Podcasts about way out how

Matt speaks with Lauren Hall about "radical moderation," a framework that encourages moving beyond binary thinking in social and political issues. Hall explains her framework, which helps individuals navigate complex situations by fostering curiosity, empathy, and creative thinking. They also discuss the roles of community, parenting, and social psychology in moderating polarized views. Episode Notes:  "Radical Moderation" by Lauren Hall Find more at: https://radicalmoderatesguide.substack.com "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization" by Peter T. Coleman Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Way-Out-Overcome-Toxic-Polarization/dp/0231195718 "High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out" by Amanda Ripley Link: https://www.amazon.ca/High-Conflict-Trapped-How-Out/dp/1982128575 "Elements of Justice" by David Schmidtz Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Elements-Justice-David-Schmidtz/dp/0521539360 "Living Together: Essays on Justice, Pluralism, and Community" by David Schmidtz Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Living-Together-Essays-Justice-Pluralism/dp/0190233731 "The Polarization Detox Challenge" by Starts With Us Explore more at: https://startswith.us/polarization-detox "The Science of Family: The Politics of Moderation in Family Policies" by Lauren Hall Link: https://www.amazon.ca/Science-Family-Politics-Moderation-Policies/dp/0367523267 Thanks to our patrons including: Amy Willis, Kris Rondolo, and Christopher McDonald. To become a patron, go to patreon.com/curioustask

If you're listening to this podcast, you're probably concerned by the level of polarization we're seeing in societies around the world.  We can point fingers at social media, the news media, political parties, fear mongering leaders, poor education, broken political systems… the list is long. The divides can seem so vast, the problems so huge. It's easy to retreat into a huddle with people who see the world the same way you do. But our guest for this episode, Columbia University psychology and education professor and author Peter T. Coleman, says there are things each of us can do to help heal these societal wounds. And he says the press and media can play an important role in decreasing polarization. That's the subject of his latest book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Coleman outlines evidence-based practices that you can do on your own- or with a group- to help recalibrate assumptions, and re-create bonds with people you disagree with. Coleman also partnered with the organization Starts With Us to turn the lessons from the book into an online program, called The Polarization Detox Challenge. It's like an exercise routine, for strengthening your compassion muscles. The book is focused on the United States, but the exercises can be done anywhere. This episode originally published in January 2023. Follow Peter T. Coleman on X: @PeterTColeman1Making Peace Visible is  hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin. We had help on this episode from Faith McClure. Support our work with a tax-deductible donation. Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions and Bill Vortex ABOUT THE SHOW The Making Peace Visible podcast is hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin, with help from Faith McClure. Steven Youngblood is Director of Education for Making Peace Visible. Learn more at makingpeacevisible.org Support this podcast Connect on social:Instagram @makingpeacevisibleLinkedIn @makingpeacevisibleX (formerly Twitter) @makingpeaceviz We want to learn more about our listeners. Take this 3-minute survey to help us improve the show!

In a world marked by war and political polarization, it can certainly feel at times like we have all lost touch with the art of compromise – the wisdom to recognize that real progress demands sacrifice. Except, that's not entirely true. Dr. Sanjay Gupta sits down with social psychologist Peter T. Coleman, author of “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization,” to discuss the fundamentals of navigating difficult conversations, how our brains evolved to handle conflict, and why reaching a compromise is not always the best solution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

Political polarization is at epidemic levels in the United States—shaping national politics, friendships, and even family dynamics.  But Peter T. Coleman says it doesn't have to be that way—that each of us can adopt simple practices to reduce the polarization in our lives and in our communities. Dr. Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute. He directs the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, is founding director of the Institute for Psychological Science and Practice, and is co-executive director of Columbia University's Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity.  Coleman is also a renowned expert on constructive conflict resolution and sustainable peace.  His current research focuses on conflict intelligence and systemic wisdom as meta-competencies for navigating conflict constructively at all levels and includes projects on adaptive negotiation and mediation dynamics, cross-cultural adaptivity, optimality dynamics in conflict, justice and polarization, multicultural conflict, intractable conflict, and sustainable peace.  His latest book is book on breaking through the intractable polarization plaguing the U.S. and other societies across the globe is “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

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.

