Thank you, Dr. Murthy, for giving us excellent food for thought! And thank you , Samantha, for this perspective. For many, family equals love, joy, and unconditional support. Yet for others (myself included) those relationships can be incredibly stressful and painful. I agree that finding common ground around "low stakes" topics can be a wonderful way to connect with people with whom we might not ordinarily. (Dr. Murthy speaks to this, too.). I live in a neighborhood where the majority of people have vastly different political views from my own. And yet, we show up for each other again and again in small, yet meaningful ways: sharing homegrown veggies or flowers, helping find a lost pet, or sending over a dish when a loved one has passed. I always come back to this quote, from Brene Brown (I think?): "People are hard to hate up close."
Susie, your neighborhood is a beautiful example of what a real village looks like in action. I love that you and your neighbors choose to show up for one another through simple, meaningful actions even when your political views look vastly different.
It is incredibly difficult to maintain abstract judgment or animosity toward someone when you are engaging with them up close over a shared garden fence or a porch step.
I appreciate this perspective. One thing I’ve learned as a mental health clinician is that we have to be careful about where we look for common ground. Not everyone has positive experiences with family, and for some people those topics can be deeply painful or triggering.
I’ve often found that connection starts with smaller, less emotionally loaded things: food, music, pets, hobbies, favorite sports teams (let’s go Knicks!), or things that bring someone joy. Those conversations can remind us of our shared humanity without requiring people to revisit difficult parts of their lives.
Sometimes common ground isn’t found in our histories. It’s found in the simple things we enjoy, care about, or look forward to.
Thank you for this vital perspective, Samantha. As a mental health clinician, I find your reminder grounding for all of us. It is easy to assume that topics like family are universal connectors, but for many, those relationships carry deep pain and complexity.
Shifting our focus to smaller, lower-stakes shared joys is a wonderful, safe way to anchor our common humanity without forcing anyone to revisit difficult histories. And as a lifelong basketball fan, I always appreciate a "Let's go Knicks" shoutout! Thank you for the intentionality you bring to your work and to this community.
This requires courage. Why should we try? Is it because the current tension is undermining our joy? It’s causing harm to others? Then we summon our courage to get relief from this discomfort. We may be misunderstood again, rebuffed, blocked. But an attitude like you propose, in a gesture of interest and a willingness to genuinely listen has a chance to improve the relationship. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Courage as a stoic virtue is the knowledge of what to fear and not fear.
One practice I’ve come to value is returning to a relationship after a hard moment. Not to relitigate or solve it, but simply to be curious about what was underneath it, and to show up with genuine care for the person and the relationship itself. It took me decades to learn how to depersonalize a hurtful moment and let go of the shame that can linger after a disagreement. I’m still learning. And I’ll be honest: some moments are too much, and some relationships don’t work. But far more of them can be repaired than our frustration in the moment would have us believe.
Was going to comment about working together toward a shared goal, and see that you addressed that elsewhere. Another sure way to create commonality and connection.
It takes an immense amount of emotional maturity to show up later with gentle curiosity rather than a desire to relitigate, defend yourself, or win the argument.
You are completely right that far more relationships are salvageable and repairable than our initial frustration leads us to believe in the heat of the moment. Learning to separate the value of the person from the friction of the disagreement is a lifelong journey, and I am so grateful to you for sharing that reflection with us.
Thanks for sharing, Dr. Murthy. I think both of these approaches are beautiful. They remind me of an exercise in empathy that I love and that a friend shared with me earlier this year: look into the eyes of the person next to you and, using your imagination, viscerally experience them from their birth to their death. I've found that every time I do this, I am reminded of how time is another dimension of being human, and although we often forget about it, it's very powerful. None of us had the views we have today when we were babies (and miracles to the world!), so doing this often reminds me that it can be so wonderful to evolve, especially when disagreements occur in an environment that rewards love and genuine understanding.
Also, I think there are countless examples of beautiful communities and friendships forming among individuals who disagree (especially if the source of disagreement is not rooted in unkindness). One example I've been thinking about lately is of the connection between John Rawls and Robert Nozick, who held staunchly different positions about justice and equality and yet co-existed in the same philosophy departments while remaining friendly. I've been thinking about this because I think, as was the case with the output of their work, often times being in communities with healthy disagreements can push us to become the best versions of ourselves.
As Dumbledore told Neville, "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to our friends". Although it can be hard to remember this in the moment, I try to remind myself that it's a gift to be surrounded by a community that has both this bravery and kindness.
