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

Bridging conversations are dialogues that help individuals understand each other by exploring the spaces between different perspectives. These exchanges involve active listening, genuine curiosity, and a willingness to examine assumptions and beliefs. Rather than aiming to change minds or win arguments, bridging conversations focus on building understanding and connection across divides through mutual exploration of ideas and experiences.

Chaining refers to the mental process of automatically linking someone’s stated belief to a series of increasingly extreme positions without evidence. This cognitive shortcut occurs when people assume that holding one view necessarily implies holding other, more controversial views based on previous patterns or experiences. For example, if someone expresses concern about property damage during protests, an observer engaging in chaining might automatically assume this person opposes racial justice efforts entirely, despite having no direct evidence of such beliefs. Chaining represents a barrier to productive dialogue because it leads people to make unfounded assumptions about others’ complete belief systems based on limited information. The concept explains how social media interactions can amplify misunderstandings, as users frequently encounter examples of extreme positions and then apply these patterns to subsequent interactions, preventing genuine engagement with nuanced perspectives.

Cognitive closure is the psychological need to reach firm conclusions and avoid ambiguity in understanding. When individuals encounter unclear or threatening ideas beyond their immediate understanding, cognitive closure drives them to manufacture certainty rather than investigate further. This desire for definitive answers can prevent people from remaining open to new perspectives or questioning their existing beliefs.

In I Never Thought of It That Way, curiosity refers to the intentional practice of seeking to understand perspectives different from one’s own. Guzmán presents curiosity not as a passive trait but as an active tool for bridging political divides. The author describes it as a powerful force that can overcome defensive reactions and predetermined judgments, enabling genuine dialogue between people with opposing viewpoints.

D-curiosity, or deprivation-based curiosity, is a type of curiosity driven by the uncomfortable sensation of lacking specific knowledge. This form of curiosity, identified by psychology researcher Jordan Litman, motivates individuals to seek information primarily to alleviate the discomfort of not knowing something. D-curiosity tends to be reactive, careful, and focused on finding specific answers to close knowledge gaps. Once the desired information is obtained, this type of curiosity typically subsides.

Depolarization describes the process of reducing extreme political divisions and fostering understanding between people with opposing viewpoints. In the context of the book, depolarization involves creating opportunities for meaningful dialogue across political lines and developing tools to help people engage with those who hold different beliefs. Guzmán associates this term with organizations like Braver Angels, that work to rebuild trust and communication between political opponents.

“Dopamine lollipops” is developmental molecular biologist John Levine’s term for the frequent hits of pleasure-inducing neurotransmitters that social media platforms and digital technologies provide to users. These quick rewards come from activities like receiving notifications, getting likes, or checking feeds, creating a cycle of constant checking and engagement. The term emphasizes how digital platforms exploit the brain’s reward system to keep users returning to their devices repeatedly, even when there is no practical need to do so. Guzmán uses this concept to explain one way that information silos maintain their power over users, as people become psychologically conditioned to seek these small doses of gratification from within their preferred digital spaces.

False polarization describes the tendency for people to overestimate the ideological differences between opposing groups. This type of polarization occurs when individuals incorrectly believe that members of other groups hold more extreme views than they actually do. The phenomenon leads people to perceive greater divisions than truly exist, often causing them to attribute more hostile motives to their opponents than is warranted. False polarization can create a self-reinforcing cycle whereby misperceptions drive increased hostility between groups.

Friction refers to the productive tension that arises when people with different perspectives engage meaningfully with each other’s viewpoints. In Guzmán’s framework, friction is not an obstacle to be avoided but rather an essential component of building understanding across social and political divides. The author presents friction as a necessary catalyst for learning and growth, comparing it to the way physical objects polish each other through contact. This concept challenges the common instinct to avoid disagreement, instead suggesting that the discomfort of engaging with different viewpoints creates opportunities for deeper understanding and personal growth.

