Thanks again Jonathan for another thought provoking piece. I would like to suggest an extension to your discussion.
I read the piece on adversarial collaboration with a mixture of admiration and unease; admiration because it articulates something profoundly hopeful about human
disagreement, and unease because I kept thinking: we don’t explicitly teach children to do any of this.
We tell them to “be kind”, “take turns”, “listen”, but rarely do we show them how to stay curious when someone says something they don’t like. We don’t teach them how to sit with discomfort, or how to ask a question that isn’t a trap, or how to recognise when a disagreement is about facts, or methods, or simply the meaning of a word. Yet we expect them, as adults, to navigate climate debates, political polarisation, and the emotional minefields of modern life with grace.
It’s a bit like expecting someone to play the violin beautifully without ever handing them an instrument.
Imagine watching some older secondary age young people argue about whether wolves should be reintroduced into the UK. One is armed with YouTube facts; the other with a David Attenborough documentary and a fierce loyalty to hill sheep farmers she had learned about. It has all the makings of a stalemate.
But then something unexpected happens.
One of them pauses and says, “Hang on, are we arguing about whether wolves are dangerous, or whether farmers would lose money?”
The other blinks, thinks for a moment, and replies, “Oh. I was talking about danger.”
Just like that, the temperature drops. They’re not suddenly in agreement, but they are in the same conversation. They’ve found the level of disagreement, the thing the article calls the ontological, epistemological, semantic tangle, without ever needing the vocabulary.
Children can do this. They just need the space.
Curiosity isn’t soft, it’s a discipline.
The article argues that disagreement becomes productive when we replace point scoring with curiosity. That’s true, but curiosity isn’t a mood, it’s a practice: it’s something we can teach.
Imagine if classrooms treated curiosity the way sports coaches teach football skills:
* How to ask a question that opens a door rather than slams one?
* How to listen for the strongest version of someone else’s idea?
* How to say “I might be wrong” without feeling diminished?
* How to recognise when you’re arguing about different things entirely?
These are not “nice extras”. They are the foundations of democratic life. Children already see the adult world modelling the opposite. They watch us dodge difficult conversations at family gatherings. They hear the brittle certainty of talk‑radio callers. They see online arguments where nobody changes their mind, because changing your mind has become a kind of social death. If we want children to grow into adults who can disagree well, we have to give them a counter‑example, a place where disagreement is not a threat but an invitation. Schools can be that place.
Kahneman’s idea of adversarial collaboration sounds lofty, but it’s perfectly suited to a classroom. Children are natural experimenters. They love puzzles. They’re less invested in identity than adults. They can work together on a shared question even when they start from different assumptions.
Climate change, biodiversity loss, social inequality, these are not issues that will be solved by people who only talk to those who already agree with them. They require citizens who can stay in the room when things get uncomfortable. Who can say, “Tell me how you see it,” and mean it. If we want that future, we have to start early.
The article ends by saying that disagreeing well is a choice. I’d go one step further: it’s a choice children learn by watching us. If we want them to choose curiosity over certainty, understanding over caricature, and dialogue over division, then we need to model those choices, in classrooms, in staffrooms, in the quiet corners of school corridors where the real education often happens. Because the truth is simple:
children will inherit our disagreements.
The least we can do is teach them how to handle them with grace.
Thanks Peter. Once again, very thought-provoking comment.
Yes, we've forgotten to teach curiosity and polite 'arguments'. This is why so many students struggle with getting feedback these days and why peer review is such a shocking thing to them to take. They're not used to being argued with on evidence. They're used to owning ideas or people attacking people rather than ideas.
So many nuggets of gold in here, Peter. I want to share these thoughts with my kids' teachers. Love these in particular:
"Kahneman’s idea of adversarial collaboration sounds lofty, but it’s perfectly suited to a classroom. Children are natural experimenters. They love puzzles. They’re less invested in identity than adults. They can work together on a shared question even when they start from different assumptions."
"...it’s a choice children learn by watching us. If we want them to choose curiosity over certainty, understanding over caricature, and dialogue over division, then we need to model those choices, in classrooms, in staffrooms, in the quiet corners of school corridors where the real education often happens. Because the truth is simple:
children will inherit our disagreements.
The least we can do is teach them how to handle them with grace."
I'm currently in the process of writing an orientation course for my organisation about how to hold our worldview lightly, and be open to those of others. So important, so difficult at times. Thanks for writing about it.
Some more detail on the psychology of disagreements -- to add to the "ontological, epistemological, and semantic" disagreement, Joe Fergas argues there's some in-group/out-group evolutionary psychology going on too. We're not arguing facts a lot of the time, we're social creatures and historically staying part of the in group was more important than being factually correct.
Personally, I hope we're not prisoners of evolution! But it's still good to be reminded that we are a creature that evolved in a certain set of circumstances, and that that confers advantages and disadvantages upon us.
