups— local and national— in the bridging community. Peter Coleman has advised the Biden administration on how to detoxify America. He is a well-known mediator and psychologist who specializes in conflict resolution. A professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, he is the author of the book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.

Waffle On about A View To A Kill Hello and welocme to part 2 of 12 celebrating 1985. On this episode we are very lucky to be joined by regular guest host Mr Peter Coleman. He adores this movie, and so does Meds. Kell however has other feelings.  Roger Moore stars in his final adventure in the tux, he looks a bit ropey bless him but we love the old spy and he bows out with some dubious stuntmen and some even more dubious face lifts. Still banter is large on this episode so we hope you enjoy it.  As usual please do come along and join our Facebook group, we have a great friendly community there and you get to have extra waffle fun.   

Conflicts are inevitable — both at a global scale and in our personal lives. This week, in the latest in our US 2.0 series, psychologist Peter Coleman explains how minor disagreements turn into major rifts, and how we can defuse even the most salient of disputes in our lives.Interested in learning more?For additional ideas about how to keep conflict from spiraling, check out our conversation with researcher Julia Minson. And for a look at how violence shapes political outcomes on a global scale, be sure to listen to our interview with political scientist Erica Chenoweth. 

How Outrage Addiction Hijacked Our ConversationsPeter Coleman discusses the current state of political polarization in America and offers practical strategies for bridging divides and fostering understanding. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the "exhausted middle majority," the majority of Americans who are tired of the vitriol and division in politics. Coleman explains that the perception gap, where each side believes the other is more extreme than they actually are, contributes to the polarization. He suggests intentionally complicating our understanding of complex issues and seeking out diverse perspectives to combat oversimplification. Coleman also introduces "The Challenge," a four-week program designed to help individuals and communities engage in civil discourse and find common ground.Support the showShow Notes:https://outrageoverload.net/ Follow me, David Beckemeyer, on Twitter @mrblog. Follow the show on Twitter @OutrageOverload or Instagram @OutrageOverload. We are also on Facebook /OutrageOverload.HOTLINE: 925-552-7885Got a Question, comment or just thoughts you'd like to share? Call the OO hotline and leave a message and you could be featured in an upcoming episodeIf you would like to help the show, you can contribute here. Tell everyone you know about the show. That's the best way to support it.Rate and Review the show on Podchaser: https://www.podchaser.com/OutrageOverloadMany thanks to my co-editor and co-director, Austin Chen.

This week, psychology and education professor Peter Coleman explains that conflicts and disagreements are not just normal in relationships but actually a good thing - we don't learn without conflict.

Psychology and education professor Peter Coleman explains that conflict is “a necessary component of the human condition.” As the Director of the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University, Coleman has worked with families, communities, and entire nations on building constructive resolutions and sustainable peace. Coleman says that humans have the ability to cooperate, resolve conflict, and solve problems together because we're “fundamentally hardwired to need each other. We don't learn without conflict.” 

“A remarkable combination of scientific insight, practical guidance, and grounded hope.” —Adam Grant, #1 New York Times bestselling author of THINK AGAIN Toxic polarization and conflict is exhausting. Whether it's in your family, at work or in our perpetually acrimonious civic life, it's like a suitcase full of big ole rocks we lug around while we try to get the usual tasks of life-y-ness done.  Our UNUM journey has brought us thinkers and leaders from sea to shining sea, but now we're turning intentionally to see THE WAY OUT — and it turns out that really being able to see it is a key first step in being able to do it. Columbia University's Peter T. Coleman brings us deep wisdom informed by a life in scholarship that leaves us more hopeful than the usual fare. Know that when we listen to Peter, we do cartwheels of joy — and who doesn't need joy right about now? Facilitated by BridgeUSA's Manu Meel, this is a must-listen if you're looking for The Way Out. Learn more about Dr. Coleman and read a full program description online here. Pick up a copy of The Way Out (you'll thank us) at our partner bookseller Midtown Reader (wherever you live). Peter T. Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint-appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute. Dr. Coleman directs the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution.  — The Village Square is a proud member of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Funding for this podcast was provided through a grant from Florida Humanities with funds from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those of Florida Humanities or the National Endowment for the Humanities.  

Speaker of the House Anthony Rota resigned yesterday in the wake of his recognition of a Ukrainian Nazi veteran in the House of Commons last week. The Liberal government has said Rota alone is to blame – not Justin Trudeau or anyone else in cabinet. True North's Andrew Lawton says it's not so simple. National Citizens Coalition president Peter Coleman joins to discuss. Also, the Canadian Constitution Foundation is challenging a Calgary bylaw restricting protests of drag story game under the guise of banning “hateful” messaging. Meanwhile, Waterloo, Ontario councillors are weighing whether to ban communication that makes people “feel harassed.” Joanna Baron of the Canadian Constitution Foundation weighs in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An interview with award-winning scholar, Dr. Peter Coleman, sharing his research at Columbia University's 'Difficult Conversations Lab', exploring the variables best contributing to bringing antagonistic groups closer together.In this 'power hour', discover the main principles which have emerged in thescientific literature for effective depolarization.  This includes the benefits of complicating the narrative, the power of movement, pursuing a common goal, the limits of contact theory, appreciating the temporal dimension of change, positive deviance, shaping first impressions, articulating theories of change, maintaining a strong positive-to-negative comment ratio.  Dr. Coleman also shares details about his 4 week, daily training program, 'The Challenge'.Key references:Cross-cutting structure (4:24)https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088437Movie: A Walk in the Woods (20:11)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Walk_in_the_Woods_(film)Habitat for Humanity (23:04)https://www.habitat.org/Movie: The First Step (24:15)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Step_(film)Allport's Contact Theory (27:02)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesisPositive Deviance (33:56) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_deviancehttps://www.amazon.com/Power-Positive-Deviance-Unlikely-Innovators/dp/1422110664Blum's Islands of Agreement (35:19)https://www.amazon.com/Islands-Agreement-Managing-Enduring-Rivalries/dp/067402446XDerek Kilmer (37:48)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_KilmerSensitivity to Initial Conditions (39:03)https://sites.psu.edu/academy/2016/04/25/sensitive-dependence-of-initial-conditions/Chasin's Public Conversation's Project (40:53)https://www.publicconversations.org/Popper's Clock vs Cloud Problem (44:31)http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Clouds-and-Clocks.htmlThe Negativity Bias (47:20)https://positivepsychology.com/3-steps-negativity-biasGottman's Love Lab (48:52)https://www.gottman.com/love-lab/Starts with Us - The Challenge (52:17)https://findingthewayout.startswith.us/--Chapters:0:00 Introduction8:40 Complicating the Narrative15:53 The Power of Movement 23:47 Pursuing A Common Goal26:04 Contact Theory33:03 Positive Deviance38:27 Shaping First Impressions42:37 Theories of Change46:31 Positive/Negative Ratio50:48 The “Challenge”53:50 Advice for Baha'i Communities56:05 Closing Thoughts

In this weekend's episode, two segments from this past week's Washington Journal – focusing on the country's polarized politics and strategies to bridge the political divide. First – we speak with Peter Coleman, author of “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization" and Pearce Godwin – Founder and CEO of the Listen First Project – about the importance of engaging in quote/unquote "constructive disagreement" with people across the political aisle. Then – Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Director of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center – discusses the role of civics education in strengthening democracy and promoting citizenship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If 87% of people are sick and tired of being divided we have more in common than we think. Daniel Lubetzky — philanthropist, social entrepreneur, and founder of the Kind company — is committed to understanding how we can come together to solve our most intractable problems. As a Mexican immigrant and son of a Holocaust survivor, Daniel believes fervently in our ability to overcome obstacles like hatred; he built his non-profit, Starts With Us, to help us find common ground. This episode also features Columbia psychology professor, Peter Coleman. His book “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization,” offers concrete tips on what each of us can do to achieve what so many of us want: solutions.  Want to be a know-it-all? Subscribe to Wake Up Call, our jam-packed newsletter. Monday through Saturday, we break down the top news stories of the day, answer your pressing questions, and scour the internet for the best entertainment tidbits, streaming recommendations, recipes, and health and wellness tips. To sign up, go to katiecouric.com, or click here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Peter Coleman is the EU Marketing Manager at Ecobat Solutions, a world leader in the production of lead, lead alloys, and the recycling of lead batteries. Peter began his career in motorsports working for a track day company organizing events around the UK at venues including Silverstone and Donington Park. He was a brand manager at Bridgestone North Europe as well. Since 2017 Peter has served on the Editorial Board of the British Racing Drivers' Club Bulletin, based at Silverstone.

The modern internet is powered by recommendation algorithms. They're everywhere from Facebook to YouTube, from search engines to shopping websites. These systems track your online consumption and use that data to suggest the next piece of content for you to absorb. Their goal is to keep users on a platform by presenting them with things they'll spend more time engaging with. Trouble is, those link chains can lead to some weird places, occasionally taking users down dark internet rabbit holes or showing harmful content. Lawmakers and researchers have criticized recommendation systems before, but these methods are under renewed scrutiny now that Google and Twitter are going before the US Supreme Court to defend their algorithmic practices. This week on Gadget Lab, we talk with Jonathan Stray, a senior scientist at the Berkeley Center for Human-Compatible AI who studies recommendation systems online. We discuss how recommendation algorithms work, how they're studied, and how they can be both abused and restrained. Show Notes: Read all about Section 230. Read Jonathan Stray and Gillian Hadfield's story on WIRED about their engagement research. Read more about the two cases before the US Supreme Court. Recommendations: Jonathan recommends the book The Way Out by Peter Coleman. Mike recommends the novel Denial by Jon Raymond. Lauren recommends Matt Reynolds' WIRED story about how you've been thinking about food all wrong, and also getting a bag to make nut milk. Jonathan Stray can be found on Twitter @jonathanstray. Lauren Goode is @LaurenGoode. Michael Calore is @snackfight. Bling the main hotline at @GadgetLab. The show is produced by Boone Ashworth (@booneashworth). Our theme music is by Solar Keys. If you have feedback about the show, take our brief listener survey. Doing so will earn you a chance to win a $1,000 prize. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

McConnell Center welcomes Dr. Peter Coleman to discuss the work that informs his book The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Dr. Peter T. Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint-appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute. Dr. Coleman is a renowned expert on constructive conflict resolution and sustainable peace.  Important Links Dr. Coleman online: https://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/peter-t-coleman-phd  Dr. Coleman's book: https://www.thewayoutofpolarization.com/   Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.

