About this Episode

Welcome to today’s episode of The Communication Solution podcast with Casey Jackson, John Gilbert and Danielle Cantin. We love talking about Motivational Interviewing, and about improving outcomes for individuals, organizations, and the communities that they serve. In this engaging episode we delve into the intricate dynamics of political discourse, focusing on the challenges and opportunities for understanding and civility. Through personal anecdotes and discussions on the role of values, mindfulness, and the biological underpinnings of conflict, the hosts explore how individuals can engage in political conversations in a way that respects differing perspectives without compromising their own values. The podcast highlights an innovative civility summit initiative that aims to bridge divides through decisional balance exercises, emphasizing the potential for growth and understanding in political dialogue. The conversation encourages listeners to approach political engagement as an informed choice, rather than a conflict, fostering a more constructive and less confrontational political landscape. The episode concludes with an invitation for listeners to share their own experiences and insights on navigating the complex world of politics with civility and respect.

In this podcast, we discuss:

• Introduction to the Challenge of Discussing Politics: The podcast opens with an acknowledgment of the complexities and sensitivities involved in political discussions and the intention to explore these through the lens of motivational interviewing (MI).


• The Risks and Rewards of Political Discourse: The hosts express excitement and caution about delving into such a contentious topic, emphasizing the importance of setting protective guidelines for a respectful dialogue.


• Motivational Interviewing and Political Conversations: The discussion clarifies that MI is not intended to change political opinions but can be used to navigate personal ambivalence and improve interactions with others who hold differing views.


• Exploring Political Beliefs with Empathy and Acceptance: The hosts discuss the potential of MI principles like empathy, acceptance, and positive regard to facilitate more constructive political conversations and reduce conflict.


• The Influence of Unconscious Bias: The conversation touches on the challenge of recognizing and setting aside unconscious biases to truly listen and understand opposing viewpoints.


• The Biological Basis of Strong Political Reactions: A shift towards the physiological and biological explanations for the intense emotions and reactions often observed in political debates.


• Aligning Political Engagement with Personal Values: The hosts reflect on the importance of ensuring one’s political actions and discussions are in alignment with their broader value system.


• The Psychological and Biological Drivers of Political Behavior: A deeper dive into how human psychology and basic survival instincts may underpin political beliefs and behaviors.


• Considering Politics from a Survival Perspective: The discussion explores the idea that political affiliations and conflicts might be rooted in fundamental survival instincts, such as assessing threats and allies.

You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us!

This has been part one of a two-part podcast. We hope you’ll join us for the second portion. You don’t want to miss this one! Make sure to rate us or share this podcast. It would mean so much to us! Thank you for listening to the communication solution. This podcast is all about you. If you have questions, thoughts, topic suggestions, or ideas, please send them our way at casey@ifioc.com. For more resources, feel free to check out ifioc.com.

Transcribe

 Hello and welcome to the communication solution podcast with Casey Jackson and John Gilbert. I’m your host, Danielle Cantin. Here at the Institute for Individual and Organizational Change, otherwise known as IFIOC, we love to talk about communication, we love to talk about solutions, and we love to talk about providing measurable results for individuals, organizations, and the communities they serve. Welcome. To the communication solution that will change your world.

Hi everyone. I’m Danielle Cantin, your facilitator of the Communication Solution Podcast, and I’m here with Casey Jackson, your host, and John Gilbert. How are you guys? Awesome. Well, we’re here to talk about basically the communication solution, but really weaving in all of the principles and theories around motivational interviewing, this incredible evidence based practice that has me mesmerized by the results and outcomes that it’s able to achieve in people’s lives.

 What I’d love to dive into today for a topic is,  one that typically you’re advised not to talk about, which is politics. Yeah, I was, I was hoping and thinking, you know, what if we use this podcast in this time together to talk about and unpack the complexities around politics and how can we look at that topic through the lens of motivational interviewing?

How does that sound? That is a very tight needle to thread, for sure. Sounds risky, which makes me want to do it twice as much.  With protection, which means that we’re putting some kind of guidelines to,  I think what I’m intrigued with with that, Danielle, is You know, we talk so much about equipoise and try and keep bias out.

So I think trying to unpack it from that perspective could be a challenge, but I think it’s very interesting. I have extremely strong political beliefs like many people do and have lots of pretty emotional reactions,  to things that are happening locally and,  in the United States and globally. So to unpack it from that, from an MI perspective and looking at that,  It’ll be a tight rope for us to walk, but I’m, I’m definitely willing to do that.

I don’t know what thoughts you have, John. Yeah. Well, what I’m particularly curious about from your perspective in the involvement with the motivational interviewing network of trainers meant,  and thinking about that is how much is there this like underlying theoretical philosophical basis to, am I, and how much is, am I a sort of approach that’s ever evolving?

With the outcomes. And I just, I think getting oriented to what is the lens we’re even looking through might be helpful for everyone, us talking and others involved to just get oriented. And I say that too, with our time that we were in,  at the international training. This year in Copenhagen, there were people talking about integrating more philosophy into MI.

And I just think we could be shooting in lots of directions if we don’t kind of get oriented first to what is the lens we’re looking through with this and then maybe going from there. I don’t know, you know, when you say that, that the things that I would clarify pretty quickly is that. Using motivation learning to talk politics is a mismatch because you can use aspects of it to reduce resistance.

You may be able to have somebody work through their ambivalence, but I think the caution or almost the red flag in that, not even the yellow flag, is how would you do that if you don’t, if your own bias is involved? Like, how ambivalence towards what you want them to? Do or because they’re trying to resolve something internally.

So we’re not going to go down that path of like, how do you use motivation in a political conversation? That is not this conversation. That’s not what we’re going to talk about. Because that’s, that would not be an accurate application of motivational interviewing just based on bias. I think when we step back and look at the construct of motivational interviewing of how do we want to work through our own ambivalence, interacting with people in our lives that may believe differently than we do, or people that we run across that may behave in a way that’s very,  Antithetical to the way the things we believe or how we believe people should treat each other.

 I think those are the things that you can think, how can I be more effective in my interactions in the next period of time as, as the U S is rolling towards, you know, another presidential election. And there’s a lot of political unrest globally as well too. So I think if we can tease that out, I’m pretty excited about,  seeing where we can go with that.

Easy. Easy. So, well, one, there’s, there’s so many areas to explore here. It’s kind of like what is most salient and that’s part of getting oriented to the, the lens first. So I’m kind of curious for you, Casey or Danielle, what,  Rings is most salient to start with, either from an M I perspective or what’s happening locally or globally.

What, what, where’s the salience here to kind of hook on? Yeah, I think the thing for me, because I, you know, as I’m preparing for the whole, be the change training. Series, I’m just so immersed in reading different things and and looking at the research of what produces the most change and I’m going to lead into this by saying this isn’t the right way.

It’s not the only way. You know, the reason why I’m even leading in with that is I think there. It’s hard for me. I’ve had this conversation in my brain this morning, ironically, that I really believe so strongly in my heart because my mother was such a strong advocate and a fierce advocate for human rights, women’s rights, you know, underserved population, just that was my mother.

And she was a force. And I so respected, admired that. But what struck me this morning is that that doesn’t always generate change.  In the most effec