Stay open

Hold your view, and show you can see theirs.

For example

Porcupine · a tipAlex, you agree with part of what Sam said about the budget. Saying so first might make the rest easier to hear.

How Porcupine uses it

Porcupine may suggest saying which part of the other person’s point you agree with, or looking at it the way a fair-minded outsider would.
A ready-made line, “You’re right about part of that,” is there if you want it.
It never adds agreement you didn’t express.

In practice

Show you’re open

Acknowledge their point, find partial agreement and soften certainty.

Take a neutral view

Picture how a fair-minded outsider would see the disagreement.

Why it helps

Disagreements tend to escalate when people signal they’ve stopped listening. Small signs of openness, like acknowledging part of the other person’s point or softening certainty, make the other side more willing to engage, without anyone giving up their position. In experiments, open language went with better conversations most of all in writing, where people used it least. In a large trial, AI-suggested rephrasings like these made online disagreements go better for the other person, without changing anyone’s view. Stepping back to see the conflict the way a fair-minded outsider would can help too.

What we don’t know yet

Most of this research looked at disagreements between strangers about politics or policy. Close relationships may respond differently.

See it in a conversation

How to talk to your partner about their familyPartners
How to tell someone you’re not interested, kindlyDating
How to tell your family you’re not coming home for the holidaysAnyone in the family
How to set a boundary with a friendFriends
How to push back on your manager’s deadlineManagers and employees
How to respond to an intrusive questionStrangers and acquaintances

More guides ›

The research

Studied with adults in general

In a randomized trial of online conversations about gun control, an AI assistant that suggested rephrasings (restating, validating, politeness) made conversations better for the other person, without changing anyone’s position.

Argyle, L. P., Bail, C. A., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Howe, T., Rytting, C., Sorensen, T., & Wingate, D. (2023). Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: Chat interventions can improve online political conversations at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(41), e2311627120.

Studied with adults in general

In experiments, people who disagreed with a writer saw those who showed “conversational receptiveness” as better partners to work with, and found their messages more persuasive. In a study of online editors’ disputes, receptive posts drew fewer personal attacks.

Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131–148.

Studied with couples

In a two-year experiment with married couples, those who spent a few minutes writing about their conflicts from a neutral third party’s view, three times a year, kept their marital quality from declining.

Finkel, E. J., Slotter, E. B., Luchies, L. B., Walton, G. M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). A brief intervention to promote conflict reappraisal preserves marital quality over time. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1595–1601.

More research

Studied with adults in general

A meta-analysis of 25 experiments with adults found that thinking over an upsetting experience from a step back, as an observer would, helped a little more than reliving it, though the authors judged the evidence uncertain.

Murdoch, E. M., Chapman, M. T., Crane, M., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2023). The effectiveness of self-distanced versus self-immersed reflections among adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Stress and Health, 39(2), 255–271.

Studied with adults in general

In randomized experiments with 1,576 people talking or writing to someone who disagreed with them, language that showed openness to the other view went with better conversations, and more strongly in writing than in speech, though people used less of it when writing. Overall, disagreeing out loud went better than in writing.

Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., & Yeomans, M. (2026). Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. Nature Communications, 17, 5792.

Studied with adults in general

In four experiments, one a preregistered repeat, people who held a view on moral grounds became more open to the other side when a message acknowledged their side respectfully, which went with feeling appreciated. Acknowledging their side without respect didn’t help.

Xu, M., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1151–1166.

Library last updated October 2026.