Amanda Ripley began her life as a journalist covering crime, disaster, and terrorism. Then in 2018, she published a brilliant essay called “Complicating the Narratives,” which she opened by confessing a professional existential crisis. We journalists, she wrote, “can summon outrage in five words or less. We value the ancient power of storytelling, and we get that good stories require conflict, characters and scene. But in the present era of tribalism, it feels like we've reached our collective limitations … Again and again, we have escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation."Yet what Amanda has gone on to investigate — and so, so helpfully illuminate — is not just about journalism, or about politics. It touches almost every aspect of human life in almost every society around the world right now. We think we're divided by issues, arguing about conflicting facts. But at a deeper level, she says, we are trapped in a pattern of distress known as “high conflict” — where the conflict itself has become the point, and it sweeps everything into its vortex. So how to get out? What Amanda has been gathering by way of answers to that question is an extraordinary gift to us all.Amanda Ripley is an investigative journalist who sometimes describes herself as a "recovering journalist" — and a trained conflict mediator. She's written several acclaimed books, including High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out. You can find her essay “Complicating the Narratives” on the Solutions Journalism blog. She is the co-founder of the company Good Conflict and hosts the Slate podcast How To!. Find the transcript for this show at onbeing.org.___________Please share On Being lavishly — with friends, family, book clubs, colleagues… wherever curiosity, conversation, and joyful shared pondering happens in your world. And show us some love, if you have a minute, by rating On Being in this app. It's a small way to bend the arc of algorithms towards this community of conversation and living.Also: sign up for our Saturday morning ritual of a newsletter, The Pause, for replenishment and invigoration in your inbox — and of course all things On Being — at onbeing.org/newsletter. And delve more across our social channels: (Instagram, YouTube, TikTok).

A regular question we always ask our quests on Queer Writes Sessions is “What is your hope for LGBTIQA plus communities?” In celebration of World Pride we have created this Hope Episode, where we have brought together all our wonderful guests' responses, sharing their hope for the Rainbow communities. Featuring Renee, Lil O'Brien, Alison Evans, Nevo Zisin, Nigel Featherstone, Professor Gregory Phillips, Cadance Bell, Peter Coleman, Tobias Madden, Jemimah Brewster, Jonathan Butler and Kate Hall. Happy World Pride everyone.

Peter Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University and Director of the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. He's a renowned expert on constructive conflict resolution and sustainable peace, and among many other things, he's also the author of over 100 articles and chapters, as well as multiple books, including The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.   LINKS: The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization book: https://www.amazon.com/Way-Out-Overcome-Toxic-Polarization/dp/0231197411/ref=sr_1_1?crid=320NUI2UB5TM&keywords=the+way+out+peter+coleman&qid=1675118327&sprefix=the+way+out%2Caps%2C166&sr=8-1   Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution:  https://icccr.tc.columbia.edu/   Peter Coleman TIME Magazine article:  https://time.com/6222633/second-civil-war-us-how-to-avoid/   The Abortion Talks docuseries:  https://whatisessential.org/the-abortion-talks   Finding The Way Out Political Courage challenge: https://www.startswith.us/findingthewayout   Edited by Nicole Gibson Music: Soulmates by Yigit Atilla Support the podcast: https://www.peacecatalyst.org/peacemaking-podcast  

What makes some people better at managing disagreements than others? Bradley talks to Peter Coleman, professor at Columbia University, about putting human conflict under the microscope in his Difficult Conversations Lab.

Today's guest on Word for Word with host Lisa Daniel is Peter Coleman. Pete has a PhD in cultural studies from Monash University, where he tutored in Eastern religion and The post Peter Coleman appeared first on Word for Word.

In this episode I speak with Peter Coleman, professor of psychology and education at Columbia, a renowned expert on constructive conflict resolution and author of, "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization," whose wakeup call was working one on one with in patient troubled violent teens and youth, who would leave and be readmitted and realizing that the problems underlying their problems and intractable conflict were much more multifactorial. https://www.thewayoutofpolarization.com/about-the-author

Queer Writes Sessions with RWR McDonald and Peter Coleman

Matt and Peter took advantage of the pandemic and wrote a book that they had long been talking about. Two mates who met at Uni 20 years ago have collaborated on the Memoirs titled Weekends with Matt. It's about wine and friendship and together they tell Simon and Richo some of the tale. For the rest of it you will need to buy the book! https://affirmpress.com.au/publishing/weekends-with-matt/ @thewineshowaustralia @danmurphys_richard

The January 6th hearings are a reminder of the impact of hatred for the other side and toxic polarization. We are rigidly divided by our politics, Facebook and other social media sites, and by news media. Nearly half of us have stopped talking with someone about political topics as a result of what they said in person or online. Our culture of contempt is dividing us all and making America ungovernable.How do we use science and proven methods to reduce toxic polarization and push back against conflict entrepreneurs? This episode presents a way forward.We repeat this episode with Peter Coleman, who is a leading expert on intractable conflict and sustainable peace. Peter is a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University and director of the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. Peter's new book is "The Way Out. How to Overcome Toxic Polarization."We discuss research on how deeply divided societies can and do change. We learn more about the role you can play to navigate these times most effectively – as well as what to look for in groups and organizations in your community that are already at work making America more functional again.In this episode, Peter praised the work of the Bridging Divides Initiative, a group that tracks and mitigates political violence in the United States. The initiative supports efforts to grow and build local community resilience throughout elections and other periods of heightened risk, laying the groundwork for longer-term efforts towards reconciliation.Recommendation: Jim is listening to the podcast series, A History of Rock Music in 500 Songs, a history of rock from 1938 to 1999, hosted by Andrew Hickey. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This episode looks at how conflict exists within organisations and team dynamics. However, much of what I will talk about with my guest will also have relevance to all areas of conflict. From my anthropological background and as an organisational consultant, I frame conflict as part of culture and not something that sits outside culture and threatens it. Instead of running away from conflict one can reframe it as a form of communication……it is trying to tell us something that, maybe we do not want to hear because it might hold uncomfortable truths or taboos. In this episode I speak to Alex Efthymiades who is an expert on workplace conflict and mediation. She is the co-founder of Consensio Partners and works with organisations offering training and mediation. A few years ago I had the privilege of training under Alex and it empowered me to be able to situate conflict at the core of much of what I do as a organisational consultant and team coach.  Alex brings to the conversation many important and interesting insights. One thing she said was that “every human relationship has conflict….and that is not a bad thing but a necessary thing”. She defines conflict as a “breakdown of relationships (that) can be something quite small that can become something quite big”.  Too often we see leaders shy away from address workplace conflict at an early stage and Alex and I talk more about why this is the case. Alex also explains the 3 main myths around workplace conflict.  If you are interested in organisational culture, leadership, coaching, HR, the social sciences and psychodynamic approaches of organisational consultancy, then this episode will give you a deep understanding to why conflict exists in the workplace and how it can be addressed.   Show Notes: Alex: LinkedIn Consensio Partners References cited: Dr. Brene Brown,University of Houston, https://brenebrown.com/books-audio/ Dr. Peter Coleman, Columbia University, https://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/peter-t-coleman-phd Dr. Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School, https://amycedmondson.com Dr Marc Brackett, Yale University, https://www.marcbrackett.com  John: Twitter LinkedIn JC & Associates Decoding Culture Newsletter Training Programme TEDx Talk

Division is nothing new in America, but something about this moment feels different. Why are we so angry, fearful, and ever more deeply entrenched in our safe little bubbles of like-minded people? More importantly, how do we get out? In this episode, the root causes of toxic polarization in America today, practical advice on bridging our differences, and the story of one man trying to change the narrative one difficult conversation at a time. Guests: Dylan Marron, author, “Conversations with People Who Hate Me.” Amy Chua, Yale Law School professor, author, “Political Tribes,” and “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.” Peter Coleman, social psychologist, Columbia University, author, “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.”

My guest is a self-described lucky bastard, grammy-winning engineer Richard Dodd who has worked with Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison, Clannad, Mike Moran, Del Newman, and Brian Protheroe. In this episode, we discuss: Luton Beginnings School Band Peter Coleman Ashley Howe Discovering Recording at 14 First Professional Recording Gig Put Up or Shut Up Counsel Housing Electronics Apprentice British Aircraft Corporation Late Night Friday Sessions Lansdowne Studios Cassettes Studio Interview Golden Questions Leaving His Apprenticeship Studio Trajectory in England as a New Engineer From Within the Rabbit Hole Trying To Fit In LA - Like Walking Into The Movies Overcoming Studio Hazing Recording All Night at 17 Atomic Rooster  Solid Family Life Dropping in For the First Time Gerald Chevin Helping Annie Farrow Respect for Musicians Stanley Myers  Editing Tape - No Redos Going Freelance Matt's Rant: The Role of Gear Links and Show Notes Richard's Site Matt's other Instagram Account WCA on Instagram Connect with Matt on Linkedin Current sponsors & promos Credits Guest: Richard Dodd Host: Matt Boudreau Engineer: Matt Boudreau Producer: Matt Boudreau Editing: Anne-Marie Pleau  WCA Theme Music: Cliff Truesdell  Announcer: Chuck Smith

Peter Coleman joins on this episode of Access Utah to help us dive into why we are so politically polarized, and why it's making us miserable.

