The DCI Blog

Heidi Meyer ’23 (DCI Fellow)

“Do you know how a zipper works?” “Yes,” I quickly answered confidently on the survey, reflecting that I’ve used zippers my whole life on clothing, my shoes, backpacks, and more. My confidence slowed when the next question came: “Please explain in the writing response below how a zipper works.” I paused. After a bit of thinking, I wrote “I realize now I do not know how a zipper works.” 

This example was a successful lesson for me in intellectual humility. This Perspectives module, which was a part of my DCI training, had totally convinced me to completely change my viewpoint and I wasn’t angry or defensive, but rather astonished and impressed with how much my view had changed so quickly. 

The first takeaway for me was that I don’t know as much as I think I know. While there are many topics that I could give a stance on or may have learned about in the past through a class or personal research, I often forget details or don’t look deeply into topics before taking a stance. 

The beauty of intellectual humility is that it is positive. There is always more anyone can learn on any subject. Therefore everyone should be open to learning more information and with new information, changes in beliefs or stances may come. If society can learn to embrace intellectual humility and a growth mindset around learning, it would help combat polarization. People would be more willing to engage with someone who holds a different viewpoint, as every conversation would pose an opportunity to learn and grow. This doesn’t mean that everyone will change their core beliefs after one conversation, but it does mean that you can learn about someone, humanize them, and sympathize with why they might hold a different view than you do. 

The second lesson for me was the power of questions. The efficacy of a question to diplomatically disarm someone is powerful and can not only help someone change their mind but can also help protect a relationship from being harmed by a disagreement. Most people become defensive when their views and especially core beliefs are challenged. But asking genuine questions to understand where someone is coming from, however, can help you learn about their reasoning and simultaneously encourage them to reflect on their reasoning. This self-reflection is often more effective in getting someone to realize their mistake than telling someone why they are wrong. In the zipper example, I was completely convinced to change my mind to a completely different perspective due to one question asking me to explain my stance. 

While zippers are a niche topic, the lesson applies to other subjects such as politics, workplaces, and personal relationships. Asking people to explain their positions is an effective way to help them think through their position and defend it. The answers can help you understand where someone is coming from or help that individual consider other perspectives if they realize they aren’t as sure as they thought they were about why they held such a stance. 

In today’s modern polarized society, questions are a simple but effective way to come together, whether through learning about the other side or encouraging people to be more curious and openminded. When asking questions, be mindful to also ask yourself why you hold the views you do and to remain intellectually humble even if you have answers to your own questions.  There is always more you can learn that may change the way you think and feel.

By Brody Bassett ’25 (DCI Fellow)

Going into my first semester as a facilitator with the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, I was excited to hopefully help people hear different opinions. I hoped to help facilitate discussion to break people out of potential “echo chambers,” so there could be more understanding between opposing viewpoints on and off Davidson’s campus. 

After my first week of facilitations, I was pleased with the development of the deliberations. The members of my group were openly conversing about their opinions and viewpoints. During the first session, I was able to see the different perspectives within the groups. These different perspectives led to differing political beliefs which were talked about during the discussion. I was happy to see that my deliberation team engaged with each other despite their differences in opinion.

One of the first deliberation topics of my session brought about a specific voting option: mail-in voting. People certainly had different opinions about this option and its effects on the overall electoral process.  Specifically, one person voiced the opinion that mail-in voting leads to a potential for less integrity within the voting system. Another individual from the deliberation voiced their own belief that mail-in voting allows more accessibility for working-class Americans. The two then began to weigh the pros and cons of the mail-in voting system, each expressing their own opinions. I was happy to facilitate this discussion, and both parties productively expressed their opinions while other members began to weigh in as well, leading to a fruitful exchange of ideas. My first facilitation lived up to my expectations as people shared different viewpoints, exposing each other to different opinions. In my next facilitation, however, the conversation did not follow my expectations.

As stated above, I was committed to being a facilitator of deliberation groups to hopefully show people different perspectives on politically contentious topics. I frankly did not realize the potential of deliberation groups to change people’s opinions on political topics. As facilitators, we don’t expect our group’s participants to necessarily alter their views on these topics; we are more focused on encouraging listening, sharing, and exploring new ideas together.  So my expectations were broken when I was pleasantly surprised that one of my D Team members humbly started our time by admitting that they conceded their viewpoint from the last deliberation. The member recounted specific details from the opposing point of view, leading them to the conclusion that they might be wrong. They shared this revelation with the group and thanked everyone for the discussion that helped change their viewpoint.

Following my second meeting with my D Team, I was impressed by the humility and the bravery the individual took to let go of their views and acknowledge to a group their change in opinion. This interaction showed me that deliberation groups were more than just tools to break people from their “echo chambers,” and that deliberations could bring people to accept new ideas. While not all the members of D Teams will come forward to share their change in opinion, the environment of a deliberation group does allow for the change of opinions in a healthy space. We shouldn’t expect it but it does happen and I was very pleased to see it firsthand.