In a world of increasingly polarized opinions, truly understanding someone with whom you strongly disagree can feel like an impossible task.  But what if the key lies not in arguing harder but in asking smarter?  Research by Philip Fernbach (https://www.philipfernbach.com/) offers a fascinating insight, particularly around what he calls the “illusion of explanatory depth”: people often overestimate their understanding of complex issues.  This overestimation can be a barrier; however, it also presents an opportunity for growth.

Find Philip’s book here: https://www.amazon.ca/Knowledge-Illusion-Never-Think-Alone/dp/039918435X

The Hidden Gap: The Illusion of Explanatory Depth

Fernbach’s work suggests that we often believe we understand complex topics with a clarity we don’t truly possess.  However, when gently encouraged to explain the actual mechanics or detailed implications of our beliefs, we may notice the gaps in our understanding.  This moment of recognition—realizing we don’t grasp something as well as we thought—can make us more receptive to other viewpoints and less fixated on our initial stance. It’s not about proving someone wrong but about inviting a more thorough exploration of what they believe and why.

Bridging the Gap: Questions for Deeper Understanding

So, how can we leverage this psychological insight in our conversations?  Inspired by Fernbach’s research, here are five questions designed to help you bridge the understanding gap when faced with strongly differing opinions.  These aren’t “gotcha” questions; when approached with genuine curiosity, they serve as invitations to explore the landscape of belief together.

1. The “How Exactly?” Question: “Could you walk me through the step-by-step process of how you see [their stated policy/idea] achieving its intended goals?  What are the key mechanisms at play?”

• • Why It Works: This question directly taps into the “illusion of explanatory depth.” Instead of debating the overarching goal itself, you’re directing curiosity towards the implementation and the presumed causal chain.  It encourages the other person to move beyond a general assertion to a more detailed explanation—a process that may uncover complexities or unforeseen obstacles they hadn’t fully considered.

2. The “Ripple Effect” Question: “If [their stated policy/idea] were put into action, what do you anticipate as some of the immediate and longer-term consequences, both positive and negative, across various areas or groups?”

• • Why it Works: This encourages them to consider the broader, multifaceted impacts of their position.  The conversation can then shift from a simplistic “right vs. wrong” dichotomy to a more nuanced discussion of various outcomes and potential trade-offs.   Acknowledging possible negative consequences (even if they firmly believe the positives outweigh them) demonstrates a more comprehensive and thoughtful consideration of the issue at hand.

3. The “Foundations” Question: “What are some of the underlying assumptions or core principles that lead you to this particular conclusion about [the issue]? Can you help me understand how those principles apply here?”

• • Why it Works: This question gently seeks to uncover the foundational values or beliefs that shape their opinion.  Understanding their starting point, even if you do not personally agree with it, can make their position more comprehensible and less arbitrary or inexplicable. It’s about seeing the architecture of their argument from the ground up.

4. The “Devil’s Advocate” Question: “If you were trying to explain the strongest arguments against your position to someone who agreed with you, how would you phrase them? What aspects of those counterarguments, if any, do you find have some validity, even if they don’t change your overall view?”

• • Why it Works: This encourages individuals to engage with opposing views in a charitable manner and demonstrates that they have genuinely considered alternatives.  It can be a powerful method to highlight potential areas of common ground or, at the very least, to foster a mutual acknowledgment of the issue’s complexity.

5. The “What If?” Question: “What kind of evidence or scenario might lead you to reconsider or modify your current view on [the issue]?”

• • Why it Works: This question investigates the circumstances in which their view may be falsifiable or adaptable.  A readiness to consider what could change their mind often indicates an openness to further learning and discussion.  Conversely, an inability to conceive of any such evidence may suggest a more dogmatic or closed stance.  Critically, it also helps clarify the very foundation of their conviction and what supports it.

The Gentle Art of Asking

It’s crucial to remember that the power of these questions lies significantly in their delivery. 

When you ask, your tone should express genuine curiosity and non-judgment. 

The objective isn’t to “trap” them in an intellectual corner or to “win” the argument. 

Instead, the goal is to foster a deeper mutual understanding by encouraging detailed explanations and thoughtful self-reflection—both for them and, quite possibly, for yourself.

Read  about ‘No Good Can Come Out of a Conversation That Starts With You Idiot

Towards More Meaningful Dialogue

Navigating disagreements is rarely easy, but by drawing on insights such as the “illusion of explanatory depth,” we can equip ourselves with more constructive tools for addressing them.  

These questions aren’t magic wands; however, they offer a pathway to move beyond surface-level arguments, uncover hidden complexities, and perhaps find unexpected commonalities or, at the very least, a clearer understanding of why someone holds their views.

In a world that often feels fractured, fostering a bit more understanding can go a long way.