Welcome back to Moorditj Mag for 2022! This week sees hosts Jim Morrison and Nick Abraham pay tribute to trailblazing First Nations advocate, actress and Arrernte Anmatjere woman Rosalie Kunoth Monks who sadly died aged 85 this week. They discuss her powerful and memorable 2014 speech on ABCs Q&A program in which she addressed politician Peter Coleman's calls for the 'assimilation' of Indigenous Australians and celebrate her influential career. Student and Bardi Yamatji man Jarred Travis joins to team over the airwaves from Melbourne to discuss his career in law and the visibility of First Nations folk in higher education as well as his life as a student. Later in the episode Jim and Nick discuss January 26 and it's different meanings for different people. Be sure to tune in to more Moorditj Mag next Thursday 11am on RTRFM 92.1. This podcast is edited by Danielle Raffaele.

 Matthew Bishop (MB): Hello, this is Matthew Bishop with Books Driving Change. And today I'm talking with Peter Coleman of Columbia University, one of the co-founders of the Difficult Conversations Lab, which explores what do we do about toxic conversations, a subject that hopefully won't refer to the conversation we're having together now -- which will hopefully be a very positive conversation. But, obviously, we are at a time of increasing polarization in the world. And a lot of conversations seem to end up being more counterproductive than productive. Peter has written a book called The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization, which is something that anyone listening to this podcast will want to know the answer to. So Peter, can I just start by asking you in one sentence, given the audience that this podcast has of people engaged in trying to bring about positive change -- why should they read the book?Peter Coleman (PC): Well, thank you, Matthew, for having me. So the reason I wrote the book is that I feel that there is significant misunderstanding of the nature of the problem of what I call “toxic polarization”, which is unlike typical forms of polarization -- it's more extreme, it's more entrenched, it's more long term. And so what I offer in the book, and I think is relevant to your listening audience, is a different theory of change. Typically, how we think about addressing things like political polarization is that we go after key pieces of the problem. But we don't understand how the problem works as a whole, as a system, as a series of forces that kind of align and feed each other in complicated ways. And this book offers an alternative theory of change, it contrasts our typical kind of scientific approach of looking for the essence of a problem, and says this problem of toxic polarization has many essences. And more importantly, these essences align and feed each other in complex ways that really make it, as a cultural phenomenon, highly resistant to change. And so it's important that we understand how problems like these, wicked problems, actually do change, and what to do about them based on science. And so that's why I wrote this book -- to offer this alternative theory of change.MB: And it is an optimistic book, fundamentally, which is interesting because you start talking about how everyone's feeling so miserable now, and this is actually a reason for optimism. Why do you make that point?PC: Well, because one of the things we've learned from the study of deeply divided societies that actually do come out of this time and pivot into a more constructive direction, is that there are a couple of basic conditions that often are associated with that kind of change. One is that there is a sufficient level of misery within the political middle -- what in ripeness theory they call a “mutually hurting stalemate”, where you are sort of exhausted and fed up and really don't want to continue to engage in the same way, and you want to do something different. And certainly in America, but in many places in the U.K. and around the world, there is a growing, exhausted, middle majority that's fed up with the political vitriol that we see, the dysfunction that we see, and really seeking an alternative. So in that way, the ground is ripe for a movement that offers people a vision for how to change. But in addition to being miserable, they need to have some clear sense of what to do. What is the alternative? What are the steps? And that's why I wrote this book.MB: I'm very struck by how you are coming at this -- as someone who, as you talked about in the beginning of the book, grew up in a very difficult situation. You weren't in a well-to-do family, your father was being pursued by violent men, I think you say for gambling issues, you ended up getting your Ph.D. after a long and difficult process and welfare support, and all sorts of things in a single-parent home. And you know many people. You identify as much with Trump supporters in some ways as you do with his critics. About halfway through the book, you say, “Dear reader, I hope half of you are Trump supporters and half of you aren't”, or words to that effect. This is such an unusual voice at the moment, given the politics that we're seeing in America, and as you also say, around the world. How do you feel we can get beyond this pro-Trump/anti-Trump mindset and get to some of these underlying systemic changes that we need?PC: My journey to some degree is unique, because I was born in a place and at a time with folks that were disenfranchised, and I was as a young person I kind of worked my way out of that. And now I live this Columbia University professor on the Upper West Side of Manhattan [life], which is a very progressive arena. So I've experienced both worlds, and have empathy for both worlds. And ultimately, I think that's the question -- is how do we create some kind of trusted process or system where people can rediscover the empathy that we have for one another, and rediscover some sense of unity and connectedness? And again, what I propose, or what I argue, is that this is hard. We are, in some ways, in a mass addiction. I see toxic polarization as a bio/psycho/social/structural process like addiction. It's something that's within us, it's, in some ways, [something] we've embodied in our neurological structures -- how we see the world, what we react to emotionally. So there's a kind of basic internal component of this, but then there are psychological components. And it's embedded in our relationships -- who we speak with, who we don't speak with. It's embedded in the media that we do and do not consume, in the internet spaces that we do and do not travel to, and even physically where we go in our life. So there are many levels and layers to this trap that we're in. And it's not going to be something easy to escape from. It's not just that we decide, Okay, I've had enough of this, I'm moving on. We definitely need to have that. But we really need to recognize that this is going to be hard work. And some of the folks that have read the book have suggested, Wow, this is hard work. And the answer is yes. John Paul Lederach, a colleague of mine who does a lot of peace building around the world, once in Northern Ireland said to a Northern Irish audience, “It's probably going to take you as long to get out of this conflict as it did to get into it.” And he said, he almost got thrown out of the room. Because people don't want to hear that, they want to hear that there are simple solutions. What I lay out is a sequence of processes, strategies, steps, that can move us in a much more positive direction. But they're not simple answers to this complex problem that we're embedded in.MB: One of my takeaways from the book is, and you also refer to it in various points in the book, this notion of “complicate things” as a way to to help. Because there is a tendency to think quite simplistically about this. Those of us that are saying, “Let's try and heal the divide, or let's try and put a Trump voter in a room with a progressive and the hope that they'll figure things out.” And it's all quite naive. Where do people tend to go wrong when they try to take that approach?PC: So that approach is based on something called “contact theory'', which Gordon Allport developed in the ‘40s and ‘50s, to break down racism in this country. And it is the basic idea that if you have groups of people that have no contact with each other, no connection to each other, that sometimes just bringing them together and having them realize that each one is a human with kids and interests, and they like music, and they like to dance, and they start to rehumanize members of the other group. And that can have a transformative effect. And that's a very powerful theory and model that's often used in intergroup disputes. But when you have groups of people that are deeply passionate, deeply ideological, and living in parallel opposing media echo systems, then just saying, Go off and have a cup of coffee in the same room and chat with one another, can easily backfire. And in fact, if you push some of the people that encourage such interventions these days, they'll tell you those stories of these well-intentioned, well-designed interventions that blow up and that backfire. And in fact, there is Pew Research suggesting that when people get together across political divisions these days, the vast majority of us leave those conversations more frustrated, more alienated from the other side. So it doesn't help, typically, under these conditions, to just bring people together. And so what I argue is that we need to know what the science tells us. Contact theory has been studied over 500 times for decades. And what we know is that there are certain conditions where that works. And there's certain conditions where it doesn't work. And when you're dealing with true believers, it doesn't work, it's insufficient.MB: And you illustrate this at the start of the book with this discussion, or description, of an effort around the anti-abortion/pro-choice debate in Boston, where a number of leaders on both sides were brought together, and they met together over over a period of time, and it seemed to make a difference. Can you just explain what was the magic sauce in that approach? PC: I think tenacity, courage, and perseverance. So there was an incident that happened. Boston in the ‘80s and ‘90s was a very divided place. It's highly Catholic, 36% Catholic population. And the abortion debate was very hostile and intense in that community and becoming increasingly so. And then in 1994, there was a horrific shooting that took place in a couple of women's clinics -- women were shot dead, harmed, injured, and it was a rupture. And it really kind of destabilized the status quo. And so the Archdiocese and the Governor and the Mayor were all calling for sort of talks. And how do you change a culture of vitriol and hate through talks? It seems to be an almost impossible thing to do. So there was a group called the Public Conversations Project. And I tell this story in the beginning of the book, because I think it's a great parable for our time. We too, in the pro-Trump/anti-Trump world or pro-Brexit/anti-Brexit world, we are true believers in some ways.MB: The abortion issue is coming back up on the agenda in America in a big way, in that true believer way, is it not?PC: Absolutely yes, it's being triggered in multiple states simultaneously. So, it is a parable of our time. But what happened was, this group called the Public Conversations Project had been doing dialogue processes with pro-life/pro-choice groups, bringing them together before the shooting. And so they had a network there. And what they did is they reached out to three prominent pro-life leaders and three prominent pro-choice leaders, and they said to them, “Would you consider just coming together for a couple of weeks, and have some conversations in order to prevent further violence and kind of bring the temperature down?” And all of these women were afraid of the other side, literally. The pro-life women met in a Friendly's restaurant and prayed to God that they would be forgiven for sitting down with these evil murderers. And the other side was very afraid of their reputation and their physical safety, especially in the wake of this violence. But they agreed to come together, they talked for about a month, and albeit difficult, it went well enough that they decided to go to the one year anniversary of the shooting. And the conversations continued. And they actually had in-secret dialogues, clandestine dialogues, between these six people and the facilitators that their families and communities did not know anything about for five and a half years. And then in January of 2001, they came out publicly in the Boston Globe, they co-published an article called Talking With the Enemy -- which I'd recommend that your readers or your listeners read. And they talk about this experience and how it changed them and their relationships and their understanding of the issues. And ironically, and I think, importantly, they all to a person became further apart on the issue of abortion. Their attitudes on the issues became even more crystallized, so that they still fundamentally differed on the issue. But their relationships and care and respect for one another, and care for their community, and the rhetoric they used in their activism, all changed fundamentally. And that interaction with those six women and two facilitators had first and second and third order effects in the Boston community in how activism around these issues were taken up and what the rhetoric was. And ultimately, they think even sort of affected the movement more broadly in terms of bringing down the temperature of hate and vilification of the other side.MB: That goes to one of your points about, Let's get away from the actual point of dispute in these situations and think more about the context, the broader context, that things are operating in, and find common ground in the context, which you can build on. PC: They were able to recognize that they all cared for women -- young, pregnant, teen pregnancy. That they had common interests about violence and keeping violence at bay in the community and protecting one another from that. They could actually write grants together. And ironically, this was 25 years ago, and today, they're still friends. It's still a group of people that celebrate births and deaths and come together when they need support. So they grew very fond of one another. And they fundamentally differed on this issue. And that is the essence here. It is when policy becomes personal and becomes ideological. [For example when we] take things like “Let's build the wall” or “Not build a wall” as the slogans for immigration, we lose a sense of the immense complexity of immigration policies and over simplify the issue that positions them. And then we're nowhere, that's when we get stuck.MB: So what would you draw as lessons from that for today and how the abortion debate might play out less harmfully, then some people feel it will do now, in America?PC: What I do in the book is try to use the evidence-based science that has been done by our group and by other groups, and pull out five basic principles of what helps to basically navigate the way out of these toxic times. And I use this case as a parable, because I think it illustrates all of the principles in many ways. And, so that's why I use it as a story to begin. And then what the book moves into is what are the areas of research that have shed some light on this? One of the things that happened in Boston, that led to [the conversations], was this shock of the shooting, this destabilization. And you could say that, certainly in the U.S., the political vitriol and the January 6 attack on our nation's Capitol was such a destabilizing moment. In addition [we have] the racial injustice that's happening, and COVID shutdowns, and the Delta variant, and the exhaustion from all of that, so this nation is a nation that's destabilized. I imagine you're seeing similar things in the U.K. these days, with the consequences of Brexit, and COVID. But that kind of instability, as I suggested earlier, is good, if we take advantage of it as an opportunity to reset, and to really start to question some of the basic assumptions on which we make our decisions. What kind of future do we want to have? How do we move forward? Do we take advantage of this time as a time of reflection? So again, to go back to addiction metaphor -- what we find with addicts is that A) they need to bottom out, and then B) they need to have the kind of support that allows them to start to do a searing inventory of their life and their choices and how they want to move forward in their life. So similarly, I think that's what this time, this kind of extraordinary time, provides us. But it does require that we all do that work. But what I argue is that's hard to do. In fact, I just wrote an editorial that I submitted to Politico last night, which is calling for a national movement, like AA in America, that takes advantage of the fact that this is an extraordinary time, but people need help. They need help in knowing what to do. They need support, knowing how to do it. And in the U.S., there's a website called the Bridging Divides Initiative, which is out of Princeton University, a woman named Nealin Parker has developed it; and it has an interactive map of the U.S. you can go to it, click on it, and it tells you where the bridge building groups in your community are physically located. And so what she's identified is that there are at least 7,000 or more of these bridge building groups across the nation that are doing this work of bringing red and blues together in a safe space that's facilitated, that's careful and secure, to encourage people to get to know one another and to work through these issues. But what the challenge is for us as a movement is that most of these groups work independently. Some of them are connected to other groups, but largely, these are independent movements that spring up in communities. And so there is no sense of a movement. There are “1000 Points of Light” as George H.W. Bush used to like to say, which are community-based groups, or sector-based groups, working in journalism, or government, or education, that are trying to bring people together. MB: Do you think we need a movement?PC: I think we need a movement. I think we need a movement, because otherwise the challenge with this, the availability of these places, it's most people don't know about