Three decades of studying communication taught me debates aren’t about winning – they’re about understanding. Cognitive empathy changes everything.
The story
I used to think debates were about winning. Three decades studying communication taught me they’re actually about understanding.
Back in 1990, I watched conversations turn into warfare. People attacked positions and walked away more divided. That’s when I discovered cognitive empathy changes everything.
Unlike emotional empathy that overwhelms you with others’ feelings, cognitive empathy lets you understand their reasoning while keeping your clarity. You’re not trying to feel what they feel – you’re genuinely curious about why they think what they think.
Most people debate with the wrong question. Instead of asking “How can I prove you’re wrong?” try “Help me understand why this matters to you.”
That simple shift transforms everything. Suddenly you’re exploring underlying values rather than attacking surface arguments. Defensiveness drops. Real learning begins.
In Chapter 17 of “A Practical EmPath,” I share conversation examples where this actually works. One involved two people debating a hot political topic. Instead of pointing out flaws, they used cognitive empathy to understand each other’s core concerns. They found surprising common ground.
Three techniques that work:
Curiosity over judgment. When someone’s position seems wrong, ask genuine questions about their reasoning.
Validation without agreement. You can acknowledge their perspective as valid for them without accepting their conclusions.
Slow down the pace. Most debates fail because people rush to respond rather than understand.
The goal isn’t abandoning your values. It’s approaching disagreement with genuine curiosity about the human behind the viewpoint.
This shift – from defeating arguments to understanding people – is perhaps the most powerful communication upgrade available. It’s the difference between winning debates and solving problems.
Recent Comments