TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Guadalupe Nogués: Como hablar con otros que piensan distinto

Unscramble the Blue Letters

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a siisentct but I ended up taking some weird paths. seicnce is a way of asking qeitsnous to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first dsnetmoapipint. endivcee is necessary but not sufficient. This oenped up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The classroom is one of my favorite paecls. But there I found the same problem. I was theacnig on vaccines and one seutndt said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I explain, she will change her mind." I explained to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. Education is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path opened up. Maybe, it's a communication problem? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't tsurt vncicaes, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve ciootmaniucmn on this subject. And there I rlzieaed that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an igdoiaoclel disagreement? Experiments show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our opinions, instead of being temporary, berdigs to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the wolrd stearhts in an explosive combination of arigssgoen and duisrstt. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born equal. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are intense, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a dbout on who we are. And that is ulnbearabe. In atioiddn, the need to protect our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education works. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a qisoetun. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and thinking something like, "Mm, I don't know what these popele think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever hpaepn to you? Let's see, risae your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tiisbrlam is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the social punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these roensas that we lavee conversations in slcinee. A loud silence. And so, the iabiinlty to dialogue causes the number of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. Silence is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. Censorship from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for democracy. Both in our salml environment and on a lgrae scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up control to those who speak up. But this is a fsale dilemma. There is another option, but we need to make it einvdet, because it is hedidn in this sea of tribalism. We can have defined positions, even very intense ones, without rdniig on the dynamics of intolerant speech. It's one of the things I learned when talking to people who doubt vaccines. To break tribalism, to find more vicoes, to break this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our oopninis without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and cintoronevsas become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the pcdorut of agreements, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these ideas I usually get some ctcsiirim. It seems that in order to aoivd conflict I suggest that we let cnsneosus happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't express ourselves because we feel atenliaed or expelled we are not taking part in decision miknag. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile atmosphere because it's exhausting and we see that it ldeas nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the individual level to move past tribal mode. But I think there are some very crcentoe things to do. And I have three suggestions that could help. First, look for pluralism. poortme it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also requires listening to voices we don't like. The moment to deefnd feodrem of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than rcneoverig it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of dsigerenaig. A conversation is not watniig for our turn to talk, trying to imsope our ideas by force or insistence. It's about listening to understand others. Without ltneiisng there's no croatensvoin. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. Humans are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look aklie. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or growing out of control. It took us time but we learned to handle fire. We learned to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (apaslpue)

Open Cloze

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a _________ but I ended up taking some weird paths. _______ is a way of asking _________ to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first ______________. ________ is necessary but not sufficient. This ______ up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The classroom is one of my favorite ______. But there I found the same problem. I was ________ on vaccines and one _______ said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I explain, she will change her mind." I explained to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. Education is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path opened up. Maybe, it's a communication problem? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't _____ ________, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve _____________ on this subject. And there I ________ that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an ___________ disagreement? Experiments show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our opinions, instead of being temporary, _______ to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the _____ ________ in an explosive combination of __________ and ________. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born equal. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are intense, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a _____ on who we are. And that is __________. In ________, the need to protect our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education works. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a ________. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and thinking something like, "Mm, I don't know what these ______ think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever ______ to you? Let's see, _____ your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of _________ is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the social punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these _______ that we _____ conversations in _______. A loud silence. And so, the _________ to dialogue causes the number of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. Silence is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. Censorship from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for democracy. Both in our _____ environment and on a _____ scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up control to those who speak up. But this is a _____ dilemma. There is another option, but we need to make it _______, because it is ______ in this sea of tribalism. We can have defined positions, even very intense ones, without ______ on the dynamics of intolerant speech. It's one of the things I learned when talking to people who doubt vaccines. To break tribalism, to find more ______, to break this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our ________ without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and _____________ become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the _______ of agreements, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these ideas I usually get some _________. It seems that in order to _____ conflict I suggest that we let _________ happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't express ourselves because we feel _________ or expelled we are not taking part in decision ______. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile atmosphere because it's exhausting and we see that it _____ nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the individual level to move past tribal mode. But I think there are some very ________ things to do. And I have three suggestions that could help. First, look for pluralism. _______ it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also requires listening to voices we don't like. The moment to ______ _______ of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than __________ it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of ___________. A conversation is not _______ for our turn to talk, trying to ______ our ideas by force or insistence. It's about listening to understand others. Without _________ there's no ____________. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. Humans are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look _____. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or growing out of control. It took us time but we learned to handle fire. We learned to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (________)

Solution

distrust
people
silence
evident
doubt
places
opinions
teaching
criticism
riding
making
listening
reasons
hidden
science
alike
conversation
realized
disagreeing
scientist
evidence
avoid
tribalism
aggression
ideological
waiting
happen
inability
trust
raise
concrete
recovering
bridges
large
leads
voices
impose
addition
defend
alienated
world
promote
student
product
questions
opened
question
communication
false
shatters
unbearable
vaccines
leave
small
consensus
applause
freedom
disappointment
conversations