them. And there's a good reason that they don't know about them, because the sensitive nature of the work that bridge builders do across political divides in heated times can be a magnet or attractor for negative attention, violence, or protest. And so people generally like to keep low key. But what happens then is that Americans, or Brits, or others, are unaware of these things. And there's also no kind of standardization, there's no sense of what is the best practice that we should be following, what is the evidence base. And there's no capacity for this community of 7,000 plus organizations to come together politically, and really go after some of the structures that are driving this in the business models of the major tech platforms, or the entertainment-isation of news media. These are part of the industrial outrage organizations that are driving so much of this vitriol. So a movement is something that I'm calling for, is something that I'm envisioning the value of, but we're a long way from there. We have a lot of good work being done in communities. And helping people recognize that and find them is a start, because these are very hard change processes to go through alone.MB: You talk in the book about how something called the “bombshell effect'' can be very important in terms of breaking out of a status quo and creating the possibility of change. And you actually refer to the Trump election as being potentially one of those bombshell effects. And I would imagine that you see COVID in similar lights, although those obviously mostly happened post you writing the book. And I just wonder, in both of those cases, what do you see already happening that makes you feel optimistic that those two particular bombshells might cause significant progress out of some of the toxicity that we're seeing?PC: Well, because there's some evidence that there is actually work that's being done to address this. So the bombshell effect comes from something called “punctuated equilibrium theory”, it's a theory and a model that came out of biology originally as a sort of challenge to some degree to evolutionary theory. And it argued that oftentimes there is some kind of major shock that takes place that allows communities to change - what we have mentioned on a few occasions already. Paul Diehl and Gary Goertz have studied the conditions where international relations are heated for decades, contentious, where you have active war or cold war, and then the change of those relationships are usually preceded by these shocks, these bombshells. It might be a coup attempt, it might be the end of the Soviet Union, 9/11. These kinds of major political shocks can really destabilize. But the effects take time. And these shocks don't guarantee change. They just create the conditions where changes are possible.And so this is all part of this alternative theory of change that I mentioned at the onset -- which is that we typically think that in a problem like polarization we can go in, and if you [for example] fix gerrymandering, or if you get rid of Trump, or if there is the kind of single sovereign thing that we need to do, and that will affect change. And what this science suggests is No, when you have deeply embedded cultural patterns, it takes a different kind of shock to destabilize it enough. And then people need to take advantage of that time, in order to make these shifts.The other insight from this research that I point to is what we call the “butterfly effect”. And what that suggests is that after an upheaval, our next choices, the things we do to begin to connect across the divide -- how we do that, what our intentions are -- these first next steps are very critical, because they'll set us off on another trajectory.And ironically, I provided some guidance and advice to the Biden transition team, as they were coming in, they had reached out and asked for me to write some briefs on the science. And Joe Biden was talking about healing the soul of the nation and uniting the nation in his campaign. And I said, that's all well and good, but it's premature. Because you don't go into war zones and talk about reconciliation, or you get shot.[We need to recognize] that this state of polarization is toxic for us, in terms of our own mental health, in terms of our physical health, in terms of relations in our families, or divisions in families, communities, it's a highly toxic time. And recognizing that that is a common enemy, we can kind of come together in service of that. But you asked for some evidence of how the shocks are working. And let me just give you one example. There is a group in Congress called the Select Committee for the Modernization of Congress. And it's a mechanism that our Congress has when things are broken to at least put together a temporary committee to work on it. So about a year ago, they were put to the task of trying to work on depolarizing Congress. And it is a bipartisan committee. There's Republican and Democratic co-chairs -- they split the budget, they have consensus decision making. And their objective is to look critically at the structures of Congress, how Congress does its work, and make recommendations for how to bring the temperature down and reintroduce more decency into the legislative process. They offered Nancy Pelosi 98 recommendations at their one year mark. And then most of the Congress wrote policy and said, Extend this group, we need this. And so they will have a mandate now to work for another two years, trying to take a hard critical look at the incentive structure of Congress and what needs to change and shift in order to affect the vitriol that is there in the belly of the beast.Let me give you one specific example: Freshmen Congress people that come to D.C. on their first day, typically show up and are put on separate buses -- a red bus and a blue bus -- and they drive off in different directions and they start the war council, they start the strategy about how to defeat the other side. And that's the first thing they do on the first day. And so their first recommendation was don't do that. Bring them together in service as citizens of this country, as servants of this country, and have them meet each other and build some kind of rapport and shared vision before you move into political camps. And so that's what they're systematically trying to do. And that has come from January 6th, and come from the vitriol that we see in Congress, and the dysfunction of Congress. And so when there are these kinds of extreme shocks, there can be reactions like this that can ultimately over time have positive effects.MB: Because I suppose on the surface you look at Congress at the moment, and it seems to be more fiercely partisan than it's ever been. It's interesting that there is enough recognition within the Congress that they need to do something about that, that this committee has been given extra lifespan on it.PC: Absolutely. And they recognize that most of what we see of Congress is the things that happen in front of the camera. So one of the recommendations is that they create more spaces for congress people to get together that are away from the cameras so that they can speak candidly and openly and have some kind of contact, and build some kind of rapport. And they're not constantly positioning for their public audiences. So yes, we all get a sense that it's as bad as ever. It's not good. But the good news is that there is a cohort of them that recognizes that and are actively working to try to change the structures in order to change the climate.MB: So throughout the book, you draw on evidence from your Difficult Conversations Lab, and I just love the name of the lab - besides anything else, it just really gets immediately to the point. But I wonder if you would back the clock to when that lab was founded, and what's been the biggest positive surprise, and what's been the biggest negative surprise for you over the years?PC: So we built this lab -- we got funding about 15 years ago from a foundation. A group of us [got funding] from the James S. MacDonald Foundation, who tend to fund people that have kind of wild ideas but aren't ready for NSF funding. So sort of crazy but possible ideas. And we put this team together of complexity scientists and anthropologists and psychologists and this eclectic group of mathematicians. We had an astrophysicist, a modeler, and we were tasked with trying to think about long term stuck conflicts, things that go on for 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 years. And political polarization in the U.S. currently has about a 60 year trajectory of increasing vitriol. And so this is one of these more intractable kinds of problems. So we came together to study this, to make sense of it, to try to bring lenses in from complexity, science, physics, and biology that help us think about when do communities or family systems get stuck. And what are the conditions under which they change? And so we were studying this and we wrote a bunch of papers and mostly theoretical pieces. But we needed data. We needed to be able to collect data in real time to see if our half baked notions were valid. So one of the things we did is we built these Difficult Conversation Labs, one at Columbia, in my space, and then a former student, who's a colleague now, Katharina Kugler, built one in Munich, Germany, as well. She was very central to the development of this. And it really was just a space, that is what we call a “capture lab”, which allows us to bring people in who differ on a moral issue or have different political views, and then study the conditions under which conversations over divisive issues, go well or go poorly. And I have to repeat that, because what this Difficult Conversations Lab is, it's a laboratory, it's a place where we study the phenomenon. And so we've tried different kinds of interventions, to see what helps the conversations, shepherds them into more constructive directions, versus where are the places where people just shut down and get frustrated and angry and it devolves into a shouting match. That's what we study. And the challenge I found is I've had journalists approach me and say, Oh, okay, well, I want to bring a team of people there that are having a dispute, and we want you to solve it. And I'll say No, we're a research lab, we study conditions where things go better or worse. I can tell you what our evidence suggests. And you can apply that in your situation. But that's not what we offer. You know, people come into our lab and don't solve the abortion debate. They don't solve the Trump debate, but they can have conversations that they're willing to continue, and they feel like they've learned, and they feel sufficiently positive about themselves and their understanding and the other party that they'll continue the conversation. Much like the women in Boston did around the divorce abortion debate. So what we try to do is study specifically those conditions and the main take home that we've identified is really the difference I guess, between what I would call dialogue and debate in how people communicate in this country, and in the U.K. as well and elsewhere. So many of us in Western society are trained for debate. I was trained in high school as a debater; we see it in our Congress, we see it in political campaigns, we see it on television. It's how we assume people talk about politics. And debate is a very particular form of communication. It's basically a game that you're trying to win. In a debate, I have a position, I'm trying to sell it to you, I'm listening to you in order to identify flaws in your assumptions that I can weaponize in order to show you that I'm right and win the game. And that's a very specific form of cognitive process, it's a much more closed and focused process. Dialogue is fundamentally the opposite. Dialogue is a process of learning and discovery, where we communicate with each other in a way that [means] I may learn things about my positions -- why I hold them, where they came from -- that I wasn't even really conscious of. I'll learn things about the nuance or complexity of the issues that we're talking about, and learn things about you and where you've come from and what your take is. So it's a fundamentally different process of learning and discovery that is much more nuanced, and much more complex in people's understanding of the issues, and the other, and of their emotional experiences, and ultimately, how they treat each other. And so that's the main distinction that we found is that when we set people up for a debate -- so for example, we'll take an issue like pro-life/pro-choice and we'll present people with both sides of an issue -- and then they begin. And what happens when you present people with that kind of information in that manner, is that they pay a lot of attention to the facts that support their position, and they ignore the other side. This is something called “selective perception''. And then they come into these conversations armed for war, and battle, and they go into debate and it escalates and they get stuck. And ultimately, they want out. Alternatively, if you take the same information -- the pro-life/pro-choice set of facts -- and say, Abortion is a highly complicated set of linked issues -- there are moral issues or religious issues, there are family issues, physical health issues, physiological issues, it's a complex constellation of things -- here's that information, have a conversation about it, and try to reach some kind of consensus in your understanding. And if you frame a conversation like that -- which many dialogue groups will do, they'll say, No, they're not two sides to this, there are five sides to this -- those types of conversations tend to be more nuanced, and less certain, and less vitriolic. And people move into very different kinds of experiences of themselves, the other, and the issues. Which can be very transformative, and encourage them to at least continue the conversation. And that's the primary learning that we've walked away with -- that these conversations don't have to go poorly. But typically, for example, in our media, what we do is we present two sides, right? There's a pro-Trump side and the anti-Trump side, and we pit them against each other and have them go. And it is the business model of much of the media because people are drawn to conflict, and they like provocation. And so they enjoy it. It's like a reality show. But they learn about their own side, they don't learn about the other side. And the understanding that they walk away with is over simplified.MB: Is there an alternative media model to that? That could be about dialogue?PC: Yeah, there is. So a colleague of mine, Amanda Ripley, wrote an important piece for a group called Solutions Journalism, which is an organization that supports journalism. And she did a study of conflict resolution and mediation processes; she came and participated in our lab. And she wrote a piece called “Complicating the Narrative”. And it really is a challenge to journalists that they reflect critically on basically the business model behind how they do their reporting, and how they in fact contribute to polarization, and how they might actually begin to mitigate it by using different strategies. So, she lays out a series of steps for journalists to consider. Solutions Journalism then went with that piece and ran with it and now have a program where they train journalists to think differently about how they do their work in a way that introduces sufficient nuance and complexity in the context and is still compelling. So they recognize that there is a need to have an audience that will engage. But they also recognize the either intended or unintended consequences of oversimplification of these complex issues. So there is a movement in journalism to mitigate that, to affect that, to change that. But it is going against a huge business model that is all about provocation in order to gain attention. MB: Well, this has been a very rich conversation. And, we're almost out of time, so I wanted to end by asking you a question as we think about our audience of people who feel they want to get involved in being change leaders in today's world, they maybe want to be those bridging leaders. Obviously, your book has got lots and lots of ideas and tips and laws and rules and all sorts of things in it. But is there one overall overriding piece of advice you would have for someone who wants to get involved in that form of public service? PC: Sure. Well first of all, I would strongly recommend that they read the book. And that they reach out and engage with me -- I'm more than happy to have continued conversations about it. But one of the wondrous benefits of these hard times is that there are more and more groups and organizations -- there's a group called Starts With Us, there's a group called FixUS, there are many different constellations of either thought leaders or change leaders -- who are taking this time seriously trying to understand what to do and how to do it, and trying to learn the science. So there are many groups and organizations to engage with. Again, one place to go, if you're in the U.S., is the Bridging Divides Initiative and you can see where the local community-based places are. But there's the Bridge Alliance as well, which is a constellation of significant organizations like Search for Common Ground, that have made a pivot to the U.S. and are now focusing locally in the U.S., or Generations for Peace, which is a youth-based organization that is also now pivoted to the U.S. and is shifting focus from international peacebuilding to domestic peace building in the U.S. So there is a lot of energy and movement in the nonprofit world to work in constructive ways, in different sectors, and at the community level. So there is a lot of opportunity to do that. But I would begin by taking a look at the book and getting back to me with your questions and challenges, and insights.MB: And the book is The Way Out. Peter Coleman, thank you very much for writing it, and thank you for talking with me today with Books Driving Change. Thank you very much.PC: Matthew, my pleasure. Thank you for having me.We hope you are as inspired by these podcasts as we are. If you are, please subscribehere, or wherever you get your podcasts (Amazon Music, Apple, Google, Spotify, Stitcher), and please rate us and write a review so others can find their inspiration.  This transcript has been lightly edited for context and clarity.