Keshav, what a wonderful exercise in empathy. Viscerally imagining someone through the entire arc of their life, from a blameless baby to the end of their days, is a powerful way to reframe how we view the person sitting across from us. None of us enter this world with rigid, fully formed ideologies.
I also love that you brought up the connection between John Rawls and Robert Nozick. It is a great historical example of how fierce, fundamental disagreement can co-exist with genuine friendship and mutual respect. Healthy disagreement really can push us to become the best versions of ourselves, provided the environment is anchored in kindness and a desire to understand.
Thank you for this important conversation. I look forward to listening and sharing.
I was born in India, grew up in the Middle East, and have been living in USA for the last 20 years. I have seen my own values and political views shift with more information and understanding of lived experiences of others with different points of view from mine.
As a city councilor I got to listen to the stories of residents with diverse backgrounds and we had to make decisions that impacted all. Bringing genuine curiosity and listening to the stories of others with different experiences than mine is the way I return to compassion, even for people seemingly very different from me.
I finally got to watch the dialog between Dr. Murthy and David French addressing a critical questions we're all facing: How can we come together across divides?
Many of the points they touched I encountered as a city councilor in Amherst, MA. I am sending this video to my city council and hope that anyone watching this video will share it widely in their community and with their government officials.
I completely agree with the cited research and remedies offered in this video. Some of the suggestions are hard to implement - like seeing to understand perspectives of people who think differently from us politically. I tried to do that as an elected official. And as a resident, I still try to understand the lived experiences of people. It helps me be more empathetic towards people different from me.
But I am curious who is watching this video? Who will try to follow these suggestions? Are we just preaching to the choir? How do we get more people to have these conversations?
This is all so important. Now more than ever. I love the ideas you illuminate, Dr. Murthy. There is so much rhetoric in today's popular media that ideology is synonymous with morality. No. We hold opinions. We espouse ideas. This does not define our entire personhood.
We can disagree AND we can still seek understanding and pathways toward connection. We can experience interpersonal rupture and still find our way toward repair. I am reminded of kintsugi, the Japanese art of mending broken pottery with gold, transforming the shards into something durable and even more beautiful. How do we leverage our courage and humility? How do we lean in even when we are uncomfortable? I believe we can do this by choosing presence over withdrawal, insisting that what connects is stronger than what divides us. We can do this.
Thank you, Dr. Murthy, for giving us excellent food for thought! And thank you , Samantha, for this perspective. For many, family equals love, joy, and unconditional support. Yet for others (myself included) those relationships can be incredibly stressful and painful. I agree that finding common ground around "low stakes" topics can be a wonderful way to connect with people with whom we might not ordinarily. (Dr. Murthy speaks to this, too.). I live in a neighborhood where the majority of people have vastly different political views from my own. And yet, we show up for each other again and again in small, yet meaningful ways: sharing homegrown veggies or flowers, helping find a lost pet, or sending over a dish when a loved one has passed. I always come back to this quote, from Brene Brown (I think?): "People are hard to hate up close."
Susie, your neighborhood is a beautiful example of what a real village looks like in action. I love that you and your neighbors choose to show up for one another through simple, meaningful actions even when your political views look vastly different.
It is incredibly difficult to maintain abstract judgment or animosity toward someone when you are engaging with them up close over a shared garden fence or a porch step.
I appreciate this perspective. One thing I’ve learned as a mental health clinician is that we have to be careful about where we look for common ground. Not everyone has positive experiences with family, and for some people those topics can be deeply painful or triggering.
I’ve often found that connection starts with smaller, less emotionally loaded things: food, music, pets, hobbies, favorite sports teams (let’s go Knicks!), or things that bring someone joy. Those conversations can remind us of our shared humanity without requiring people to revisit difficult parts of their lives.
Sometimes common ground isn’t found in our histories. It’s found in the simple things we enjoy, care about, or look forward to.
Thank you for this vital perspective, Samantha. As a mental health clinician, I find your reminder grounding for all of us. It is easy to assume that topics like family are universal connectors, but for many, those relationships carry deep pain and complexity.
Shifting our focus to smaller, lower-stakes shared joys is a wonderful, safe way to anchor our common humanity without forcing anyone to revisit difficult histories. And as a lifelong basketball fan, I always appreciate a "Let's go Knicks" shoutout! Thank you for the intentionality you bring to your work and to this community.
This requires courage. Why should we try? Is it because the current tension is undermining our joy? It’s causing harm to others? Then we summon our courage to get relief from this discomfort. We may be misunderstood again, rebuffed, blocked. But an attitude like you propose, in a gesture of interest and a willingness to genuinely listen has a chance to improve the relationship. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Courage as a stoic virtue is the knowledge of what to fear and not fear.
