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

Guzmán introduces three fundamental patterns that create divisions in human relationships and impede clear understanding of the world: Sorting, othering, and siloing. These patterns, while providing comfort and certainty during uncertain times, ultimately distort people’s perception of reality.

Guzmán examines sorting, which is the tendency for individuals to gravitate toward those who share similar characteristics, interests, and beliefs. To illustrate this concept, she describes a house party scenario in which guests naturally drift toward those with whom they share common ground. This social sorting serves important psychological and social needs; strong relationships correlate with better health outcomes, according to a 2009 study.

The author then examines how sorting manifests in contemporary American politics, pointing to research from 2021 revealing extreme political segregation in many communities. The phenomenon extends beyond party affiliation to encompass various aspects of identity, including religion, race, and ideology, creating what political scientists term “mega-identities.” Guzmán cites political scientist Lilliana Mason’s research on how these stacked identities intensify emotional reactions to political outcomes.

To demonstrate how this political sorting evolved, Guzmán traces historical shifts from the 1970s onward. She notes that while ideological diversity within parties existed in the past, dramatic changes occurred between 1972 and 2000, when alignment between political party affiliation and other identity markers strengthened significantly. Guzmán attributes this transformation to a broader erosion of trust in institutions during the 1960s and 1970s, citing Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone.

The chapter examines how digital technology, particularly social media, amplifies sorting tendencies. As of 2021, 72% of American adults used at least one social media platform, with algorithms reinforcing users’ existing preferences and beliefs. Guzmán then illustrates the institutional impact of sorting through former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 1995 reduction of the Congressional workweek from five days to three, which diminished opportunities for cross-partisan relationship-building.

The chapter concludes by highlighting the consequences of extreme sorting through electoral data. “Landslide counties”—those voting for one party by margins of at least 20 points higher than national results—increased from 391 in 1980 to 1,726 in 2020. This geographic sorting means 35% of US voters in 2020 lived in heavily partisan counties, compared to just 4% in 1980. Guzmán argues that this isolation from differing viewpoints impairs people’s ability to understand complex issues or consider alternative perspectives.

Guzmán examines “othering”—the process by which people distance themselves from, and disparage, those who differ from them. The chapter begins with a question posed by Brian Stout, the founder of a group called Building Belonging: Can an “us” exist without a “them?” This query frames Guzmán’s investigation into how groups form identities in opposition to others.

The author presents two foundational social psychology studies demonstrating how easily people engage in othering behaviors. The first study, conducted by Muzafer Sherif in 1954, brought together 5th-grade boys at a summer camp in Oklahoma. The researchers divided the boys into two groups, allowed them to form distinct identities, then orchestrated situations for conflict. Even before direct interaction occurred, the groups expressed hostility toward each other, leading to physical confrontations despite their demographic similarities.

The second study, performed by Henri Tajfel in the 1970s, investigated what minimal conditions could trigger discrimination. Tajfel, motivated by his experiences as a Jewish survivor of World War II, created groups based on participants’ estimations of clusters of dots on a screen: He divided them into dot “overestimators” and dot “underestimators.” When given the opportunity to distribute money between their own group and others, participants consistently favored their own group members—even though the groupings were meaningless.

Guzmán connects these historical studies to contemporary political polarization in the United States. She cites research indicating that Democrats and Republicans significantly overestimate their ideological differences. The author examines three types of polarization: Ideological (based on actual policy disagreements); affective (stemming from emotional animosity); and false (arising from “lies” or overestimated differences). Research indicates that people typically believe their political opponents harbor twice as much animosity toward them as they actually do.

Drawing from her experiences in Seattle, Guzmán illustrates how geographic and social sorting intensifies political division. She describes how her city’s strong progressive majority can lead to dismissive attitudes toward conservative viewpoints. The chapter wraps up by addressing the phenomenon of social media users declaring that their followers should “unfollow if you disagree” (28) with their posts—a practice that reinforces division by eliminating opportunities for dialogue. Through an interview with a woman whose family relationships have been strained by political differences, Guzmán argues that while divisions may feel insurmountable, accepting them uncritically makes people vulnerable to dehumanizing others, thereby diminishing their understanding of human complexity.

Guzmán explains how individuals create isolated spaces of like-minded people and information, leading to deepening social divisions. She introduces the concept of a “silo”—using the image not of an above-ground storage tower, but of a metaphorical pit that people dig themselves into through their information consumption habits and social connections.

Guzmán illustrates this concept with a personal anecdote from 2011. While scrolling through Twitter on her bus ride home, she missed a spectacular sunset occurring right above her because she had become so engrossed in viewing photos of it on social media. This experience led her to realize how digital environments can become all-consuming, pulling users away from the physical world around them.

The author explains three key mechanisms of siloing. First, silos exert a powerful pull on individuals through what molecular biologist John Levine termed “dopamine lollipops”—the constant rewards of notifications and social media engagement that keep users returning to their devices. Second, silos intensify beliefs and opinions, as demonstrated by Cass Sunstein’s 1999 research showing that when people discuss issues only with those who share their views, their positions become more extreme. Third, silos compromise individual attention and agency, as platforms deliberately remove user choice to maximize engagement.

The chapter presents research indicating that increased news consumption correlates with greater misperceptions about opposing political views. A study revealed that frequent news readers exhibited almost three times more distortion in their understanding of others’ beliefs compared to occasional news consumers. This effect appeared regardless of political affiliation or news source preference.

To illustrate the dangerous culmination of siloing, Guzmán describes a Facebook interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which users mockingly compared anti-lockdown protesters to zombies. She presents this as an example of how siloing can lead to dehumanization. She contrasts this with a news article featuring Philip Campbell, a protester who articulated the genuine dilemma many faced between protecting public health and preventing economic devastation.

The author concludes by introducing “bridging” as an antidote to siloing. She references research showing that personal interactions with members of opposing groups reduced prejudice in 94% of cases across 515 studies. At the same time, Guzmán acknowledges the difficulty of crossing ideological divides and states that everyone can decide for themselves which gulfs are worth bridging and which are not. She argues that creating opportunities for connection matters more than ensuring every bridge gets crossed.