Such a delight to re-connect to my colleague from many moons ago – Peter Coleman – who, just for the record, is not my relative. Our paths crossed beginning sometime around 1995, at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, the “ICCCR” at Teacher's College, Columbia University, where we worked together on many cool initiatives until I left around 2003. My partner Ellen Raider, with whom I had been delivering intercultural negotiation programs around the world, brought me into the Center after connecting with Mort Deutsch – who is often referred to as a grandfather of conflict resolution, and perhaps the grandfather of conflict resolution in the west. At the Center, Ellen and I created the first certificate program in conflict resolution at Teacher's College – which included collaborative negotiation, mediation and then a growing list of related and interesting skill sets like using large group processes to resolve conflict and create systemic culture change. At the time of my arrival, Peter was a graduate student, Mort Deutsche's protégé – and I watched him rise to where he is today as head of the center and now a well respected social psychologist and researcher in the field of conflict resolution and sustainable peace -- probably best known for his work on intractable conflict. Prompted by the publication of his new book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization, I asked Peter to join me on the podcast for a conversation -- and draw from his book, his work, his life (anything that he felt was most relevant) to address the role of gender, gender equality, gender transformation, and its connection to building a more peaceful, democratic and sustainable world.  He agreed and we had a great conversation which we bring to you now. As those of you who have followed me on this podcast know I -- along with many --believe that getting gender “right”, the role of gender, moving beyond outdated patriarchal structures, is THE foundational challenge to building a much more peaceful, sustainable and pleasurable planet for humanity and other living creatures By way of example, allow me to repeat the poignant and on target words of Shabana Basij-Rasikh, who is the co-founder and president of a School of Leadership for women in Afghanistan who said recently in the Washington Post: "Educated girls grow to become educated women, and educated women will not allow their children to become terrorists. The secret to a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan is no secret at all: It is educated girls." That statement makes me want to cry. What a tragic but accurate comment after the countless lives lost, the total pain for so many Afghans now, and the trillions my country just wasted in our two decades of war in Afghanistan the costs of which were so intelligently tracked by The Costs of War project who we had on this podcast a while back. Using military or policing force is not generally the best solution to conflict – genuinely meeting people's needs is. It's not that complicated. But moving beyond the money that drives the choice of using force is complicated, and we need to figure this out like, yesterday. So, here are some of what I call my “favorite frames” from Peter's and my conversation: Reminiscing about our early years at the ICCCR – and a moment when we had a room filled with teachers, guidance counselors, principals from all the approximately 188 New York City schools – the largest school system in the country and perhaps the world, convened to learn critical negotiation and conflict resolution skills. It was awesome; The seeds that were planted in Peter to do a life's work in the field of peace and conflict – his reflections on himself as a 7-year-old, the influence of being raised by women, turbulent times in Chicago, the presence of Martin Luther King, the “macro-worry” that began to build in his young awareness of social justice issues and the related conflict about them; A conference he convened to change the conversation from ‘negative' peace – like addressing violence prevention and atrocity mitigation to ‘positive peace' – like creating communities that will foster harmonious relations in which destructive conflict is far less likely to erupt. Similar to why I moved from doing more traditional mediation to more “upstream” organizational mediation, using organization development methodologies, or getting conflicting parties to focus on the positive thing they are trying to create v. the negative thing they are trying to avoid or, like in the health field, focusing on what creates health and allows humans to flourish rather than having a disease orientation. An energy follows where we place our attention kind of idea — which is super important. Anyway, Peter's conclusion was that the conference was a huge failure because no one wanted to talk about positive peace with the exception of Doug P. Fry, who we also recently interviewed on this podcast. And, another frame, how at that same conference he had invited Abby Disney – the creator of the amazing film series Women War and Peace, who kept raising her hand and saying, I don't want to be the gadfly but – how can we talk about the mitigation of violence without talking about gender and men and their role in this? Peter and I shared our appreciation of Sebastian Junger's 2016 book, Tribe, where he reported a profound observation of how early American settlers that had been captured by native tribes, when given the opportunity to return to the European colonies did not want to go back, without exception, because they preferred their lives among native communities; And the frame that most stands out to me, and unfortunately is a discouraging one. Peter tells the tale of working with the amazing Leymah Gbowee, who I have mentioned many times on this podcast, to create a Women Peace and Security program at Columbia, that would provide technical and financial resources to some amazing younger women I think mostly from Africa who have been doing peacebuilding work. Like the badass Riya Yuyada who I interviewed a while back on this podcast. In spite of the huge need for the program and the thousands of applications to it, the program sadly is closing this year. And that's in spite of the fact that Leymah is Leymah, an amazing woman, a Nobel Laureate, and if you don't know who I'm talking about, watch Pray the Devil Back to Hell a documentary created by Abbie Disney about how Leymah and other women, a way that only women could pull off, brought an end to the Liberian civil war. The program was not able to raise the $25,000,000 needed to keep the program open in perpetuity, a paltry sum given the amount of money that is flying around on this planet. And this was in spite of the fact that you couldn't have a more compelling person spearheading the program – the poster child of the Melinda Gates foundation of Oprah. And that's not because of any shortcomings on Leymah's part but much more about where our level of consciousness about what's going to create a world that we all want to live in for the next number of centuries. It's a fact that reinforces my belief that we women really need to get our ovaries together when it comes to money and how it's spent. As I mentioned in my episode about women money and power with Barbara Stanny Huson, women, at least in the US and maybe even globally are coming into huge financial resources, some say will have the majority of the financial resources in the 21st century. This is undoubtedly mostly white women in the US, sitting on so much dough that if we chose to actually use it in powerful ways we could really make a big diff to the world our kids are inheriting. As Barbara said, and I say now, Women's issues with using and taking charge of the resources we have little to do with our capacity and a lot to do with our ambivalence about power. So many of us still want men to take care of money for us and we have to stop doing this. Anyway, there are many more great frames from this conversation with Peter including insights about women and negotiation, social constructs about “the masculine”, “the feminine” and war, whether or not getting rid of binary gender pronouns is a peace movement, and --what it's been like for him -- as a white, tall, good looking dude working in a cauldron of conversation around conflict, peace, social justice and identity. So thank you Peter, and hope you all enjoy this rich episode.

