Steven Bartlett Explains How to Win Arguments by Finding Common Ground

In a recent LinkedIn post, Steven Bartlett shares a profound personal lesson about communication and persuasion, learned over decades and illuminated by neuroscience. He recounts childhood experiences and a later-life argument with a girlfriend that highlighted a flawed approach to disagreement. Bartlett’s central thesis, informed by cognitive neuroscientist Tali Sharot, is that leading with points of agreement is far more effective than asserting one’s own correctness.

Bartlett traces his own communication patterns back to a childhood observation: “Same fight.. same words…same volume, over and over and over. One would shout – the other would shut down. Nobody ever changed their mind.” This early experience, he explains, led him to internalize a flawed strategy: “if your right, just push hard enough and the other person will eventually come around… or get tired and stop.” This approach, he found, proved ineffective in adult relationships, often resulting in the other person shutting down rather than engaging.

The Neuroscience of Disagreement

The turning point for Bartlett came through a conversation with Professor Tali Sharot. Bartlett recounts interviewing Sharot, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at UCL and MIT, and learning about her research into how brains process disagreement. He highlights a study involving pairs of people estimating house prices, where their brain activity was monitored.

“When the pair agreed, their brains synced up. Open. Receptive. Encoding. But the moment they disagreed, that tracking mechanism just… switched off. The brain stopped weighing the strength of the other persons conviction.”

This finding, according to Bartlett, is crucial: the brain’s receptivity to new information significantly diminishes upon detecting disagreement. As Bartlett explains, “Once disagreement was detected, the opposing view got categorised as wrong and the brain moved on. They remembered what the other person said. They just stopped caring how certain the other person was when they said it.” This explains why logical arguments, when presented after an immediate disagreement, often fail to persuade.

Strategies for Effective Communication

Bartlett emphasizes that the problem isn’t necessarily the logic of the argument, but the sequence of delivery. He draws a parallel to individuals who habitually begin responses with “I disagree.”

“Before they’ve even finished their sentence, something in you has already closed off…”

To counter this, Bartlett, following Sharot’s advice, advocates for a strategy that prioritizes establishing common ground. “Instead of ‘I disagree, heres why’ you would say ‘I think we both want the same outcome here. One thing I’ve noticed is…’” This approach, he argues, keeps the lines of communication open and the brain receptive.

Reframing Arguments

Bartlett provides practical examples of how to reframe statements to foster agreement. Instead of a direct rejection like “that won’t work,” he suggests a more collaborative approach: “I like this part of what your proposing. What if we built on it by…” This method acknowledges the value in the other person’s contribution before introducing modifications or alternative ideas.

He concludes by referencing Abraham Lincoln’s adage: “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” Bartlett’s post suggests that fostering a sense of shared understanding and trust, by highlighting mutual agreement, is a more effective path to persuasion than asserting one’s own correctness.