Hallin’s Spheres is a model that categorizes societal beliefs and discourse into three distinct spheres: The sphere of consensus (containing universally accepted beliefs); the sphere of legitimate discourse (containing debatable topics); and the sphere of deviance (containing rejected beliefs). As political polarization increases, the sphere of consensus shrinks while the boundaries between legitimate discourse and deviance become increasingly unstable. This framework helps explain how societal division affects public discourse and shapes what different groups consider acceptable topics for debate.

I-curiosity, or interest-based curiosity, is a form of curiosity characterized by genuine enthusiasm and desire to explore new information for its own sake. This type of curiosity, also identified by Jordan Litman, is proactive and adventurous, driven by genuine interest rather than anxiety about knowledge gaps. I-curiosity leads to deeper exploration and sustained engagement with topics and people, making it particularly valuable for building understanding across different perspectives and experiences. Unlike D-curiosity (see above), I-curiosity often generates additional questions and continues even after initial information is obtained.

Ideological polarization describes genuine policy-based disagreements between different political or social groups. This form of division stems from substantive differences in beliefs, values, and preferred solutions to societal problems. Unlike affective or false polarization, ideological polarization reflects actual disparities in how different groups think society should be organized or how specific issues should be addressed. These differences represent real philosophical or practical disagreements rather than emotional reactions or misperceptions.

INTOIT is an acronym for “I never thought of it that way” moments, representing instances when individuals encounter perspectives that either reinforce or challenge their existing beliefs. These moments occur during direct interactions with others and signal that a new insight has successfully bridged the gap between different viewpoints. INTOIT moments can happen during conversations, while reading, or even after processing new information, and they serve as indicators that someone has genuinely engaged with, and understood, a perspective different from their own.

Mega-identities refer to the alignment of multiple aspects of identity—such as religion, race, ideology, and cultural preferences—with political party affiliation. Political scientist Liliana Mason uses this term to describe how various social and demographic characteristics have become increasingly bundled with political identity since the 1970s. This stacking of identities intensifies emotional reactions to political events because a political loss can feel like a rejection of multiple aspects of one’s identity simultaneously.

Misinformation in I Never Thought of It That Way refers to false or inaccurate information that spreads within political discourse. Guzmán argues that misinformation succeeds not primarily because people reject truth, but because it connects to genuine fears and concerns that go unacknowledged in mainstream dialogue. The author presents misinformation as a symptom of broken communication between different political groups rather than simply a product of deceit or gullibility.

Othering is the process by which people push away from and define themselves in opposition to groups they perceive as different or antagonistic. This pattern involves creating psychological and sometimes physical distance from those who hold opposing views or belong to different social groups. The process reinforces group identity by emphasizing differences rather than similarities between groups, making it increasingly difficult to understand or empathize with those deemed “other.”

Siloing describes how people become isolated within their own groups and narratives, making it progressively harder to hear or understand perspectives from outside their immediate social circle. This pattern manifests in both physical spaces (such as politically-homogeneous neighborhoods) and digital environments (such as social media echo chambers). The term derives from grain silos, which keep their contents isolated and pure, much like how this social pattern keeps people separated from different viewpoints and experiences.

Sorting is the natural human tendency to gather with others who share similar characteristics, beliefs, or preferences. This pattern manifests in various contexts, from casual social gatherings where people drift toward those with whom they share common ground, to larger demographic trends, such as political geographic segregation. While sorting serves important social and psychological needs by creating comfortable and affirming environments, it can also limit exposure to diverse perspectives and reinforce existing biases.

Traction refers to the quality that enables productive bridging conversations to develop and maintain momentum. It emerges when participants become comfortable with discomfort and remain engaged despite challenging topics or disagreements. Traction builds when conversations achieve a balance of three positive moments for every negative moment, allowing participants to wade into substantive discussions while maintaining connection and finding reasons to smile. The concept resembles the grip needed to climb toward new insights and understanding, preventing conversations from stalling when they encounter intellectual or emotional challenges.