If you change your mind because you're telling people what they want to hear, and you're trying to curry favor or get the approval of your constituents, you're doing that for purely political reasons. And you are flip flopping, and we should be critical of that. But what if you change because you've encountered stronger evidence or sharper logic? That's not flip flopping, that's called learning. And I think we ought to separate the two and start to recognize that some leaders when they change their position, it's because they've actually evolved their thinking, and they have better ideas than they did when they developed their earlier stance. – Adam Grant Matthew Bishop (MB): Hello, this is Matthew Bishop with Books Driving Change. Today, I'm talking with Adam Grant, the author of Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don't Know. Adam is an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School and the author of a number of bestselling books, including Originals and Give and Take. In this book, he addresses one of the big themes of today, which is that we seem to be in a world where our leaders feel they have to be right about everything. They don't seem to think again. They seem to double down on bad ideas when those ideas don't work. People are becoming more entrenched in their opinions. There seems to be less concern about facts and learning and more sort of just sticking to your guns come what may. And this book is really a challenge to that mindset and, actually drawing on a lot of science, about how do we create an open mind, both as individuals and also in society? So, Adam, I wanted to start by asking you this question: our audience is made up of people who are feeling some kind of call in this pandemic to public service to building back better. I'd like you to tell us in one sentence, why should they read your book?Adam Grant (AG): I think they should read my book, because 2020 forced us to do a lot of rethinking and my hope for 2021 is that we do our rethinking more deliberately, and more proactively. And this book is about the science of how we can question a lot of the assumptions and opinions and even outdated knowledge and beliefs that are holding us back. MB: So, in the book, you talk a lot about how to create a learning mindset, to be open to being wrong, and so forth. What are the practical tips that you would highlight for leaders as they try and move us in this world of entrenched opinions back to that more open-minded approach to leadership?AG: As far as practical tips, I think the first thing I would say is, when you make a plan, make a list of the conditions that would change your mind. It's so common for leaders to roll out a plan, and then find out that maybe it was the wrong choice. And get stuck in this trap of escalation, of commitment to a losing course of action, where they double down, they invest more time, more energy, and more resources. And then the cost of failure just gets higher and higher. One of the major reasons that escalation of commitment happens is people are too motivated to rationalize their behavior. They want to convince themselves and everyone else that they made the right call. And that means they actually stay wrong longer. As opposed to recognizing that the faster I admit I was wrong, the faster I can move toward getting it right, which last time I checked is where they want to land. I think the danger of committing publicly to a plan is that it becomes attached to you and you become attached to it. It becomes your baby. If you can separate your ideas from your identity, and say, "Okay, this is a plan I'm going to test. And right up front here are the things that might happen. Here are the early signals that would lead me to course correct or maybe pause to rethink it. “If I identify those upfront, then I can keep myself honest.MB: It's interesting that I think social media and, in fact, many of the forces that are shaping the world we live in at the moment, seem to play well to the kind of leader that is the opposite to the sort that you talk about in the book. The sort of person that is really about simple opinions, polarizing opinions, never being wrong, sticking to their guns. Seems like we live in a world where it's incredibly hard for our leaders to be humble. To admit that they are fallible human beings. That they can get things wrong.AG: I think that we put so much of a premium on conviction, confidence, and certainty; when what we should be elevating in leadership is the confidence to be humble. I think it takes an extraordinary amount of security to admit what you don't know. You have to be fairly confident in your strengths to acknowledge your weaknesses out loud. I think that we've had too many leaders, especially over the past 15 months, who have felt tremendous pressure to say I have all the answers, as opposed to taking what I would say Jacinda Ardern modelled much more effectively, which is to open with, we don't have the answers. We're not sure what it's going to take to stop COVID. And because of that, we're going to take some pretty drastic measures. As the science evolves, as we learn, this may change.MB: One of the forces that you talk about very persuasively in the book is this human tendency to what you call the escalation of commitment? Can you tell us a bit about that?AG: Well, a lot of people think that escalation of commitment is driven by sunk costs, right? You put your name, your reputation, your money, your time behind a course of action and then it seems like it's not going to pan out. You think, well, if only I try a little harder, especially in this world that worships at the altar of hustle and praises to the high priest of grit. If only I just persist a little bit longer, I can turn this thing around. And, yeah, the economic factors do matter. But the biggest drivers of escalation are not economic, they're emotional. It's about ego and image. I don't want to admit to myself that I made a stupid decision, or I might be an idiot. And I don't want anybody else to think I am either. So, it's easier to try to convince myself and everybody else that, you know, I'm not throwing good money after bad. I am heroically persevering.MB: And in that moment when you are faced with a choice of admitting you were wrong or the error is more complex than you think, why is it that today so many of our leaders are choosing to sort of double down on being wrong?AG: That's a great question. I mean, there's been a lot of social science trying to dig into that in the last few years. And I think one of the most compelling answers is that we've made the mistake of equating consistency with integrity. That when somebody changes their mind, we call them a flip flopper or a hypocrite. And I think we need to be more nuanced about that. If you change your mind because you're telling people what they want to hear. And you're trying to curry favor or get the approval of your constituents. You're doing that for purely political reasons. You are flip flopping, and we should be critical of that. But what if you change because you've encountered stronger evidence or sharper logic? That's not flip flopping, that's called learning. I think we ought to separate the two and start to recognize that some leaders when they change their position, it's because they've actually evolved their thinking, and they have better ideas than they did when they developed their earlier stance.MB: You quote the case of Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, who has had quite an interesting year or so where he's been flavor of the month and quite hated by the public, and the media response to him quite early in the pandemic, saying we don't know what to do, so we're going to do something and see how it works. You quote approvingly that the New York Times was very critical at the time. I wonder about the role of the media. You know I spent all my career in the media, even in one of the more nuanced publications like The Economist, but the media is always wanting to reduce complexity to simple narratives of this person versus that person, this tribe versus that tribe, this country versus that country. I mean, how do we change the way the media helps society be more open to thinking again, and to dealing with doubts and complexity and experimentation?AG: Oh, good question. Well, first of all, I disapprove of Andrew Cuomo's leadership. And, in fact, that anecdote was a little bit of a head fake, and the real source of the quote and the story is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. So, there's a little bit of a twist in there. But I think the fundamental question of how we can get the media to help is something that I rethought while I was writing Think Again. I believed going in that the solution to all this polarization was for people to see the other side. And the data convinced me that, in fact, seeing the other side is not a solution, it's actually part of the polarization problem. The biggest mistake that the media consistently makes is they amplify two extremes. What does that do? Let's say, for example, you're on one side of the abortion debate or the gun debate or the climate change issue. If you see only the opposite extreme, those people sound stupid and wrong and crazy. You might even think they're evil. So, what are you going to do? You're going to become even more extreme and more entrenched in your own camp. What we need to see is the complexity of the issue. We need to see the nuances, the shades of grey. And so, whenever somebody in the media says, "Well, here's one side and here's the other side," what I want to know is, what's the third angle? What's the fourth perspective that's missing here? There's some research by Peter Coleman and his colleagues in Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia, where they show that just presenting the same issue, not as two sides of a coin, but instead as if you're looking through many lenses of a prism, is enough to get people to rethink some of their extreme convictions and become a little bit more open minded and more nuanced in their thinking. I think the climate issue is a great example of this. Because if you look at the data, the media has actually paid more attention to and done more amplification of climate deniers, then they have of climate scientists. And if you look at where people's stances actually are in most developed countries, the vast majority of people are not in a denial camp. If they're skeptical, they might be uncertain about how severe climate change is. Or what exactly is causing it. Or what all the different solutions might be. What we need to do is raise up those voices and say, you know what, there are a lot of people who recognize that climate change is happening, that there are human decisions that are contributing to it, and there are things we can do about it.MB: I suppose the simple response that a media executive would give to me if I made that pitch to them would be, actually simple conflict sells and some black and white messages. Things that reinforce people's existing positions will play into deeper psychological biases and trends that are in there, than complexity and nuance. How do you make complexity and nuance engaging to an audience that is willing to pay for it?AG: Well, I would say to that media executive, that's your job to be creative about telling the truth in all of its complexity and shades of grey. And, I think obviously, it's very hard to make nuance go viral. But I don't think it always takes that much to signal complexity and to add a little bit more of it into the conversation. For example, there's some research, this is a little bit meta, but the evidence tells us that just saying “more research needs to be done” is enough to trigger people's awareness. Okay, you know, we haven't fully understood this problem yet. Or we don't have all the answers yet, right. That's a helpful step for journalists to take. Another example would be just to cue the complexity of the problem or the solution. So, you know, one of my favorite headlines reads, "Scientists say that planning a trillion trees is probably not going to fix climate change." Right? And immediately, what does that do? That activates for you an awareness that, okay, this is a really thorny issue. And we can't just fix it by planting a bunch of trees. I wonder what else would work. And that ignites my curiosity. Makes me more skeptical of a silver bullet that somebody might be trying to shoot at the problem. That seems to be good for the conversation. It doesn't stop people from clicking and engaging, right? In fact, it makes me want to know, it creates a curiosity gap. I want to know, well, what's wrong with planting a trillion trees? What else might be helpful here?MB: I did wonder whether a late-night politics show called 50 Shades of Grey might sort of attract an interesting audience, maybe the wrong way audience. But another area that you touch on in the book is vaccination denial and how to address that problem, not actually in the context of the COVID virus, but obviously with massive resonance for that issue. You talk a lot about persuasive listening as a way to change minds. Can you just talk a little bit about that, specifically, in terms of maybe what we should be doing now with the vaccine refusers and COVID?AG: Yeah, I think one of the systematic mistakes that we're making is we're doing way too much preaching and prosecuting, right. So preaching is “vaccines are safe and effective, and everyone should get one.” Prosecuting is “you're wrong if you're not getting one. Why don't you believe the science? Why are you endangering yourself and, you know, your community?” What seems to be much more effective is showing humility and curiosity. Approaching the conversation by saying, "You know what? I don't know what's motivating somebody to be resistant, and I'm awfully eager to find out." The research on this has been spearheaded by a vaccine whisperer named Arnaud Gagneur. He applies a technique called motivational interviewing, where you say instead of forcing somebody to change their mind, what if you try to help them uncover their own motivation to change. So, Matthew, I'll give you an example of this. I have a friend who is very resistant to the idea of any vaccination. I swore a few years ago that I was never going to talk to him about the topic again. Because, you know, I saw him as stubborn and pigheaded, and he saw me the same way. It was not good for our friendship. Then COVID happened. I'd written this whole chapter about persuasive listening and I thought it was an opportunity to figure out whether I could practice what I teach, and have a thoughtful, open-minded discussion with somebody who I knew did not share my views. I approached it really differently. Instead of going into logic bully mode and trying to win a debate with him. I started asking questions to learn. The pivotal question that I asked was, "How likely do you think you are to get a COVID vaccine?" And he said, "Well, not very. Like, the odds are pretty low." And I was stunned. I said, "Why didn't you say zero? I was sure you were going to say I will never get one of these." He started listing all these reasons why. He said, "Well, you know, maybe if I'm 85 years old, I'm not concerned about the long-term risks. And, you know, if the contagion rate is really high, and the mortality rate is extremely high, then I probably roll the dice and take my chances." All of a sudden, I saw all this complexity and ambivalence that I had never heard from him before. What those kinds of questions do, is they allow people to recognize all of the uncertainty in their own attitudes. To say, yeah, I have some reasons for staying the course and not getting vaccinated. But there are also some forces that would lead me to consider getting vaccinated. Then you can try to encourage them to reflect on what would have to happen for them to say yes. Ultimately, it's not your place to change their mind, right? What you want to do is get them reflecting on what might lead them to opt in.MB: That's very helpful. And you talked about preaching and prosecution, and you also have politician. You have these three Ps, these types of personalities we get into when we do get into this sort of unthinking mode. I wonder a lot, and going throughout the book, you have great moments of humor throughout, whether you thought about offering up the comedian as the sort of figure that actually is the one figure in society at the moment who can speak these truths about uncertainty and experimentation and not being black and white about things. Because, you have this great example of Melinda Gates reading feedback from her staff at the Gates Foundation about some things where she actually ends up reading a tweet that has a swear word in it, and how that completely changed the dynamics in the room between her and her team. I do wonder, is humor going to be the way that we navigate to a better place as a society? Is that what leaders should be trying to figure out how they can deploy? Self-deprecating humor, I mean, more often than attacking humor.AG: I think it could be helpful. This is such an interesting idea to consider because my first reaction was no. If you look at the data on The Colbert Report, for example. Yeah, liberals found him hilarious and brilliant in pointing out what they saw as all of the fallacies and contradictions and flaws in conservative thinking. And conservatives took him as sort of making fun of a liberal's caricature of a conservative and said, yeah, the joke's on the liberals. Right? And so, it didn't get through to the people that he was trying to persuade. But then when you shift this into self-deprecation, I find myself thinking again and saying, yes. I think one of the hallmarks of humility is being willing and able to laugh at yourself. To say, I take my work seriously, but I don't take myself too seriously. If you can't laugh at yourself, every time you make a mistake, you're going to feel pressure to cover it up, to hide it, to rationalize it, to explain it away. Instead of saying, I was a little bit dumber yesterday than I am today, and here's what I've learned from that experience. And yeah, I think comedians are a great model for self-deprecation. I will say that, unfortunately, the research on gender stereotypes that's been published recently suggests that men can get away with self-deprecation, whereas women tend to be vilified for it. When men make fun of themselves, they're judged as more competent. Wow, he's really confident in his strengths. He's willing to laugh at his weaknesses. When women do it, they are judged as incompetent. It's seen as a signal of insecurity and that is obviously ridiculous. Right? This is the 21st century. We should stop judging people when they self-deprecate based on their gender, and we should start recognizing well, you know what, she has the integrity and the humility to be willing to poke a little bit of fun at herself. That's probably something that's good for our culture.MB: So, one final question. You've written this book now, because obviously you feel this is a moment in time where we really need to be thinking again and open to experimentation and self-doubt, and all those things. For our audience of people trying to get involved in building a better world and wondering if it's possible, what words of encouragement do you have for them that reading your book and taking onboard some of your insights, of which there are very many, is a good idea and that can succeed in this moment?AG: Well, I'm not here to sell anyone on buying my book. I think you should be the judge of whether the insights I bring as an organizational psychologist are going to make you think again, and whether that's helpful in your life. I think the reason I was persuaded to write the book is I have had too many moments of sticking with the comfort of conviction over the discomfort of doubt. I've had too many moments of stubbornness, where I refuse to change my mind for too long and I've regretted it. I wanted to try to spare other people those regrets. My goal is not to get you to believe everything that I think. What I want to do is challenge some of the things that you think and invite you to rethink. I think that's something most of us could benefit from doing more of, but I think that you know that's something that everyone has to judge in their own lives. I think there are people who do too much rethinking, and they get stuck in analysis paralysis. My read of the data and my experience is that most of us are too far to the opposite end of that curve. We're a little bit too hesitant when we should be eager to think again. And, I guess, my hope in writing the book was to say, next time you discover yourself caught in one of these dilemmas of should I say, “I don't know”, or “I was wrong”, that instead of being threatened by that, you could look at that and say, “Oh, this is an opportunity to think again”, which means I might actually evolve and learn something.MB: Are you optimistic that as a society, we can become more of that kind of society?AG: I am cautiously optimistic. I think as a social scientist, I'm impressed by the range of techniques for opening our own minds and for opening other people's minds that I wasn't aware of before writing this book, despite the fact that my job is to make me think again, and I've been doing research on this topic in one flavor or another for two decades. And just the sheer amount of knowledge I gained from the evidence made me think there's a big gap between the expertise that's available on how to build a culture of lifelong learners, and what most of us do every day, and I think we could probably make progress toward closing that gap.MB: Well, on that cautiously optimistic note, we will end. Thank you very much, Adam Grant for talking with Books Driving Change. It's been a pleasure. Though you aren't selling the book, I would certainly recommend the book to everyone that's listening. I say, personally, I've learned a lot from reading it and will make changes in my own life that I think will open my mind a bit more. So, thank you very much for writing it, Adam.AG: Well, thank you, Matthew, I'm honored that you read it, I hope you don't rethink that. And yeah, there are some things we should never rethink. MB: I think that's a sunk cost at this point. AG: Exactly, escalation of commitment, here we are. But I do think that, you know, the idea that books can drive change is something that I was resistant to early on. I thought I'm really writing to share some of the things that I've learned and hope I have accumulated some evidence and some experience that might teach someone something else. I think I was resistant to the idea because I was afraid that my books wouldn't drive change. I felt handicapped a little bit and said, “No, no, no, this book is really just about helping you think differently about a topic and maybe even rethink it.” But the way we think shapes the way we act. It shapes the world we create. And I don't know if the pen is actually mightier than the sword, I do know that it's in class longer. And so, I think the work you're doing here is extremely important.MB: Thank you very much, Adam. Best wishes for the rest of your work in this area and your next project. AG: Right back at you. Thank you, Matthew.  We hope you are as inspired by these podcasts as we are. If you are, please subscribehere, or wherever you get your podcasts (Amazon Music, Apple, Google, Spotify, Stitcher), and please rate us and write a review so others can find their inspiration.  This transcript has been lightly edited for context and clarity. 