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  

If you're listening to this podcast, you're probably concerned by the level of polarization we're seeing in societies around the world.  We can point fingers at social media, the news media, political parties, fear mongering leaders, poor education, broken political systems… the list is long. The divides can seem so vast, the problems so huge. It's easy to retreat into a huddle with people who see the world the same way you do. But our guest for this episode, Columbia University psychology and education professor and author Peter T. Coleman, says there are things each of us can do to help heal these societal wounds. And he says the press and media can play an important role in decreasing polarization. That's the subject of his latest book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Coleman outlines evidence-based practices that you can do on your own- or with a group- to help recalibrate assumptions, and re-create bonds with people you disagree with. Coleman also partnered with the organization Starts With Us to turn the lessons from the book into an online challenge, called Finding the Way Out. It's like an exercise routine, for strengthening your compassion muscles. The book is focused on the United States, but the exercises can be done anywhere. Follow Peter T. Coleman on Twitter: @PeterTColeman1Making Peace Visible is  hosted by Jamil Simon and produced by Andrea Muraskin. We had help on this episode from Faith McClure. The podcast is a project of War Stories Peace Stories. Follow us on Twitter @warstoriespeace.Support our work with a tax-deductible donation. Music in this episode by Blue Dot Sessions and Bill Vortex

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

Professor Peter Coleman joins The Great Battlefield podcast to talk about his career researching and practicing conflict resolution and his latest book "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization".

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.”

EPISODE SUMMARY: Dr. Pearson shares some powerful information about her civility workshop and how it is opening minds and hearts. It is not about changing minds, but understanding minds and from there all things are possible. Information on how to sign up for this zoom class is included. ON THIS EPISODE, WE DISCUSS… The Civility Workshop has been going great. The goal of this workshop is not to change people's minds, even though that sometimes happens, but rather to understand mindsets. Have you ever won an argument? The fact is we don't generally win arguments. The workshops are two hours long Offered the second Tuesday of every month from 4 to 6 PM PST free of charge If you would like to join, just call the office and they will get your email at 509-927-8997 or you can email Dr. Pearson at kpearsondc@mac.com in the subject line put “Zoom Civility Workshop” The value is you get to say everything that is on your mind and in your heart and you will not have to fear being challenged It's really about accepting and honoring; not finding the truth only your own personal truth. You really get to hear yourself speak and sometimes you find that you no longer feel the same way In that, you begin to change, but the changes are little by little Dr. Pearson tells us about a gentleman that really struggled with listening to someone else tell their different thoughts He really had to tell himself to stop and actually listen, be curious and listen to the story Towards the end, it did get a lot easier Dr. Pearson is reading a great book right now called “The Way Out How to overcome Toxic Polarization” by Peter T. Coleman We are a product of the thoughts and biases we feed So this week try to listen and look at things a little different don't try to change someone else or knock them down because they think differently Dr. Pearson tells us about two women who talk about a subject from two different perspectives While the two women felt differently about the subject they both realized there were things they never thought about before When they were done they both thanked each other They didn't change each other's perspectives, but gave each other a little insight and a little more understanding of how someone could feel the way they did CALLS-TO-ACTION: Get a copy of the book on Amazon. If you got some questions, reach out through the website: www.8minutestoageless.com www.8minutestoageless.org Who is Dr. Kelli Pearson? Experienced Chiropractor since 1982, working in collaborative health care settings. Currently a co-owner of a multi-disciplinary clinic, including chiropractors, massage therapists, movement specialists, and nutritional coaches. Owner of Real Work-Life, a corporate wellbeing consulting company, and author of "8 Minutes to Ageless," teaching a minimalistic approach to aging well. Graduate of UCLA with a BS in Kinesiology and a Doctorate from Palmer West Chiropractic College. Socials: www.linkedin.com/in/kelli-pearson-0695035/

The reason for the divisive political polarization we're experiencing in the United States, as explained by social psychologist, Peter T. Coleman, can't be traced back to one unreasonable person, unfortunate event, or societal defect. In his new book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization Coleman details principles and practices for navigating and healing the difficult divides in our homes, workplaces, and communities, blending compelling personal accounts from his years of working on entrenched conflicts with lessons from leading-edge research.KPOV High Desert Community Radio is a listener-supported, volunteer-powered community radio station that broadcasts at 88.9 FM and online at www.kpov.org. KPOV offers locally produced programs and the most diverse music in Central Oregon.Listen live and learn more: www.kpov.org. Connect on Facebook: www.facebook.com/kpovbend

Are you excited for big holiday gatherings where lots of politics are being discussed? No? Well Dr. Peter Coleman of Columbia University has just the solution for ending our polarized political culture, both at home and in the real world. His book, "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization," offers numerous ways to approach our daily lives, the news, social media and our relationships to tone down the emotion and boost the parts of our brain that foster logical thinking. He also explains why we stick with the sides we like, and are seldom able to see another perspective. Ironically, he says the moment we are in, where accusations are flying that one group or another is leading America to the brink, offers hope that change is upon us.***We are taking a few weeks off for the holidays. Our next episode will go live Jan 4th. Please have a wonderful and safe new year. I am forever grateful to every single listener. See you in a few weeks.***Dr. Coleman is on social media at twitter.com/petertcoleman1His website is thewayoutofpolarization.comSupport our show at patreon.com/axelbankhistory**A portion of every contribution is given to a charity for children's literacy**"Axelbank Reports History and Today" can be found on social media at twitter.com/axelbankhistoryinstagram.com/axelbankhistoryfacebook.com/axelbankhistory