Nice one, Tom! Thanks for sharing. Yes, that's something I missed here. So thanks for raising it. You're right -- once we know we're wired in a particular way, we can work with or around it.
Adversarial collaboration is more important now than ever in a world where we are exposed to so much information via social media (some of it lacking truth or decent research) that maybe we have lost the ability to be curious, listen to others points of view and be willing to recognise when our ideas or beliefs may need some adjustment.
The most important thing is having an open mind when engaging in these sometimes difficult conversations and not to take it personally if someone disagrees with you.
In Jacinda Ardern's book, "A Different Kind of Power", she talked about growing up in a family where they had very robust political discussions around the dinner table. How cool is that to encourage the young ones to have opinions, engage in conversation, be curious and learn from others.
That's super cool re: Ardern's book! I'm still yet to read it but have it on the ever-expanding list to read. Yes, you're right. It can be hard not to take things personally, but this is a skill that we've forgotten to train I think. We need to teach our kids it's OK to push back in polite ways if they first consider the point that is being put to them.
I've been mulling your post over and over, Jono, and I think you're on to something. I'm thinking of reaching out to folks I disagree with here on Substack to see what sort of conversations they might be open to.
This is such an important topic! I remember pre-covid, there was this hashtag #ActualLivingScientist going around on Twitter where people would introduce themselves to the world tongue-in-cheek because no one knew an actual living scientist. I guess it was funny in way to people. But I thought this was a super sad and clarified commentary on how scientists STINK at talking to non-scientists. After all, whose fault is it that no one knows a scientist? Their fault because they didn't find us? Or our fault? Further, the scientist's solution was apparently to joke ironically into Twitter of all places.
You're right. Talking or working with people that don't agree with you on everything can be uncomfortable. But it is also informative, cathartic to a degree, and dare I say fun (sometimes)? Also, necessary for democracy. And somehow we tolerate spirited intellectual debate as with the Hendry example you show, but not in the rest of our lives.
Well said, Andrew! The Hendry paper is such a good read -- it was a real pioneering piece in eco-evo, but not sure many have followed. I'm going to dig in a bit more on this.
Re: the #ActualLivingScientist thing. Yes, totally agree it reflects a failure in comms. But I would say that it'd be good if folks would choose their sources more carefully. In that sense people have strongly held views that were fed to them by bogus sources in the first place.
Thanks again Jonathan for another thought provoking piece. I would like to suggest an extension to your discussion.
I read the piece on adversarial collaboration with a mixture of admiration and unease; admiration because it articulates something profoundly hopeful about human
disagreement, and unease because I kept thinking: we don’t explicitly teach children to do any of this.
We tell them to “be kind”, “take turns”, “listen”, but rarely do we show them how to stay curious when someone says something they don’t like. We don’t teach them how to sit with discomfort, or how to ask a question that isn’t a trap, or how to recognise when a disagreement is about facts, or methods, or simply the meaning of a word. Yet we expect them, as adults, to navigate climate debates, political polarisation, and the emotional minefields of modern life with grace.
It’s a bit like expecting someone to play the violin beautifully without ever handing them an instrument.
Imagine watching some older secondary age young people argue about whether wolves should be reintroduced into the UK. One is armed with YouTube facts; the other with a David Attenborough documentary and a fierce loyalty to hill sheep farmers she had learned about. It has all the makings of a stalemate.
But then something unexpected happens.
One of them pauses and says, “Hang on, are we arguing about whether wolves are dangerous, or whether farmers would lose money?”
The other blinks, thinks for a moment, and replies, “Oh. I was talking about danger.”
Just like that, the temperature drops. They’re not suddenly in agreement, but they are in the same conversation. They’ve found the level of disagreement, the thing the article calls the ontological, epistemological, semantic tangle, without ever needing the vocabulary.
Children can do this. They just need the space.
Curiosity isn’t soft, it’s a discipline.
The article argues that disagreement becomes productive when we replace point scoring with curiosity. That’s true, but curiosity isn’t a mood, it’s a practice: it’s something we can teach.
Imagine if classrooms treated curiosity the way sports coaches teach football skills:
* How to ask a question that opens a door rather than slams one?
* How to listen for the strongest version of someone else’s idea?
* How to say “I might be wrong” without feeling diminished?
* How to recognise when you’re arguing about different things entirely?
These are not “nice extras”. They are the foundations of democratic life. Children already see the adult world modelling the opposite. They watch us dodge difficult conversations at family gatherings. They hear the brittle certainty of talk‑radio callers. They see online arguments where nobody changes their mind, because changing your mind has become a kind of social death. If we want children to grow into adults who can disagree well, we have to give them a counter‑example, a place where disagreement is not a threat but an invitation. Schools can be that place.
Kahneman’s idea of adversarial collaboration sounds lofty, but it’s perfectly suited to a classroom. Children are natural experimenters. They love puzzles. They’re less invested in identity than adults. They can work together on a shared question even when they start from different assumptions.
