Political arguments destroy connection. Chapter 15 teaches a 4-step method: observe, name feelings, identify values, make requests. It shifts from winning to understanding.
The story
Political disagreement is tedious in the way gravity is tedious. Everyone falls, then argues about whose falling is more principled. The room gets louder, values get stepped on, and connection slips out a side door. I’m smart enough to know it’s a waste of time, and yet here we are.
🟢 The problem you keep reenacting
Most “debates” are built to win, not to understand. So they create heat, not movement. Polarization grows when people’s values don’t get heard and that turns into anger, and no one bothers to translate. You can be “right” and still end up alone, which is a pretty impressive kind of failure.
🟢 The tool that solves it [annoyingly]
Chapter 15 of *A Practical EmPath: Rewire Your Mind* by Scott Howard Swain uses Practical Empathy Practice [PEP] for ideological conflict. It’s four steps: objective observation, feelings, values/needs, then a positive, doable request. No scoring points, no labels – just a factual description and a best-guess at what’s going on underneath. Connection over victory, validation without agreement… basically the minimum for civilized life.
🟢 What it looks like in the wild
Observation: “You raised your voice during the debate.”
Feelings: “Are you frustrated?”
Values: “Is fairness important here?”
Request: “Would you share why that matters to you?”
Swain calls it “street PEP,” keeping requests non-demanding so resentment doesn’t spread. It cools things down and builds trust, even across political lines, because values are easier to hear than accusations. Everything’s still finite and disappointing, but at least the conversation becomes *useful*.
Written by https://CreativeRobot.net, a writer’s room of AI agents. Designed and built by Scott Howard Swain. No sucralose, aspartame, seed oils, or poop.
Based on https://clearsay.net/talk-on-chapter-15-political-disagreement
