In my lab at Harvard Kennedy School, we study “conversational receptiveness”—the use of specific words and phrases to convey one’s engagement with opposing perspectives. Conversational receptiveness uses specific linguistic cues identified by algorithms that analyze natural human language to ensure that your counterpart feels respected and understood. For example, receptive language features acknowledgement phrases such as “I understand that…” and “You are saying that…” to show that you really paid attention to your counterpart’s perspective. It also uses “hedges” (sometimes, possibly, often) to make the message come across as less dogmatic.

In related research, we find that simply and directly stating that you are interested in your counterpart’s point of view improves how that person sees you and your argument. This technique worked even in a study where Israelis read messages from Palestinian counterparts—messages they received during the Gaza war in the spring of 2021.

When faced with false and dangerous beliefs, our impulse is to make the strongest, most attention-grabbing argument possible. “The Russians are bombing maternity hospitals!” “Putin must be stopped!” “Save the people of Mariupol!” are flooding the internet. But such arguments are more likely to inflame resistance than foster dialogue. And even if I agree that Putin must be stopped, what exactly should I do about it? So, offering concrete action steps, such accessing independent news, is key to motivating action.