Bridging Divides podcast: episode two

[On-screen text in the top right, throughout the video: “British Red Cross”] 

 [Opening Scene: Ambient music begins quietly in the background. Podcast host Sonali Shah, and expert guest Olaf Borghi, are sitting in a podcast studio. There are lots of books, artwork and lamps on the wall in the background, and two white armchairs in the foreground, where Sonali and Olaf are sitting. They are talking into microphones and separated by a wooden coffee table. A fast-paced montage of podcast studio shots and clips from later in the episode begins.] 

 [On-screen text: “Coming up”.] 

  Olaf Borghi (00:00): 

People are indeed receptive to facts. But in these cases where belief is very intertwined with our identity, where belief is very central to ourselves, of course we will hold onto it just a bit stronger. 

[Montage: Clips from later in the conversation fade in and out.] 

Olaf Borghi (00:11): 

[Intro clip 2]  

So we're very good at spotting a bias in someone else. It's very hard to spot the bias in ourselves. But then if we interact with someone, perhaps we can help each other out a little bit. 

 [Intro clips and ambient backing music end.] 

[On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes.]  

[Intro scene: Podcast Host Sonali Shah sits in the studio, speaking directly to camera.] 

[On screen text: Sonali Shah, Podcast Host, Bridging Divides] 

Sonali Shah (00:22): 

I'm Sonali and this is Bridging Divides, a podcast series from the British Red Cross exploring how we feel so divided and what we can actually do to change this. I'll be joined by leading thinkers and practitioners to help us unpack what's happening around the country, our communities, and our kitchen tables, and share practical ways we can disagree well, build understanding, and strengthen our communities.  

 [Intro scene ends] 

[On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes.] 

 [Main conversation: Cut to two-person studio setup. Sonali and Olaf sit facing each other. The rest of the episode is a conversation between Sonali and Olaf.] 

 Sonali Shah (00:51): 

Last episode, we explored what division looks like in our everyday lives. But if we want to understand how those divisions take hold, we need to look a little closer to home. Because before disagreements arise, they begin with something much more personal than our beliefs. So today we are turning the lens inward. And together we are going to ask the question, why do we believe what we believe? 

Why can it feel so uncomfortable when someone challenges those beliefs and where do facts and evidence slot into it all? Today we are joined by Olaf Borghi. Olaf is a researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London, and he studies the psychology behind beliefs and political attitudes. 

Olaf, it is so great to have you with us. Is it okay if we start at the very beginning? 

[On-screen text: ‘Olaf Borghi, Researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London’] 

Olaf Borghi (01:44): 

Yeah, let's do that. 

Sonali Shah (01:46): 

Where beliefs come from and whether we really have a choice over them. 

Olaf Borghi (01:51): 

So I think we can think of our beliefs a little bit like our map of the world. They will allow us to predict what will happen next. So did you ever think about where, for example, our belief about gravity comes from? So at what age do you think children or babies start thinking about what happens when you drop a pen?  

Sonali Shah (02:07): 

It’s quite a joy actually when you realise they've discovered that things fall. 

Olaf Borghi (02:12): 

And they will be quite surprised about it. So perhaps they will see things falling. They will form the belief that if you pick up a pen and you drop it, they'll form this belief already before they can speak, that things fall down. 

Sonali Shah (02:23): 

They will constantly drop things when they're learning to eat their food.  

Olaf Borghi (02:26): 

Exactly. But perhaps this belief, because it's a very early belief, it won't be perfect. So imagine for example, a baby sees someone holding a helium balloon, right? You will let go of the balloon and the balloon will not fall down. And basically when we encounter this new evidence, maybe we need to change our beliefs.  

 Sonali Shah (02:44): 

Our beliefs form that early from the day we're born. It sounds like we don't have a choice about some of them in a way because it's what we're learning about what's around us. 

