Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The 4 R’s reduce dialogue workshop effectiveness – but don’t despair

Caucasian business people talking on bench outdoors

Civil discourse can be effective, but its effectiveness is limited.

Jetta Productions Inc./Getty Images

In some circles, reducing political divides and civil discourse are almost synonymous. I’ve had conversations where I mention that I work on reducing these divides, only to have the other person launch into some story or opinion about civil discourse.

By “civil discourse,” I mean an interpersonal focus on communication, which can include activities like dialogue or certain types of debates.


Groups interested in reducing political divides have largely embraced this interpersonal civil discourse model as the primary method, in part because the start-up costs of holding a dialogue are low. Many of the 500-plus members of the #ListenFirst Coalition are clear examples of this approach. (Note: the organization I run and co-founded, More Like US, is a coalition member.) As I have seen since 2017, when I attended my first Braver Angels (then Better Angels) workshop, there has often been a default to a small-group format to teach skills and/or practice engaging in civil discourse.

Civil discourse can be excellent and effective, but organizations involved need to be aware of its numerous drawbacks that limit its capacity for scale. When this space is internally honest about civil discourse’s limitations, it can better choose methods that are most likely to succeed. Civil discourse should always be part of some efforts, but the space should be open to a wider array of approaches.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

I summarize civil discourse’s limitations, especially in the context of small-group formats, with what I will call the 4 R’s: recruitment, reliability, representativenes, and repetition. Explained more below, the briefest overview is that it is difficult to get many people to attend events (recruitment), civil discourse is not inherently effective (reliability), even a successful 1:1 interaction may not generalize to the entire out-party (representativeness) and getting people to repeatedly use skills learned is challenging (repetition). These form a kind of narrowing funnel, where the likelihood of many individuals achieving long-lasting change gets smaller and smaller with every step.

Recruitment: People need to have a substantial amount of time, interest and energy to attend an event. At least with Braver Angels, participants have been disproportionately older and with high educational attainment, people who more likely fit those criteria. Braver Angels should be commended for bravely collecting and releasing this data; most other discourse-based groups likely have broadly similar demographics, aside from groups focused on Gen Z like BridgeUSA. Separately, it also takes substantial effort to plan even a single event. The numbers to achieve scale via events seem unrealistic: Even if 100 events could each reach 10 people per day, it would take over 400 years to reach all voters in the most recent presidential election. Affective (emotional) polarization is widespread among the public, so simply reaching a sliver of the population in a shorter amount of time will likely have limited impact.

While at least one other field has embraced research showing 3.5 percent of the public needs to be reached, citing findings about the number of citizens literally needing to be in the streets to overthrow a dictator, the research has questionable relevance to civil discourse efforts. Simply attending a workshop does not imply full participation in a movement, and the goals of civil discourse workshops are obviously very different than trying to overthrow a dictator.

Reliability: Gordon Allport’s original Intergroup Contact Theory from 1954 identified four highly restrictive conditions for optimal contact: “equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support.” While more recent research shows that these conditions are more helpful than absolutely necessary, successful conversations still are not inevitable.

Representativeness: Even if a conversation is successful, the conversation partner may not be seen as particularly representative of the other political party as whole. In the academic literature, researchers find this “primary transfer effect” from the individual member to the group requires that “some level of group representativeness must be maintained for attitudes to generalize to the whole group.” Those attending workshops are a self-selected group, and the demographics can quite wildly differ from the larger target population. For instance, using Braver Angels data from 2020-2021, we see that 65 percent of participants had postgraduate degrees, compared with less than 15 percent of the overall population aged 25 and older. These conversations still can have a benefit of showing there are “good ones” across the political spectrum, but they do not necessarily change views about those across the political spectrum en masse.

Repetition: A few hours at a workshop may feel like an oasis, but then messages in the real world spew political negativity and division. Braver Angels’ transparency on this front is again admirable, including academic research showing that explicit measures of reduced affective polarization (e.g., via feeling thermometer, trust measure, comfort with those in the other party in various social situations) were not statistically significant after one or two weeks after participating in a day-long red/blue workshop among undergrads at four universities. Improvements on an Implicit Association Test were still statistically significant at that timeframe, but not after six months; willingness to donate to a depolarization group focused on Gen Z remained elevated throughout. Thus, it appears necessary to have repetition to depolarize in this context, but many will not want to attend multiple events, or they may have difficulty finding appropriate repeat conversation partners.

The 4 R's are not meant to chastise or induce hopelessness among those interested in the future of the country. Instead, they are a call for reflection and reconsideration of the best tactics for the space to take, given these limitations.

In part two of the article, publishing tomorrow, I will cover some suggestions (with 4 S’s) for how to still use dialogue in specific circumstances, and when opportunities besides dialogue may be best.

Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at james@morelikeus.org

Read More

Threat Minimizes Compassion
Polarization and the politics of love
Polarization and the politics of love

Threat Minimizes Compassion

Threat minimizes compassion. This connection helps to explain two seemingly unrelated questions: Why do those who voted for President Trump seem not to publicly express much concern for the thousands of government workers fired since Inauguration Day? And why do liberals often seem not to talk as much about drug deaths as other issues like gun deaths?

The answers are multi-faceted, of course. This article will focus on one of many reasons: the potential victims of these actions and situations (government workers and drug users) are often directly or indirectly seen as threats by the other side, and it is hard to feel the pain of those who seem to threaten us. Institutions can also be threatening, based on the actions taken by people within those institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less
a group of people arranged in the shape of the United states of America map

A group of people arranged in the shape of the United states of America map.

Getty Images, attjeacock

Where Is the “Real America”?

Is there such a thing as a “real America”? A battle now rages over this simple question. Some Democratic party operatives claim the real America are so-called “Trump voters,” who they say they need to better “study” in order to win future elections. Many Republican voices argue the real America are just those who support the new administration 100% of the time. Still, others assert that different demographics or geography comprise the real America. It’s as if the real America is one particular slice or another of our nation.

These caricatures lead us sorely astray. But there is a real America. I work in it every day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Drain—More Than Fight—Authoritarianism and Censorship
Getty Images, Mykyta Ivanov

Drain—More Than Fight—Authoritarianism and Censorship

The current approaches to proactively counteracting authoritarianism and censorship fall into two main categories, which we call “fighting” and “Constitution-defending.” While Constitution-defending in particular has some value, this article advocates for a third major method: draining interest in authoritarianism and censorship.

“Draining” refers to sapping interest in these extreme possibilities of authoritarianism and censorship. In practical terms, it comes from reducing an overblown sense of threat of fellow Americans across the political spectrum. When there is less to fear about each other, there is less desire for authoritarianism or censorship.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Moral Awakening of Cory Booker's Marathon Speech
Cory Booker | U.S. Senator Cory Booker speaking with attende… | Flickr
www.flickr.com

The Moral Awakening of Cory Booker's Marathon Speech

Just when prophetic witness felt muted by political expediency, Senator Cory Booker's unprecedented 25-hour marathon speech on the Senate floor is a powerful testament to moral courage and democratic resilience. Beginning at 7 p.m. on Monday (3/31/25) and extending through Tuesday (4/1/25) evening, Booker's historic address surpassed Strom Thurmond's infamous 1957 record, though with a profound difference, reconstituting the meaning of a "moral moment."

The New Jersey senator's sustained oratory wasn't merely a political gesture—it embodied the prophetic tradition that has long animated America's moral progress. Like the Hebrew prophets who stood before kings, speaking truth to power at high personal cost, Booker's political discourse represented a contemporary form of bearing witness. His physical endurance became a metaphor for the sustained resistance required in facing injustice.

Keep ReadingShow less