Today I am starting the book High Conflict by Amanda Ripley. In this post I will capture some notes as I go, and relate it to other things I am thinking about.

Introduction

Ripley distinguishes high conflict from “the useful friction of healthy conflict.” She calls useful conflict good conflict. She writes:

Good conflict is a force that pushes us to be better people. Good conflict is not the same thing as forgiveness. It has nothing to do with surrender. It can be stressful and heated, but our dignity remains intact. Good conflict can lead to radical change, tectonic shifts in how societies operate. But it does not collapse into caricature. We remain open to the reality that none of us has the answers to everything all the time, and that we are all connected.

She contrasts this with high conflict, which is what happens when conflict clarifies into a good-versus-evil kind of feud, the kind with an us and a them. The rules of engagement no longer apply. We feel increasingly certain of our own superiority and more mystified by the other side.

An interesting point: in this sort of conflict, “both sides are convinced that they are reacting defensively—somehow.”

Motivating question of the book: how and why does high conflict happen? And how do we get back to good conflict?

Features of “good” conflict

  • “Comprehending” while still disagreeing.
  • Hearing the other side without compromising one’s own view.
  • Curiosity returns.

Claim: “when conflict escalates past a certain point, the conflict itself takes charge. The us-versus-them dynamic takes over. […] High conflict is the invisible hand of our time.”

We need good conflict. People who try to live without conflict will implode sooner or later. But when conflict shifts into “high conflict” it can “burn down the whole house”.

Idea that there is a relationship between high conflict and “doubt”. High conflict thrives on certainty that one is in the right. Healthy doubting is in tension with high conflict.

What are the uses of high conflict? (Some from AR, some from me)

  • Can feel good.
  • Gives life meaning.
  • Can be an effective way to mobilize people.
  • Strengthens in-group bonds? Sense that we are all “on the same team”, fighting the good fight together against a common enemy.
  • Later, AR mentions meaning, camaraderie, power that can be found in high conflict.

AR says the challenge is to “mobilize great masses of people to make change without dehumanizing one another”.

Claim: nonviolent movements are more effective than violent ones at enacting change. This is a common claim but can be questioned (e.g. Scott). Is it really the case that nonviolent movements succeed in a vacuum? Or do they succeed against the backdrop of the threat of more violent forms of upheaval? E.g. King against the background threat of the Black Panthers, etc.

Claim: “Any modern movement that cultivates us-versus-them thinking tends to destroy itself from the inside, with or without violence.” Is that true? Sure, it creates some boundaries to effective cooperation (can’t work together with “them”), but how much breadth of collaboration is really necessary / possible anyway?

I worry that too much of AR’s narrative is that high conflict is per se self-destructive or something. Seems like we should very clearly acknowledge the ways in which it is beneficial and appealing. Ironically she almost seems to “us-vs-them” good vs. “high” conflict. In my view we should be honest and clear about the appeals of high conflict, what it does serve.

Some story about technology in conflict.

Use of terms “healthy” vs. “unhealthy” seems common in discussions of conflict. It’s like a way of naturalizing, downplaying the normativity of the assessment. Like saying that something is “unnatural”.

Allusion that high conflict is less effective.

Claim: high conflict is “the cause” and hate etc. is a symptom of it.

JF: Is that really the way to think about it? What is the use of putting this causal ordering on things?

Chapter 1

Idea that “the law” is excessively adversarial.

Claim: high conflict “makes us miserable”. It is “costly in every sense”.

Conflict as a “trap”. Once it escalates past a certain point, it becomes hard to get out.

Claim: key distinction between good and bad conflict is whether there is stagnation or progress. Is the conflict “leading somewhere”? In high conflict “the conflict is the destination”.

Is that really true? Isn’t it possible that there can be a sense of progress in many us-vs-them conflicts? It’s just more zero-sum in notion. We win if and only if they lose.

Notion of competing capacities for adversarialism vs. solidarity.

Idea: institutions and systems can promote one impulse vs the other.

Mediation question: “what is one thing you understood about your husband’s view?” In general, I like this idea of prompting people to restate each others’ views.

Conflict and confirmation bias. Questions vs. making assumptions.

Notion of the “understory” of conflict. What is behind the surface (or “false flags”) of the conflict. Why is XYZ important? What is behind it? Often, people who are in high conflict don’t know their own understory. Mediators can help unpack, clarify etc.

Claim: feeling understood ==> relax defenses. From Challenging Conflict: “We are more willing and able to udnerstand otehrs when we feel understood ourselves”.

Friedman emphasis on “everyone needs to be in the room”.

Looping. Listen in a way that people can see.

Claim: “when people feel heard, they make more coherent and intriguing points. They acknowledge their own inconsistencies. Willingly. They become more flexible.”

All sorts of claimed benefits: workers who feel heard perform better; patients who feel understood leave the hospital more satisfied and are more likely to follow doctor etc.

Another variant of claims:

  • Once we feel understood, we see options we couldn’t see before.
  • We feel some ownership over the search for solutions. Then, even if we don’t get our way, we are more accepting of the results, because we helped build it.

JF: Is there good evidence for this? Are there ways to test / explore this? This could be a fun one to test with LLM simulations, potentially.

Interesting idea of having people in conflict practice active listening / looping. Two benefits:

  • People realize that they get it wrong more than they thought.
  • People realize that others appreciate being heard.

Things to read

  • Gary Friedman books on mediation. Mainly: Challenging Conflict: Mediation through Understanding
  • Lisa’s book.
  • Getting to Yes
  • Nonviolent Communication
  • Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most
  • Carl Rogers? Rogers claim according to AI: “Rogers introduced the claim—radical at the time—that accurate empathy and unconditional positive regard don’t just make people feel better; they alter how people think.”
  • Kelman: Interactive problem solving.