Olaf Borghi (02:56): 

So indeed, I think to a certain extent our beliefs are a reflection of the time and place where we come from. So we all come from a very unique place. Our beliefs are very much formed by the information that we consume, by how we look at the world. And I think there's quite a few choices that we make there. So if I go to a bookshop after work, it's my choice to pick up a certain book about a certain topic and not another book. And reading this book might result in some different beliefs than picking up a different book on this topic as well. And I made this choice, I picked up this book, but of course we all come from a certain place, we all have certain experiences that we can decide for ourselves. Like I went to one specific school, one specific class, I had some friendships and all of that will also influence the beliefs that I have. 

Sonali Shah (03:39): 

So if people grow up in the same area, there'll be lots of beliefs in common because of the area and the opportunities around them. But then the personal autonomy of selecting a book then diversifies your beliefs. 

Olaf Borghi (03:52): 

Exactly. And perhaps another interesting example here might be twins, right? Even identical twins in the same environment, they will form some beliefs that can be quite different from each other. 

Sonali Shah (04:03): 

And even if you're not twins but you are looking at the exact same information, two people will interpret it very differently. 

Olaf Borghi (04:10): 

Exactly. Perhaps, 

Sonali Shah (04:11): 

Yeah. 

Olaf Borghi (04:11): 

It's not just about information, it's also about how we psychologically make sense of the information that we encounter. 

Sonali Shah (04:17): 

We actually have a question from our audience. 

 [On-screen text: Bridging Divides logo on a yellow background with colourful oval shapes, a waveform represents the voice recording from the audience member]  

Audience member voice recording (04:21): 

Some divisions don't extend to beliefs, but actually the denial of objective truth, like truth around immigration statistics or the cost of the NHS. How do you help bridge a conversation with someone who believes things that fundamentally aren't the case? 

Olaf Borghi (04:43): 

Yes, that's a very good question and I think the first thing that perhaps we can do here is try to understand where does this belief come from? So perhaps for this person having this particular belief also gives them a sense of belonging to a specific group. So if they would just give up this belief, they would not just have a belief that is closer to reality, perhaps they would also lose some sense of belonging to this group, to this group that holds these very radical beliefs. And then it can be a bit harder to get the person out of there. So one important thing is that actually a lot of the research tells us that people are indeed receptive to facts. So people are willing to look at facts. But in these cases where belief is very intertwined with our identity, where belief is very central to ourselves, of course we'll hold onto it just a bit stronger. So perhaps if we go into a conversation like that, it's good to keep in mind that the person might still be willing to listen to us. The person might still change their mind because of course they won't change their mind totally from one moment to the next. But overall the person might still be receptive to what we're saying. 

Sonali Shah (05:43): 

I think you've demonstrated that the importance of not just knowing someone's belief but knowing why they might believe they might not even truly believe it, but understanding why people believe is really key. 

Olaf Borghi (05:58): 

Yes, and that's really, I think really getting to the core of it. So a belief can give me value in the sense that it ties me to a social group, it gives me social value. And to a certain extent, we all want the sense of belonging. We all want good friendships, we all want to feel close to each other. And then the belief and then even a false belief, there's not going in reality can have some value. 

Sonali Shah (06:18): 

So it sounds like there can be quite this tussle between a faith in something and facts. And sometimes the two can overlap, in lots of ways. 

Olaf Borghi (06:28): 

They can overlap. I mean the good news is in most people, in many cases, beliefs will quite closely track the facts. So if we show someone evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they will change their mind and they will change their mind in the direction of these facts. So we are really talking about some extreme examples here. So most people will be receptive to facts, but of course there are cases where a belief can also be helpful if it's a false belief, it can also give us something if it's not really tracking reality. Yes. 

Sonali Shah (06:54): 

How do we learn to deal with a belief that we think is actually not great for society? So many people are, for example, talking about the manosphere at the moment, there are lots of young men feeling lost, feeling like they need to prove something and they have sort of come together almost in this group believing certain things that lots of us feel like, hang on a minute, what's going on here? But what do we do about it? 

Olaf Borghi (07:24): 

So that's a very big question, a very good question. And so perhaps you already gave us a part of the answer as well, like you talked a bit about how we can perhaps understand where these beliefs come from. So it's perhaps young men feeling lost. In my own research, for example, I also look at how young people feel about the future and we can see that many young people are quite anxious about the future. They have different concerns about the future. And perhaps there's also something about being a young man in today's society that can make it quite tough to deal with this outlook of the future. The tricky thing about the manosphere I would say is actually that it's like a pairing of many different beliefs and attitudes. A lot of the things that they say, like going outside, working out, having friendship, that's something that each young man wants. 

But for some reason perhaps we need to ask as a society, why do they need to also turn to these groups to have that? And perhaps is there a way to give a young man a sense of belonging to society where we don't need also these more harmful views to tie us together? And this is a really big topic right now in the media. So young men are really in the focus of the media. There has been a very big report saying that actually many young men, so especially Gen Z, have these very traditional views of gender relations. Why is it that young men actually go back in their traditional views also compared to older generations? These are young people which traditionally have been a bit more progressive. And then perhaps once we have a bit of better understanding, we can start from there and see is there a way to give young people in today's society take their concerns seriously and give them a sense of belonging? And then perhaps they don't have to turn that way. 

Sonali Shah (08:58): 

And that's about having a conversation. So many people get angry and you can understand why, but that isn't going to open up a conversation. And that might divide us more as a society. 

Olaf Borghi (09:09): 

We might have a lot of expectations before the conversation or we think of ourselves, let's do that, let's stay calm. But then in practice it can be a bit difficult. But that is also totally okay. There's also a difference between me for example, as a man going into a conversation with another young man about the manosphere where the harmful or discriminatory views that this person has that will not affect me as much personally as for example, a woman. So perhaps we need to think a little bit about how can we go into this conversation in a way that we still feel safe as a person as well, that we don't feel attacked. And one thing actually that is again backed by research, and I don’t know, if you knew about that, but perhaps often we have also a little bit of a wrong expectation about how fruitful such a difficult conversation can be. 

(09:58): 

So some researchers they brought together, they recruited some people that had very contradictory views. So some of them were on nonpolitical topics such as people saying dogs are much better than cats. Cats are much better than dogs. It's a very soft example. Of course, it doesn't map directly on the manosphere example that we had, but they also brought together people on conflicting political issues. And then they ask them, okay, if you talk to this other person, how likely do you think is it that you will find some common ground? And people are like, it's very unlikely. So I won't get anything out of this conversation. But when they then brought the people together to have the conversation, many of the people were surprised by how interesting the conversation was that they also could find some common ground and it was not as bad as they perhaps expected. 

Sonali Shah (10:42): 

Let's say someone in your family has said something that you find offensive. Maybe it's something that you believe is racist and you want to try and get through to them to explain why you think it's unacceptable, but they just don't want to listen. What can you do? How do you start that conversation? 

Olaf Borghi (11:04): 

So I mean, it's even harder in a family, right? Because in a family we feel connection, we feel trust with the other person. I think one important thing here is to actually think about the right time and place for conversation. So I can give you an example from my past. So I had a flatmate. And with this flatmate we disagreed on many things and often I also enjoyed these conversations because I could learn from him. But there were times and places where I was not in the right state of mind to talk about certain things. For example, right before going to bed, when I'm in a relaxed mood. And of course we can't always choose when a certain topic will come up, but we can choose to perhaps postpone the discussion, go up to this person again, and to explain to them why we find it so offensive, why we find it so wrong. 

(11:50): 

And then perhaps we can also think about or let them explain why they believe this, why they hold this belief. Is it really a belief that is grounded in their lived experience? Is it the belief that gives them some sense of belonging? Is it the belief that helps them to deal with some threat that they encounter and then together maybe we can try to work it out a little bit. It is very difficult and it sounds very easy to say these things and give these suggestions from this position right here because of course if we are in a situation, it'll feel very emotional. So that's also why it's important to pick the right time and place. And if we really feel like it's getting too overwhelming, perhaps we can also say, okay, please, let's stop for now. But I would really pick up on this because also I care a lot about you as a person and I really want us to talk this through. So yeah. 

Sonali Shah (12:35): 

You've gone back to in many ways, and maybe this is the answer to a lot, is understanding why they believe what they believe and the reason behind the belief to then see if there's a way to change it. 

Olaf Borghi (12:48): 

We need to break the connection between this belief and for example, the threat where it's coming from. Let's say somebody is afraid that they will lose the job and as a reaction to this fear, they will for example, go against a certain specific group that they think will take the job away from them. Now we can target this belief on a few different levels. We can try to take away or help them deal with their anxiety. We can also target this link between their emotion and the belief itself. So does this bridge from, I will lose my job to it's this group - it’s the fault of this group. Does that make sense? And then of course we can also tackle the fact itself. Is it really true that this group of people takes away the jobs from us? 

Sonali Shah (13:33): 

Your research also looks at bias and how that influences what we believe. During my time as a journalist, we always had to try and look out for bias. And in many ways we all have bias, don't we? 

Olaf Borghi (13:48): 

So we all have some interests that are not always just being to the facts. We also have some interest of upholding our self concept. We have interest to advocate for a group. And we know that if you encounter some evidence, and if this evidence is not really telling a clear story, perhaps there's a way for you to twist it a little bit in your mind to make it fit your agenda. 

Sonali Shah (14:08): 

And at the moment that's so pertinent with people receiving information in such different ways, not all of it reliable let's say on social media. And every side often feels like they have the facts that back up their belief. And trying to show someone evidence that contradicts that, they can get really defensive, it can get quite emotional. Why is that?  

Olaf Borghi (14:35):

It’s very hard sometimes, I guess, to differentiate between a belief that we hold and ourselves as a person. So you can think of me as a scientist and there will be certain beliefs as a researcher and scientist that I hold that I also see as part of myself as a person. And if somebody will question the work I do, the science that I do, perhaps I will see it as an attack on me personally. So it's sometimes hard to keep these two things a bit apart, our beliefs and ourselves as a person. And then if our environment is already quite emotionally loaded, then it gets even harder because our emotional beings, emotions do play a role in how we interact with each other. And especially we also know from some research that there's also some emotional content, some divisive voices that get a lot of coverage on social media, for example. And then perhaps we also perceive this environment as a bit more divided and emotional and it is in reality. And that will perhaps, again, influence also our own emotional approach to information that we encounter there. And we will get a bit into a defensive state of mind. 

Sonali Shah (15:34): 

And many people will believe what they believe, so they might believe they don't agree with a certain lifestyle or certain group of people, they don't want to be around them and they can keep themselves to themselves. And in a way there's no harm done. You stay in your corner. But actually it's when people want to go on the attack and want to try and prove their belief, that can feel really, really threatening. 

Olaf Borghi (15:57): 

So yeah, that's a good difference to take. Is the belief, just the belief, is there just a disagreement? Disagreement is natural, disagreement is normal. We can disagree. We have different opinions. Again, we all come from a different perspective. But then again, there's of course the step towards where beliefs actually get into each other's ways. 

Sonali Shah (16:15): 

And maybe we need to learn to allow people around us to hold different beliefs? 

Olaf Borghi (16:22): 

So we can definitely try to be open-minded. And I think there's also a lot of research about this concept of open-mindedness, how it can help us be curious about the world, about other people's beliefs and how that can also help us find common ground with other people. And we can also be open-minded about how open-minded other people are, perhaps. So sometimes you might underestimate how open-minded and curious other people are. So that's another way we can be open-minded about the world. So that's definitely a good approach to actually counteract a little bit, this tendency of thinking that we are much more divided than we are. And then also learning to respect other people with different opinions. 

Sonali Shah (16:59): 

Let me give you an example, and it's very simplistic, and I'm assuming you don't hold this view, but for example, if you believed that after having children, a woman should stay at home and I don't believe that, I could still go out to work and live my life and your belief wouldn't affect me, if it we are not in a relationship. Should I let you hold that belief or should I be trying to change your mind about it? 

Olaf Borghi (17:24): 

So I don't think it's our personal responsibility to change everyone's mind. And a lot of views and beliefs are held in private and these beliefs won't affect you as a person and it'll be totally fine for you to have someone else hold this belief if they have it in private. But of course in today's society, a lot of beliefs are also quite voiced vocally. They're not just held in private. And then it's again, a different question, how do we deal with that? 

Sonali Shah (17:52): 

And there's a worry that a privately held belief might lead to bias that does then affect us in society. 

Olaf Borghi (17:59): 

Exactly. 

Sonali Shah (18:00): 

In hiring for example, or whatever it might be. 

Olaf Borghi (18:03): 

Yes. There's also this difference between a belief and the downstream consequences of a belief. So there's a lot of research, for example, on these implicit biases we have in hiring. And I think the big problem is here that a lot of these biases are very acting on a very unconscious level. So it's very hard to be aware of them. And even if we are aware of them, maybe that's not enough. But I do think there's a few things that we can perhaps do. 

Sonali Shah (18:28): 

What can we do? 

Olaf Borghi (18:30): 

So one way we can think about it is, for example, if you're in a job meeting and you hear someone say something and you immediately dismiss what this person is saying, perhaps this is your first intuitive reaction. You already heard this intuitive reaction, but then you can think about it again. Would you also dismiss the same statement if it would come from a different person in this room? 

Sonali Shah (18:53): 

Some of us are quite good at, or we think we are quite good at recognising bias in someone else, but we are not that good, are we, at recognising our own bias? 

Olaf Borghi (19:05): 

No, no. That's another thing.  

Sonali Shah (19:07): 

How do we do that? 

Olaf Borghi (19:08): 

So I mean, I guess that taps into one of the things that are quite tricky about the human mind. So we are very good at spotting a bias in someone else. It's very hard to spot the bias in ourselves. But then if we interact with someone, perhaps we can help each other out a little bit. They can help me understand a little bit my flaws, my limitations, my biases. Perhaps also where I am a little bit too confident, where I don't acknowledge my limits in my knowledge, and I can also help the other person out a little bit. Maybe there's also some areas where the other person's a bit too confident in what they believe or they just jump to a conclusion that doesn't sound right. And of course for that, we need someone to talk to that we can trust or that we can disagree to. Perhaps not everyone has someone like that. 

Sonali Shah (19:51): 

I think the algorithm doesn't help, does it?  

Olaf Borghi (19:53): 

So the algorithm will feed us with some information that perhaps we don't consciously decide to see. But there's some influence that we do have. So again, there's some choices we can make, how we can actually decide on what information we will see online just as going in a bookstore and picking up a certain book. We can, for example, go through our list of the accounts that we follow. And I, out of curiosity, I did that before I arrived here today. So I scrolled through my list of followers and I saw that  actually I follow 1000 accounts on Instagram, which is quite a lot. And I looked through them and I was like, okay, which of them actually provide me with some information that I found interesting? Which of them are perhaps some devices voices that I want to cut out, and are there some other sources, some other news outlets that I could follow that can diversify my perspective a little bit with high information that is very credible, and at least if we trust the science, there is some science that says not everything about social media is bad. A lot of the news that probably you will get that you'll read, you will get it on your online feed, right? The news about the world. So we do learn also important information online. 

Sonali Shah (20:58): 

There's so many positives about it. The connection. 

Olaf Borghi (21:00): 

Exactly, yes. 

Sonali Shah (21:01): 

The ability to reach more people. 

Olaf Borghi (21:03): 

Yes, the ability to reach people, the ability to have so much information available in so little time. But the problem is that sometimes the algorithm does feed us with some more divisive voices. It rewards or benefits some of the more emotionally negative content. And then again, that might have some implications for the beliefs that we hold. 

Sonali Shah (21:22): 

It sounds like we need to have a spring clean of our social media every now and then and actually actively seek out a range of views. I think it was easier when everyone was going into an office or into a workplace because you would be surrounded by different people, different ages. Yes, they might all live around you now, but they may have moved, and so you gained naturally, a different perspective. I certainly find things I learn so much from the different people I work with. If you're sitting at home working from home, you are not going to widen your circle and therefore widen your worldview. Are you? Even if you think you are through your device. 

Olaf Borghi (22:02): 

Especially if most of the information that we got is on our device, as you say, because on our device, perhaps we will see mainly content that is also tailored to us. But there is again, really good research from cognitive science that says that we make the best decisions in groups as humans. If there is a wide representation of different perspectives that come together and then we just don't follow the one strongest voice in the room but together we reach a democratic decision based on these many different diverse perspectives in this room. 

Sonali Shah (22:33): 

Because we may not think about what someone else needs because we haven't lived their life. There was an interesting example actually the other day that I saw online, a very famous black actor was on a podcast with the host who - an actor, but happens to be white, and I'm bringing up their race because it's pertinent to what the conversation was. And there is this general view now that we probably shouldn't show our kids on social media. I never have, a lot of people choose to, and that's their right. And they may choose to for various reasons. And the host of the podcast said, I absolutely don't. I believe in online safety. I don't want people to know what my daughters look like. Yes, you might see us on the street, on the sidewalk, and that is uncomfortable for someone who's under the age of 10. So if I don't show their faces to protect them, to keep them safe. And his guest on the podcast who happens to be black said, yes, but I have two boys, who happen to be black, the way I keep them safe is I show their faces online, then I know they're going to come home. Because it's very different being a black boy in America compared to a white girl. And it was actually a really open, friendly conversation. They're friends. There was no animosity. But it's really interesting that one perspective - people might judge, why do people show their kids online? But actually in that one sentence he said, so I know they'll come home at night, but that lack of anonymity would help keep them safe. 

Olaf Borghi (24:07): 

I assume both of them will probably have walked away from this conversation and learned something new. 

Sonali Shah (24:12): 

Yes, we've all learned something new because it was online. Exactly. And so sometimes it's just about asking someone else's opinion because we may not have the capacity, I guess, to have thought of that and to have held that belief. 

Olaf Borghi (24:27): 

There's so many things happening all the time around us to be really informed on everything, to take into account our perspectives, just ourselves. That sounds something that is really cognitive taxing, something that can be really hard. So if each of us contributes a little bit, if we discuss it in a group, then it can be a bit easier. But then there's of course the problem. Not all of us has the availability to talk to a group. Perhaps one other piece of interesting research that we can bring in there that came out last year that reminded me a little bit of that, was on conspiracy believers and these researchers in the US, they decided, can we actually change conspiracy believers' minds? They made the conspiracy believers, they asked, what is the conspiracy belief that you believe in? And then these conspiracy believers had a conversation with large language model, and this large language model gave them in a very unemotional way, some facts about these beliefs and what the researchers showed that right after the conspiracy belief, which we always think of something that is really strongly held, something where people are really convinced about was much weaker, and this was a durable effect over months. 

(25:35): 

So just a very short conversation that showed them a different perspective actually resulted in some softening in their views. Perhaps they were still a little bit convinced of this belief, but they also had another perspective on it that also works. And in this case, it was of course a large language model that we're talking to, but this large language model only mimicked a human conversation, a human conversation where we are understanding of each other, where we try to understand each other's perspective. So I wouldn't focus on that aspect. I would focus more on how can we together talk about these things in a way to have respect of each other and to try to take each other's perspective. 

Sonali Shah (26:10): 

And perhaps disagree well. Can we disagree well? 

Olaf Borghi (26:14): 

I think we can. Yes. So it's not a good idea to go into a conversation and think this is the one message that I want to tell you, and then to jump at the person and go face front in with this one thing that I want to tell them. So what we can actually do, and this is something that we can also do perhaps with our family, we can go into a conversation and we can try to hold back just a little bit by asking three questions first. Let's ask three questions first to understand the view of a person, and then do we still want to put across the same message that we wanted to put across in the beginning of our conversation? Perhaps we want to change our message a little bit, and if it's still the same thing that we want to tell them, then perhaps that's a good thing to tell them as well. Right? 

Sonali Shah (26:54): 

That's such a great tip. I think overall it is just about trying to have a conversation rather than an argument. 

Olaf Borghi (27:02): 

Exactly. Yeah. 

Sonali Shah (27:03): 

But it's so easy to descend into an argument, and I say descend because it really doesn't feel great. 

Olaf Borghi (27:10): 

That's also something that we can mention in a conversation itself. We can say, oh, do you think right now, are we still talking to each other? Do we still have a common understanding of actually what we're talking about? 

Sonali Shah (27:20): 

Yeah, analyse the conversation. 

Olaf Borghi (27:21): 

Analyse the conversation together, and perhaps as you analyse the conversation together, acknowledge complexity as well. So acknowledge, okay, this is a really complex thing. Perhaps I am not accounting for the full complexity of this one topic. And then once we acknowledge this complexity, perhaps we can go back with a little bit of a reset in our mind. Perhaps we will end up again in a place where we are emotional. But I think we made some more progress throughout this conversation than we did if we just keep hardening the fronts, if that's a good way to put it. I don't know. 

Sonali Shah (27:52): 

I think what you've described is probably the point in a conversation where people have stopped listening to each other and they're just trying to point score. Before I let you go, I do want any other actions our listeners - even I - could do this week, can we disagree agreeably? What does that look like? 

Olaf Borghi (28:16): 

So I think we can, on one side, we can try to take up a few tips that we had throughout this conversation. So for once, maybe if we go into conversation, manage our expectations, perhaps it shouldn't be the aim of the conversation to completely convince another person. So maybe be a bit realistic about the goals for conversation. Maybe a better goal of a conversation is to learn from each other, be curious about each other's viewpoints, and then perhaps if we can convince them with some facts, that's a very nice side product. And then if we go with this mindset into a conversation, it might also be a much more fruitful conversation. We can also try to see why a person holds a certain belief, and we talked about different purposes that beliefs serve, like beliefs can serve a purpose to represent the world accurately, or a belief can have a social value. There are also some ways we can prepare ourselves a little bit because each of us is also not perfect. So we talked a lot about beliefs in this podcast, and there's many, many good researchers that probably know their literature even better than I do, even though I do research on beliefs and how beliefs form. So my knowledge will never be perfect. I will be able to learn from other people, but perhaps we can also try to understand our gaps in knowledge a little bit more, so we shouldn't be overconfident in our own position. 

Sonali Shah (29:31): 

And if someone points out those gaps, not to take offence, and maybe they’re just trying to be constructive. 

Olaf Borghi (29:38): 

Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Don't be offended. I think there's so many things that I don't know, and that's totally fine. That's why I'm here. That's why I try, that's why I'm a scientist, why I'm a researcher, why I try to learn about the world. And the same is true for all of us. I don't think we can ever be that much of an expert in a domain that we can't learn from anybody else anymore. I think that sounds quite unrealistic to me. So be a little bit open-minded, be a bit aware of the gaps in our knowledge. That's a good mindset to go into a conversation. And then once we have that mindset, we can try to ask questions and perhaps also understand where beliefs come from. 

[Music fades back in softly.] 

Sonali Shah (30:13): 

Olaf, thank you so much. 

Olaf Borghi (30:15): 

Thank you. It was a pleasure. 

 [End of main conversation.] 

[Cut to Bridging Divides logo: colourful circles on a yellow background.] 

[Cut to closing scene: Podcast host Sonali sits in the studio, speaking directly to the camera.] 

 You've been listening to Bridging Divides by the British Red Cross, your guide to navigating and repairing a divided world. Join us again next week, where I'll sit down with Gabrielle Rifkind to talk more about how to put bridge building into practice and hear stories from her experience as a professional conflict mediator. 

 If this episode resonated with you, check the show notes for ways to connect with our online toolkits or visit bridgingdivides.org.uk. Thank you so much for listening. See you again soon. 

 [Text appears on a yellow background:  

“Bridging Divides 

Join the community choosing compassion in a divided world 

bridgingdivides.co.uk"] 

 [A white banner across the bottom of the screen with the British Red Cross logo reads: “A podcast from the British Red Cross”]