Aired: June 2, 2021 A special Sustain What episode with two scientists, a journalist and a songwriter offering ways to navigate turbulence, polarization and disinformation with the fewest regrets. Join Andy Revkin of Columbia's Climate School with Carnegie Mellon philosopher Andy Norman; solution-focused journalist Amanda Ripley; Columbia University psychologist and conflict dissector Peter Coleman, and songwriter and storyteller Reggie Harris. Send feedback and ideas for future shows: http://j.mp/sustainwhatfeedback Here's more on our guests: - Peter T. Coleman, a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, will discuss lessons from his new book, “The Way Out - How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.” Coleman holds a joint appointment at Teachers College and the Earth Institute and directs two research centers. He is also the author of “Making Conflict Work: Harnessing the Power of Disagreement” (2014) and “The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts” (2011), among other books. He says “The Way Out” is “about why we are stuck in our current cultural riptide and what we can do to find our way out. It will explain how patterns of intractable polarization can and do change, and offer a set of principles and practices for navigating and healing the more difficult divides in your home, workplace and community.” Learn more: https://thewayoutofpolarization.com/ - Reggie Harris is a longtime folk singer and songwriter, storyteller and educator who has worked and sung for racial understanding, human rights and justice for decades. He'll speak about his experiences at the interface of love and hate, Black and White and maybe sing a song or two. He describes his new album, “On Solid Ground,” as a “call for personal and national grounding in the explosion of racial and civil unrest and the growing worldwide death spiral that was 2020.” Explore Harris's music, writing and activities: https://reggieharrismusic.com/ - Andy Norman teaches philosophy and directs the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University. He says his focus is studying how ideologies short-circuit minds and corrupt moral understanding and developing tools that help people reason together in more fruitful ways. Norman will describe insights offered in his new book, “Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think." Learn more: https://andynorman.org/ - Amanda Ripley is a solutions-focused journalist and bestselling author who has become a champion of a new style of journalism sifting less for sound bites and more for pathways to insight amid complexity. Her new book is “High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out.” Here's Ripley's summary of this concept: “When we are baffled by the insanity of the ‘other side'—in our politics, at work, or at home—it's because we aren't seeing how the conflict itself has taken over. That's what ‘high conflict' does. People do escape high conflict. Individuals—even entire communities—can short-circuit the feedback loops of outrage and blame, if they want to. This is a mind-opening new way to think about conflict that will transform how we move through the world.” Explore: https://amandaripley.com/high-conflict Sustain What, produced and hosted by Andy Revkin, is a series of conversations seeking progress where complexity and consequence collide.