One practice I’ve come to value is returning to a relationship after a hard moment. Not to relitigate or solve it, but simply to be curious about what was underneath it, and to show up with genuine care for the person and the relationship itself. It took me decades to learn how to depersonalize a hurtful moment and let go of the shame that can linger after a disagreement. I’m still learning. And I’ll be honest: some moments are too much, and some relationships don’t work. But far more of them can be repaired than our frustration in the moment would have us believe.
Was going to comment about working together toward a shared goal, and see that you addressed that elsewhere. Another sure way to create commonality and connection.
Thank you for this.
It takes an immense amount of emotional maturity to show up later with gentle curiosity rather than a desire to relitigate, defend yourself, or win the argument.
You are completely right that far more relationships are salvageable and repairable than our initial frustration leads us to believe in the heat of the moment. Learning to separate the value of the person from the friction of the disagreement is a lifelong journey, and I am so grateful to you for sharing that reflection with us.
Thanks for sharing, Dr. Murthy. I think both of these approaches are beautiful. They remind me of an exercise in empathy that I love and that a friend shared with me earlier this year: look into the eyes of the person next to you and, using your imagination, viscerally experience them from their birth to their death. I've found that every time I do this, I am reminded of how time is another dimension of being human, and although we often forget about it, it's very powerful. None of us had the views we have today when we were babies (and miracles to the world!), so doing this often reminds me that it can be so wonderful to evolve, especially when disagreements occur in an environment that rewards love and genuine understanding.
Also, I think there are countless examples of beautiful communities and friendships forming among individuals who disagree (especially if the source of disagreement is not rooted in unkindness). One example I've been thinking about lately is of the connection between John Rawls and Robert Nozick, who held staunchly different positions about justice and equality and yet co-existed in the same philosophy departments while remaining friendly. I've been thinking about this because I think, as was the case with the output of their work, often times being in communities with healthy disagreements can push us to become the best versions of ourselves.
As Dumbledore told Neville, "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to our friends". Although it can be hard to remember this in the moment, I try to remind myself that it's a gift to be surrounded by a community that has both this bravery and kindness.
Keshav, what a wonderful exercise in empathy. Viscerally imagining someone through the entire arc of their life, from a blameless baby to the end of their days, is a powerful way to reframe how we view the person sitting across from us. None of us enter this world with rigid, fully formed ideologies.
I also love that you brought up the connection between John Rawls and Robert Nozick. It is a great historical example of how fierce, fundamental disagreement can co-exist with genuine friendship and mutual respect. Healthy disagreement really can push us to become the best versions of ourselves, provided the environment is anchored in kindness and a desire to understand.
Thank you for this important conversation. I look forward to listening and sharing.
I was born in India, grew up in the Middle East, and have been living in USA for the last 20 years. I have seen my own values and political views shift with more information and understanding of lived experiences of others with different points of view from mine.
As a city councilor I got to listen to the stories of residents with diverse backgrounds and we had to make decisions that impacted all. Bringing genuine curiosity and listening to the stories of others with different experiences than mine is the way I return to compassion, even for people seemingly very different from me.
So beautiful! Staying human is seeing human.
I finally got to watch the dialog between Dr. Murthy and David French addressing a critical questions we're all facing: How can we come together across divides?
Many of the points they touched I encountered as a city councilor in Amherst, MA. I am sending this video to my city council and hope that anyone watching this video will share it widely in their community and with their government officials.
I completely agree with the cited research and remedies offered in this video. Some of the suggestions are hard to implement - like seeing to understand perspectives of people who think differently from us politically. I tried to do that as an elected official. And as a resident, I still try to understand the lived experiences of people. It helps me be more empathetic towards people different from me.
But I am curious who is watching this video? Who will try to follow these suggestions? Are we just preaching to the choir? How do we get more people to have these conversations?
This is all so important. Now more than ever. I love the ideas you illuminate, Dr. Murthy. There is so much rhetoric in today's popular media that ideology is synonymous with morality. No. We hold opinions. We espouse ideas. This does not define our entire personhood.
We can disagree AND we can still seek understanding and pathways toward connection. We can experience interpersonal rupture and still find our way toward repair. I am reminded of kintsugi, the Japanese art of mending broken pottery with gold, transforming the shards into something durable and even more beautiful. How do we leverage our courage and humility? How do we lean in even when we are uncomfortable? I believe we can do this by choosing presence over withdrawal, insisting that what connects is stronger than what divides us. We can do this.