Original Text

I have quite an issue with truth and conversations. I'm a scientist but I ended up taking some weird paths. Science is a way of asking questions to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence is sometimes set aside when making decisions or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first disappointment. Evidence is necessary but not sufficient. This opened up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The classroom is one of my favorite places. But there I found the same problem. I was teaching on vaccines and one student said she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I explain, she will change her mind." I explained to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. Education is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience with post-truth. It's what happens when, although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path opened up. Maybe, it's a communication problem? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations with people who don't trust vaccines, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve communication on this subject. And there I realized that I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when the problem is not the evidence but an ideological disagreement? Experiments show that when people talk only with those who think alike their opinions become more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that those who think differently engage in broad, honest and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement, every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our opinions, instead of being temporary, bridges to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears, agreements are impossible, and the world shatters in an explosive combination of aggression and distrust. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born equal. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are intense, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens, any doubt on what we think becomes a doubt on who we are. And that is unbearable. In addition, the need to protect our integrity makes us team up with those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither evidence nor education works. We don't think something, we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a question. Did it ever happen to you of going to a meet up with people you don't know and thinking something like, "Mm, I don't know what these people think, I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever happen to you? Let's see, raise your hand those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tribalism is not only that it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression, it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion, and the social punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these reasons that we leave conversations in silence. A loud silence. And so, the inability to dialogue causes the number of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. Silence is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard, there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion is not only different, but dissonant, alien, and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. Censorship from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight, it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that it's also a problem for democracy. Both in our small environment and on a large scale. It would seem then that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up control to those who speak up. But this is a false dilemma. There is another option, but we need to make it evident, because it is hidden in this sea of tribalism. We can have defined positions, even very intense ones, without riding on the dynamics of intolerant speech. It's one of the things I learned when talking to people who doubt vaccines. To break tribalism, to find more voices, to break this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our opinions without allowing what we think to become who we are. The nuances reappear and conversations become possible. And from that point we can build consensus which are the product of agreements, despite our differences. However, when I talk about these ideas I usually get some criticism. It seems that in order to avoid conflict I suggest that we let consensus happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't express ourselves because we feel alienated or expelled we are not taking part in decision making. But we all live with the consequences of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk in this hostile atmosphere because it's exhausting and we see that it leads nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently yet want to talk, than with those who share with us same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do on the individual level to move past tribal mode. But I think there are some very concrete things to do. And I have three suggestions that could help. First, look for pluralism. Promote it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen we need to be able to talk without feeling that we are socially punished. But it also requires listening to voices we don't like. The moment to defend freedom of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier than recovering it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of disagreeing. A conversation is not waiting for our turn to talk, trying to impose our ideas by force or insistence. It's about listening to understand others. Without listening there's no conversation. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas with that attitude? We need to discuss them, so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. Humans are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting by the fire to talk. And at some point, both conversations and fire look alike. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying or growing out of control. It took us time but we learned to handle fire. We learned to keep it alive so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (Applause)

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
tribal mode	2

Important Words

achieve
actively
addition
aggression
agreement
agreements
alien
alienated
alike
alive
allowing
answers
anytime
applause
atmosphere
attacked
attacking
attempt
attitude
avoid
bans
battle
beliefs
born
break
bridges
broad
build
care
censorship
change
classroom
climate
combination
common
communicate
communication
concrete
conflict
confused
consensus
consequences
control
conversation
conversations
created
creates
criticism
danger
dangerous
dangers
debate
decision
decisions
deep
defend
defined
democracy
deny
deserve
despising
destroy
dialogue
differences
differently
dig
dilemma
disagreeing
disagreement
disappears
disappointment
discipline
discuss
discussion
dissent
dissonant
distinguish
distrust
ditch
doctors
doubt
dying
dynamics
earn
easier
education
eliminated
emotions
ended
engage
ensue
environment
equal
evidence
evident
evil
exhausting
exhaustion
expelled
experience
experiments
explain
explained
explosive
express
expression
extreme
false
favorite
fear
feel
feeling
fight
find
fire
force
forming
free
freedom
general
give
good
growing
halfhearted
hand
handle
happen
happened
happening
harm
healthy
heard
hidden
homogeneous
honest
hostile
humans
hunch
idea
ideas
identity
ideological
illusion
immovable
important
impose
impossible
improve
inability
include
individual
information
insistence
integrity
intense
intolerant
invented
inventors
issue
journalists
lab
large
leads
learn
learned
leave
left
level
listening
live
lived
lot
loud
love
making
meet
meeting
mind
mode
moment
move
moving
nuances
number
opened
opinion
opinions
option
options
order
part
path
paths
people
permanent
person
personal
places
pluralism
point
positions
power
problem
product
promote
propose
protect
punished
punishment
question
questions
raise
raising
real
realized
reappear
reasons
recovering
requires
respect
riding
safe
scale
science
scientist
sea
separate
set
share
shatters
show
shut
side
silence
sitting
situation
small
social
socially
speak
speech
started
student
study
subject
subtle
sufficient
suggest
suggestions
survive
talk
talking
teaching
team
tells
temporary
thinking
thought
threat
threatened
time
tone
tool
tools
tribal
tribalism
true
trust
truth
turn
turned
unbearable
understand
vaccinated
vaccines
visible
voices
waiting
ways
weak
weird
withdraw
work
works
world