Good morning. Rival scientists can show us how to stay civil over Thanksgiving dinner – more on that below, along with TD Bank’s massive fine and Canada’s top credit cards. But first:
Today’s headlines
- The UN says Israel’s military fired at its peacekeeping force in Lebanon, a day after it injured two peacekeepers
- The former public safety minister says he always acted quickly to review CSIS warrants
- The Senate passes pharmacare legislation, opening the door to negotiations with provinces for coverage
- A Japanese group of atomic bomb survivors wins the Nobel Peace Prize
The Globe and Mail
Psychology
We can work it out
It is Morning Update’s official position that Thanksgiving is the best holiday: unimpeachable food (yes, even the turkey), crisp fall weather, pie. It’s just the dinner conversation – especially in these hyper-polarized times – where stuff can get a little dicey. Instead of good-natured tussling over the wishbone, you’re diving for each other’s throats.
Fortunately, The Globe’s Erin Anderssen – who’s written extensively on social issues, mental health and now happiness – has uncovered how to transform contentious squabbles into something altogether more productive. In her new report, she profiles scientists who practise “adversarial collaboration,” working together (respectfully!) through opposing research and views.
In particular, Anderssen spoke with psychologist Matthew Killingsworth, who published a paper debunking one of the most cherished ideas in behavioural economics: that earning more money, above roughly US$75,000 a year, doesn’t make people any happier. It was a little awkward when Killingsworth hopped on a Zoom call with Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winner behind that money-doesn’t-equal-happiness theory. But Kahneman was big on adversarial collaboration. He figured they could face off with their respective findings and arrive at the truth.
How did it go? What tips can we steal for our own family get-togethers? And can money actually buy happiness? I called Anderssen to find out.
Let’s lay our cards on the Thanksgiving table: I am hard-wired to run far away from conflict. How about you?
As my family knows, I never run from a good debate. But I do think it’s harder to have them these days with people who have really different views, when emotions and even conspiracy theories get in the way. A scientist in the story advised me that reasonable people can disagree, but both sides have to come at it with an open mind. I just returned from an assignment in Florida where I interviewed people about their views on abortion. It was interesting how many people, answering a canvasser at their door, were willing to explore the issue when approached in a non-confrontational way.
But there’s a tendency for these debates – especially over politics – to devolve into a point-scoring shouting match. In his work, Kahneman called that “angry science.” What did he mean?
Kahneman defined angry science as the kind of back-and-forth bickering he saw in his field, where people dug in on their opinions, never admitted error and even took offence when their position was challenged. I think we can see how that applies to the world outside science, where there’s a lot of shouting across the gap of disagreement, but nothing gets resolved.
The Globe and Mail
Also, you can feel like garbage after all that shouting – Kahneman said “doing angry science is a demeaning experience.” What’s his alternative?
Kahneman was an early proponent of adversarial collaboration, where two or more scientists who disagree on a theory come together, identify where their disagreement actually lies, and then work together to find an answer. Like any approach, it has its pros and cons – unsurprisingly, it can take a really long time. But the researchers who’ve done this successfully feel that it moves the science ahead in deeper and more nuanced ways. They also find that, once they get talking, researchers often don’t disagree as much as they originally thought.
How do we all get a little better at civilized debate?
If we’re honest, I think instead of really listening when someone else is talking, we usually spend that time preparing our own rebuttal. But in order for these collaborations to be successful, the researchers involved have to understand the heart of the disagreement. That means being very curious and asking lots of questions – not to prove your own point, but to truly understand the other person’s.
So, let’s take that relative at the dinner table with the views we find problematic. What would happen if we asked them how they reached that opinion, or even what role that belief plays in their real life? Ideally, that would lead to a more interesting, and less judgmental, conversation. At the very least, you might come away reflecting on why and how you believe what you do.
But listen, even though I really loathe small talk, there are always times when it’s just easier to talk about the weather. You have to pick your battles.
Fair enough. Killingsworth and Kahneman’s collaboration finally resolved the dispute over whether money buys happiness. So: does it?
It’s a little complicated. People are happier when they earn more money, and on average, there isn’t an income cut-off. But for the people in their study with some of the lowest levels of happiness, the benefit of more money seemed to tap out around US$100,000. On the other hand, as earnings rose, the happiest batch of people in the study just kept getting happier, at a higher rate than everyone else. One theory is that these people had a better sense of how to spend their money for happiness.
But as Killingsworth noted, this study doesn’t look at how having more money compares to the other factors that make us happy. There’s pretty good evidence that the strongest ingredient for happiness is family and friends. Maybe that’s the best reason to work on our adversarial collaboration skills – so we can have better relationships with each other.
Because I need time to sharpen my own adversarial collaboration skills, Morning Update is taking the holiday Monday off but will be back in your inbox on Tuesday.
The Shot
‘Egregious and unacceptable’
Merrick B. Garland yesterday.Carol Guzy/The Globe and Mail
TD Bank will pay US$3-billion in a historic money-laundering settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, and Attorney General Merrick B. Garland didn’t mince words yesterday: “By making its services convenient for criminals, TD Bank became one,” he said. Read more about TD’s guilty plea here.
The Wrap
What else we’re following
At home: Air Canada’s pilots have approved a collective agreement that’ll give them a 42-per-cent raise over four years.
Abroad: The death of Palestinian peace activist Ziad Abu Helaiel brings grief to a West Bank city – and denial from Israeli forces.
Read it: With her new novel The Capital of Dreams, Heather O’Neill once again takes a page out of the history books.
Charge it: Whether you want cash back, travel perks or debt management, The Globe’s first-ever Big Guide to Canadian Credit Cards has you covered.