Most debates become shouting matches because we focus on winning instead of understanding. Cognitive empathy changes this by getting curious about what drives someone’s position rather than judging them.
The story
Most debates turn into shouting matches because we’re trying to win, not understand.
Here’s what changes everything: cognitive empathy.
Scott Howard Swain addresses this in his work on “A Practical EmPath: Rewire Your Mind,” and the shift is surprisingly simple. Cognitive empathy isn’t about agreeing with someone. It’s about understanding what’s driving their position – their fears, needs, values.
When someone seems unreasonable, we usually assume the worst about them. Scott flips that. Instead of judging, get curious. Ask questions. “What led you to that conclusion?” suddenly becomes more powerful than any counterargument.
The research backs this up. Active listening – actually focusing on what someone says instead of planning your rebuttal – dissolves defensiveness. Paraphrasing their points shows you’re genuinely engaged. Acknowledging their emotions without necessarily agreeing with their stance creates space for real conversation.
Here’s a practical example from Scott’s work: Someone’s upset you forgot their anniversary. The typical response? Get defensive. The empathetic response? “You felt hurt because you value being remembered and appreciated?” That simple shift – from blame to understanding – changes everything.
This doesn’t mean suppressing your own position or giving in. It means recognizing that both perspectives matter. When you validate someone’s experience while holding your ground, you transform conflict into dialogue.
The strategies are straightforward: listen fully, ask open-ended questions, imagine their situation, reflect their emotions back to t
