I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times

In this chapter, Guzmán explores how different orderings of fundamental human values contribute to political division, using personal experiences and social psychology research to demonstrate how misunderstanding others’ values creates barriers to meaningful dialogue.

The chapter opens with a personal narrative about Guzmán’s father, a Mexican immigrant who voted for Trump but felt unable to discuss this with his younger tech industry colleagues. Her father explained his support stemmed from his experiences immigrating legally to the United States and his belief in following established rules.

Guzmán introduces social psychologist Shalom Schwartz’s theory of basic human values, which identifies 10 core values: Stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, benevolence, universalism, security, conformity, tradition, and self-direction. According to Schwartz’s research across 82 countries, these values are “universal,” but individuals prioritize them differently. The relative ranking of values, rather than their mere presence or absence, determines behavior and beliefs.

The author explains how this framework applies to political divisions, using immigration policy as an example. She demonstrates that opposing views often stem not from a lack of shared values, but from different prioritizations of those values. This leads to what Guzmán terms the “values bias”—the tendency to incorrectly assume that people with opposing viewpoints completely lack the values held by those on the other side.

Research from the Kettering Foundation supports this concept, suggesting that difficult political issues persist because they create tensions between equally important values, requiring ongoing negotiation rather than permanent solutions. Guzmán illustrates this using post-9/11 security measures, which created tension between collective security and freedom of movement, demonstrating how society’s value priorities can shift dramatically in response to events.

The author provides practical advice for bridging political divides, including techniques for understanding others’ values through questions about their concerns and hopes. She advocates for moving beyond the assumption that political opponents lack values, instead asking what they might value more highly in a given situation.

The chapter concludes by comparing Guzmán’s value priorities to her father’s through Schwartz’s framework, revealing unexpected commonalities and differences. This comparison demonstrates how understanding value hierarchies can lead to better comprehension of political differences, and suggests that political dialogue should focus less on convincing others to adopt one’s values and more on understanding how different value priorities lead to different political positions.

Guzmán discusses the concept of attachments—factors that create pressure for individuals to maintain certain beliefs based on expectations. These pressures can either support or conflict with an individual’s authentic self, and their intensity can vary from mild to lifelong.

To illustrate the varying levels of attachment intensity, Guzmán describes her family’s brief relationship with the Seattle Seahawks football team in 2013. During their period of fandom, she and her family demonstrated unwavering support for the team and its key figures, refusing to consider alternative viewpoints about players or coaching staff. Their enthusiasm peaked with the team’s Super Bowl XLVIII victory but diminished after a subsequent Super Bowl loss.

The author transitions to examining more profound attachments related to identity, noting that while identity itself cannot be changed, the degree to which people feel bound by identity-based expectations can vary. She highlights the 2020 California election as an example, in which Latino and Asian voters defied expectations by voting against an affirmative action measure, demonstrating how identity-based assumptions about voting patterns can be incorrect.

Guzmán then shares a personal story about confronting her own attachment to stereotypical narratives about Latino immigrants. After giving a talk about her parents’ voting choices in the 2020 election, an organization mischaracterized her family’s immigration experience as one of hardship. Despite her usual commitment to honesty, she initially hesitated to correct this misrepresentation due to her attachment to common narratives about Latino immigrant struggles. Her mother’s intervention prompted her to acknowledge and address this attachment by requesting a correction.

The author connects this experience to broader questions about authenticity and identity, revealing her past insecurities about her Latino identity when she didn’t match certain expectations. These moments included considerations about changing her surname and reactions to comments questioning her cultural authenticity.

The chapter concludes with practical strategies for managing attachments in conversations about beliefs. Guzmán suggests approaching disagreements hypothetically, considering opposing viewpoints empathetically, and openly acknowledging one’s own attachments. She uses the analogy of reorganizing smartphone apps to describe how people should hold their beliefs: Firmly enough to claim them but loosely enough to allow for change and growth.

The author emphasizes that while attachments are inevitable and can provide beneficial aspects, such as group belonging and shared experiences, they should not prevent individuals from thinking independently or considering alternative perspectives. The goal is to maintain a balance between holding firm convictions while remaining open to new viewpoints and understanding.