Climate change, biodiversity loss, social inequality, these are not issues that will be solved by people who only talk to those who already agree with them. They require citizens who can stay in the room when things get uncomfortable. Who can say, “Tell me how you see it,” and mean it. If we want that future, we have to start early.
The article ends by saying that disagreeing well is a choice. I’d go one step further: it’s a choice children learn by watching us. If we want them to choose curiosity over certainty, understanding over caricature, and dialogue over division, then we need to model those choices, in classrooms, in staffrooms, in the quiet corners of school corridors where the real education often happens. Because the truth is simple:
children will inherit our disagreements.
The least we can do is teach them how to handle them with grace.
Thanks Peter. Once again, very thought-provoking comment.
Yes, we've forgotten to teach curiosity and polite 'arguments'. This is why so many students struggle with getting feedback these days and why peer review is such a shocking thing to them to take. They're not used to being argued with on evidence. They're used to owning ideas or people attacking people rather than ideas.
So many nuggets of gold in here, Peter. I want to share these thoughts with my kids' teachers. Love these in particular:
"Kahneman’s idea of adversarial collaboration sounds lofty, but it’s perfectly suited to a classroom. Children are natural experimenters. They love puzzles. They’re less invested in identity than adults. They can work together on a shared question even when they start from different assumptions."
"...it’s a choice children learn by watching us. If we want them to choose curiosity over certainty, understanding over caricature, and dialogue over division, then we need to model those choices, in classrooms, in staffrooms, in the quiet corners of school corridors where the real education often happens. Because the truth is simple:
children will inherit our disagreements.
The least we can do is teach them how to handle them with grace."
Quote I've found useful in this context. "Belief is the death of intelligence " Robert Anton Wilson
Love this!
I'm currently in the process of writing an orientation course for my organisation about how to hold our worldview lightly, and be open to those of others. So important, so difficult at times. Thanks for writing about it.
It really is. I love that you're doing that. Hope it works and good on you!
Some more detail on the psychology of disagreements -- to add to the "ontological, epistemological, and semantic" disagreement, Joe Fergas argues there's some in-group/out-group evolutionary psychology going on too. We're not arguing facts a lot of the time, we're social creatures and historically staying part of the in group was more important than being factually correct.
Personally, I hope we're not prisoners of evolution! But it's still good to be reminded that we are a creature that evolved in a certain set of circumstances, and that that confers advantages and disadvantages upon us.
https://unswscience.substack.com/p/are-we-wired-for-tribalism?r=62e707
Nice one, Tom! Thanks for sharing. Yes, that's something I missed here. So thanks for raising it. You're right -- once we know we're wired in a particular way, we can work with or around it.
Adversarial collaboration is more important now than ever in a world where we are exposed to so much information via social media (some of it lacking truth or decent research) that maybe we have lost the ability to be curious, listen to others points of view and be willing to recognise when our ideas or beliefs may need some adjustment.
The most important thing is having an open mind when engaging in these sometimes difficult conversations and not to take it personally if someone disagrees with you.
In Jacinda Ardern's book, "A Different Kind of Power", she talked about growing up in a family where they had very robust political discussions around the dinner table. How cool is that to encourage the young ones to have opinions, engage in conversation, be curious and learn from others.
That's super cool re: Ardern's book! I'm still yet to read it but have it on the ever-expanding list to read. Yes, you're right. It can be hard not to take things personally, but this is a skill that we've forgotten to train I think. We need to teach our kids it's OK to push back in polite ways if they first consider the point that is being put to them.
I've been mulling your post over and over, Jono, and I think you're on to something. I'm thinking of reaching out to folks I disagree with here on Substack to see what sort of conversations they might be open to.
That's awesome, Paul! Good on you. I think we need more people modelling how to do this well.
This is such an important topic! I remember pre-covid, there was this hashtag #ActualLivingScientist going around on Twitter where people would introduce themselves to the world tongue-in-cheek because no one knew an actual living scientist. I guess it was funny in way to people. But I thought this was a super sad and clarified commentary on how scientists STINK at talking to non-scientists. After all, whose fault is it that no one knows a scientist? Their fault because they didn't find us? Or our fault? Further, the scientist's solution was apparently to joke ironically into Twitter of all places.
You're right. Talking or working with people that don't agree with you on everything can be uncomfortable. But it is also informative, cathartic to a degree, and dare I say fun (sometimes)? Also, necessary for democracy. And somehow we tolerate spirited intellectual debate as with the Hendry example you show, but not in the rest of our lives.
Well said, Andrew! The Hendry paper is such a good read -- it was a real pioneering piece in eco-evo, but not sure many have followed. I'm going to dig in a bit more on this.
Re: the #ActualLivingScientist thing. Yes, totally agree it reflects a failure in comms. But I would say that it'd be good if folks would choose their sources more carefully. In that sense people have strongly held views that were fed to them by bogus sources in the first place.
Thank you for this. Very useful.
My pleasure!