Police reform, gun violence, global warming... When did you last have a civil, informative, productive conversation with someone of differing opinions on any of these vital but polarizing topics? In the current U.S. climate, such conversations range from difficult to impossible to regrettable. The eminent social psychologist, Peter Coleman (Director of The Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia University) is deeply familiar with such conversations and with longstanding group conflicts among nations. Yet he remains optimistic enough to suggest a blueprint for reversing the toxic polarization currently afflicting the U.S.  In Episode 9, “Embrace Complexity to Overcome Polarization,” we speak with Dr. Coleman about the methods and examples at the heart of his book, The Way Out, recently published by Columbia University Press. In his view, embracing complexity is a first essential step on the way toward real dialogue and away from weaponized debates.   Dr. Coleman also describes examples suggesting seemingly intractable conflicts can improve over time. Costa Rica emerged from a bloody civil war with a broad consensus for change, resulting in the disbanding of the armed forces and mandatory peace instruction in the schools. Sitting in a deep red upstate New York territory, the town of Watertown rates as one of the least polarized in the country by several measures, including intermarriage between “reds” and “blues”.   To learn more about the art of real dialogue and the science of reconciliation, tune into Episode 9, “Embrace Complexity to Overcome Polarization: Discussing a Way out with Dr Peter Coleman, of Columbia University.”  Original Music by Ryan Adair Rooney Our guest Peter T. Coleman, Columbia University @PeterTColeman Additional Resources The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization (Columbia University Press) Gottman Love Lab Bridging Divides Initiative  Costa Rica: Choosing a Path to Build and Sustain Peace. Support for universal background checks on gun buyers is near 90% Find us online! Twitter: @purpleprincipl Facebook: @thepurpleprinciplepodcast Instagram: @thepurpleprinciplepodcast Our website: https://fluentknowledge.com/shows/the-purple-principle/the-way-out Sign up for our newsletter! https://bit.ly/2UfFSja

My guest this week, Dr. Peter Coleman, is a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, where among other things, he directs the Difficult Conversations Lab. He's written several books on the topic of conflict, and his latest work is the focus of our conversation this week here on the show.   Peter's new book is called The Way Out, How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.   Dr. Coleman has spent decades researching how we get ourselves into deeply divisive states, and more importantly, how we get ourselves out.   One thing is for sure, we're never going to debate our way to agreement. This mock trial style of discourse aims to score points rather than resolve conflict, and as you'll hear Dr. Coleman discuss, it's far too simplistic.   Connect with Peter Coleman on Twitter at https://twitter.com/PeterTColeman1, and learn more about his work and his new book at https://www.thewayoutofpolarization.com.

In this episode of Divided By Design, we start to frame out what getting to reconciliation could look like by talking to behavioral scientists and psychologists who have studied race and bias to shed light on various strategies used to address the pre-conscious thoughts and ideas that prevent us from finding common ground on issues of race and bias. We talk to former White House Communications Director for President Obama and bestselling author Jennifer Palmieri, sociologist Dr. Whitney Pirtle, psychologist Dr. Peter Coleman and founder and executive director of Over Zero, Rachel Brown.Find out more information at:https://www.unumfund.org/podcastFollow E Pluribus Unum on all social platforms:Twitter: http://Twitter.com/unumfund Instagram: http://Instagram.com/UnumFundFacebook: http://Facebook.com/UnumfundDivided By Design is a production of Next Chapter Podcasts.Learn more at https://ncpodcasts.com/Credits:Written by Byron C. Hunter Music by Jay WeigelEditing & Sound Design by Nick LucaExecutive Producers: Ryan Berni, Robert Cappadona & Jeremiah Tittle

Just as Trump throws a grenade at the WHO it agrees to a bodged up review into the coronavirus pandemic. Is there a place for a global health organisation that has underperformed and who is possibly doing more harm than good? (2:20-16:10) Peter Ridd, featured on the IPA's new Heretic Podcast, was sacked by James Cook University for speaking out against its climate change studies. The Heretic's auteur Gideon Rozner tells how the Podcast came to be (16:10-30:56) The ACCC is drafting a code which will force technology giants to pay media companies for their news. Is this just evening up the bargaining power or a catastrophically dumb and outrageous example of government sanctioned theft (thanks Chris)? (30:56-50:40) Your hosts Scott Hargreaves and Dr Chris Berg are joined by the IPA's Gideon Rozner to answer these questions as well as share their culture picks. This week's picks include the hit Australian TV series Lego Masters, Peter Coleman's The Liberal Conspiracy and the Netflix film Have a Good Trip. (50:40-1:08:24)   Show Notes The Heretic Membership Offer https://ipa.org.au/hereticoffer   Donald Trump's letter to Dr. Tedros of the World Health Organisation https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1262577580718395393   ACCC calls for consultation to set news bargain between Google, Facebook and media; Lilly Vitorovich and Leo Shanahan https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/accc-calls-for-consultation-to-set-new-bargain-between-google-facebook-and-media/news-story/c939c778bb7d72aa3dd2cb717c816b83   Lego Can Avoid Ai WeiWei, But It Can't Avoid Politics; Chris Berg https://chrisberg.org/2015/10/lego-can-avoid-ai-weiwei-but-it-cant-avoid-politics/   Did Lego Really Block Ai WeiWei?; Scott Hargreaves https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/did-lego-really-block-ai-weiwei-scott-hargreaves/     Culture Picks  Lego Masters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Masters_(Australian_TV_series)   The Liberal Conspiracy: The Congress for Culture Freedom and the Struggle for the Mind of Postwar Europe; Peter Coleman https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0029064813/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_9JZWEbGWJZ2QM   Have a Good Trip: Adventures in Psychedelics https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/have_a_good_trip_adventures_in_psychedelics