In this episode, Xavier Bonilla has a dialogue with Peter Coleman regarding toxic polarization in society. They define toxic polarization and what makes the current moment unique from other moments in social history. They talk about in-group/out-group dynamics and why dialogue is essential. They discuss attractors and the importance of Kurt Lewin's field theory. Peter explains his five-factor model of the way out (reset, bolster, complexity, movement, and adaptation) and how we can use complexities to have dialogue with others. They discuss how people can fix polarization at the individual level and possibly at higher scales.  Peter Coleman is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University at Teachers College and The Earth Institute. Peter 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).  He is the first recipient of the Early Career Award from the American Psychological Association (APA), Division 48: Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence, and has also been awarded the Morton Deutsch Conflict Resolution Award by APA and a Marie Curie Fellowship from The European Union. In 2018, Dr. Coleman was awarded the Peace Award from Meaningful World, in celebration of their 30th anniversary and the UN's International Day of Peace. He is the author of numerous books, including his most recent book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization which can be purchased here. You can find many of his published work here and here. 

 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.

In this episode of “Keen On”, Andrew is joined by Peter T. Coleman, the author of “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization”, to discuss why we are stuck in our current cultural riptide and what we can do to find our way out. 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). Visit our website: https://lithub.com/story-type/keen-on/ Email Andrew: a.keen@me.com Watch the show live on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ajkeen Watch the show live on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankeen/ Watch the show live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lithub Watch the show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/LiteraryHub/videos Subscribe to Andrew's newsletter: https://andrew2ec.substack.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

Matthew Brickman and Sydney Mitchell interview esteemed Social-Organizational Psychologist Dr. Peter T. Coleman ,  author of the book, "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization."Dr. Peter T. Coleman holds a Ph.D. in Social-Organizational Psychology from Columbia University. He is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint-appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute and teaches courses in Conflict Resolution, Social Psychology, and Social Science Research.https://www.thewayoutofpolarization.com The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarizationhttps://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/peter-t-coleman-phdPeter T. Coleman, Ph.D.Lecturer; Executive Director, Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity in the Earth Institutehttps://twitter.com/PeterTColeman1 

Whether it's the left side of the aisle or the right, people are entrenched in their views — and it's getting us nowhere. Peter T. Coleman is a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, and he joins host Krys Boyd to talk about applying methods of conflict resolution to work through our differences. His book is called “The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.”

Why are we, the people of the United States, so divided? How did we get here and what can we do about it?  The reason for the divisive political polarization we're experiencing in the United States, as explained by social psychologist, Peter T. Coleman, can't be traced back to one unreasonable person, unfortunate event, or societal defect. In his new book, 'The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization' Coleman details principles and practices for navigating and healing the difficult divides in our homes, workplaces, and communities, blending compelling personal accounts from his years of working on entrenched conflicts with lessons from leading-edge research.  This book is dedicated to the 86 percent of Americans who are currently exhausted, miserable, and desperately seeking a way out of our culture of contempt.   - Peter T. Coleman Peter T. Coleman is professor of psychology and education at Columbia University. 

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.

August 6, 2021--Host Bob Bushansky talks with Peter T Coleman, professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, whose latest book is “The Way Out - How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.”

Matthew Brickman and Sydney Mitchell interview esteemed Social-Organizational Psychologist Dr. Peter T. Coleman ,  author of the book, "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization."Dr. Peter T. Coleman holds a Ph.D. in Social-Organizational Psychology from Columbia University. He is Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University where he holds a joint-appointment at Teachers College and The Earth Institute and teaches courses in Conflict Resolution, Social Psychology, and Social Science Research.https://www.thewayoutofpolarization.com The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarizationhttps://sps.columbia.edu/faculty/peter-t-coleman-phdPeter T. Coleman, Ph.D.Lecturer; Executive Director, Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity in the Earth Institutehttps://twitter.com/PeterTColeman1 

Yes, the nation is deeply, counter-productively divided -- and yes, American politics and American culture probably haven't been this divided in decades.... But what can we DO about such polarization? Our guest is Peter T. Coleman, a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, where he holds a joint appointment at Teachers College and the Earth Institute. He joins us to talk about his new book, "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization." As was noted of this work by Publishers Weekly: "Drawing from physics, psychology, and neuroscience, Coleman's multidisciplinary approach yields fresh insights and reasons for hope. Policymakers and community activists will want to take note."

When Joe Biden became president he 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 and how to end it, person by person. Peter Coleman has advised the Biden administration on how to detoxify America. He is a mediator and psychologist who specializes in conflict resolution. A professor of psychology and education at Columbia University, he is the author of the forthcoming book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization.