Deflating bubbles isn't a matter of one information campaign, one game-changing study, or one powerful anecdote. It's millions of good conversations between family members, friends, and colleagues.

For professionals who engage in good conversations, there's one challenging example that everyone can relate to: the conversation about vaccination. There are plenty of controversial topics – migration, climate change, systemic racism – but you can also avoid those topics. And so we often do. We want things to remain pleasant during the barbecue, and you'll need that one colleague again tomorrow for something else. And if you do engage in the conversation, you can end a heated debate with the friendly We agree to disagree. That we disagree does not affect how we treat each other.

Vaccination makes things more difficult, especially if you, like most of us, have a strong opinion about it. Because if you think everyone should get vaccinated: do you say nothing when your unvaccinated brother visits your mother? And if you are adamantly against it because it's dangerous, do you silently watch as your partner gets two shots? And so, tensions run through families and friend groups all over the Netherlands, and related topics only expand: should we or should we not refuse unvaccinated people at gatherings or in certain professions?

Most of us give up quickly. We feel we can't convince the other person because they are so locked into their own bubble of information channels, groupthink, and social media echo chambers. Your questions about the reliability of sources are invariably answered by questioning your own sources. Judgments are made quickly, and again, it's action-reaction: You're not one of those conspiracy theorists, are you? You're not a sheep, are you?

Because these are unpleasant conversations, we will quickly move on to a practical stance.
You can think whatever you want, but you are not welcome in my home. We don't want you with us on our weekend trip to the Ardennes... This painful message is not only given to anti-vaxxers, but also the other way around. There are also people who are terrified that vaccinated people might infect them with the Spike protein that the vaccines are being created. Consequence: escalating family disputes, social isolation, psychological problems.

Can it be done differently? Is there an alternative communication technique to convince the other person? I think convincing is an unrealistic goal; at least for one conversation. The debate about vaccines is, after all, deeply rooted in identity (freedom, responsibility) and in worldviews that were firmly established long before COVID, such as a basic distrust or, conversely, trust in government.

I think it's possible to encourage people to self to further investigate their own worldview. That worldview may come across as fully crystallized, unchangeable, cast in concrete. But we are mistaken in that. The other person's ideas usually come across as much harder than they actually are. That hardness is, in fact, ook a defensive reaction to the attack (conscious or not) that we ourselves initiate. Remember that your conversation partner has already had “the vaccine conversation” many times with “people like you.” They already know what's coming and are ready to shoot back.

If the worldview is less rigid, there is invisible space for nuance and perhaps even doubt. And then the question arises how we can get others to look more critically at their own worldview. Here are two tips on this. Simple in their essence. And at the same time, not easy to apply.

1. Abstained. It starts with what you consciously refrain from doing. You refrain from convince “it's better because...” You fail to throwing facts around (Did you know...). You are neglecting rhetorical questions to ask (“you don't think that...”, for example). And finally, you fail to judge (“How silly of you...”) or if you find that too difficult, consciously postpone your judgment.

2. Done. What do you do then? Asking sincere questions. Sounds simple, but in practice it's often very difficult, especially if your conversation partner is someone you know very well. Asking genuine questions is usually counter-intuitive. In the moment, we would prefer to react on what the other person says because, we tell ourselves, we know better! Instead of a reaction because your red buttons are being pushed (“you are wrong,” “I heard you say something contradictory there,” “you are calling data a reliable source!?”) we choose response (Think first, then!) through a sincere question and at least one follow-up question: “How does that work?”, “What are the reasons for that?”, “How did you arrive at that statement/opinion?”, “What makes you think that way?”. If you can't think of a question or suspect your tone and attitude don't show genuine interest, then choose to summarize precisely what the other person said without judgment (“So, if I understand correctly, you see it like this:...”). You'll see: additions and nuances will emerge that add much more color and, like asking good questions, will make the other person reflect on their own worldview. This is much easier if the other person doesn't feel attacked.

Simple in theory, but I admit: it's not very easy to apply in practice to subjects that you yourself find very important. The temptation to flight of fight It is life-size. Here too, practice ultimately makes perfect. And thus, everyone can immediately get to work to have better conversations about controversial topics. Thanks to COVID and the vaccines.

Director

Stefan Szepesi