Active Nuancing: A Communication Tool from Philosophy for Everyone

Especially Valuable for Chats about Hot Topics and Christian Witnessing

“Aspasia Conversing with Socrates and Alcibiades,” Nicolas-André Monsiau, 1801.

Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years—times of celebration and reunion, but also fraught with relational danger. Most of us spend the holidays tiptoeing around conversational landmines with relatives we haven’t seen in months or years. In some cases, we spend hours picking up the pieces after bloody, explosive arguments. While we can’t change how others engage in controversial discussions, I want to share a conversation tool that makes for clearer, healthier, and more respectful debates about even the spiciest topics.

Philosophy and high school debate taught me to exploit common ground to settle an argument; my proximity to therapists (namely, my wife and dad) showed me how to converse empathetically. Today, I’ll offer a technique that combines these experiences, which I call active nuancing, so you can go into next year’s holiday season equipped to encourage happier arguments.

Ground Rules

The Big Three, lifestyle, politics, and religion, deeply divide us. The appropriate response to mounting, societal discord is not to retreat, nor dig in deeper with our in-groups. For, unpacking the Big Three seems indispensable for intimacy, and, to foster a well-rounded understanding of societal problems, we need to discuss the issues with those we disagree with. We must do so without sacrificing our relationships. To discuss the Big Three, then, we should prioritize relationships and empathy, then enter conversations strategically, based on our standing with each person.

In short, don’t give up on talking about controversial subjects, but exercise discernment and prudence.

As a forewarning, active nuancing probably won’t help you school your fruitcake, gender studies cousin, or blast your backwards, redneck uncle. Instead, the practice will work toward the following goals:

1. mutual understanding,

2. openness,

3. argument strength,

4. candor,

5. and relational health.

Unfortunately, rational discussions are usually a post-hoc affair. We hold beliefs because of experience, social realities, feelings, or intuitions, and reason arrives after the view is formed as justification (see Jonathan Haidt’s work). That’s fine and good, but when these biased interests cluster around social groups, we tend to see other people as threats to our political or religious “tribe.”

“The Defeat of the Floating Batteries at Gibraltar,” John Singleton Copley, 1791

Tribalism, a trendy word for 2020-2024, refers to the way we see people of different beliefs in different tribes, as competitive threats to our existence. Unfortunately, our lizard brain urges us to fight threats, not charitably discuss complex issues with them. Especially in such turbulent times, we can easily see our conversation partner as the “other,” as part of an incoming, warring tribe—a soulless limb of the faceless entity out to destroy our way of life. Obviously, tribalism undermines the above (1-5) goals.

So, we face a problem: How do we bridge the gap between so-called tribes, within the bounds of one conversation, to open up a way for mutual understanding, openness, strong arguments, candor, and relational health?

The Art of Conversation

First, I recommend Jefferson Fisher’s forthcoming The Next Conversation: Argue Less, Talk More, which I helped research. The now-famous trial lawyer from my home state, Texas, outlines practical steps to clear, effective communication. One of his best recommendations is “let your first word be your breath.” In other words, when you speak, force yourself to pause, take a breath, then begin. This will keep you in control, both of the conversation and your emotions.

Second, only discuss controversial topics with people you know well or, at least, talk with them one on one. Three or four best friends can debate contentious topics, but active nuancing rarely works in groups, especially with folks you don’t know well—it takes two to Tango.

Third, I recommend mastering active listening before worrying about active nuancing. Active listening is a fundamental communication skill. The practice involves giving signals that you comprehend the other person, for example, by repeating back their main point in your own words. While active listening is similar to active nuancing, active nuancing takes things a step further.

Active Nuancing

I’ve found active nuancing extremely effective in a range of conversations. To me, the practice comes naturally from my debate experience, philosophical studies, and my familiarity with the world of therapy. I rarely see it utilized outside these arenas—I hope to change that. Let’s dive in.

First, recognize the social web of beliefs your conversation partner likely holds. If they express one view, they’ll probably hold to another. Get a sense of their tribe. When you’re up to speak, take a breath, then present a statement that helps them deactivate their tribal assumptions about you, signalling that you might be in their tribe after all.

Then, present a nuancing view, your argument, in a way that blurs the tribal lines. In other words, say, “I believe (X), and I believe (Y).” X refers to a belief both of you probably hold to, and Y refers to a belief they likely don’t. You must hold to X and Y. This works best if you affirm X before they can affirm X, preempting some of their position. This signals sympathy for their opinions, while graciously presenting your own.

Here’s an example. Say you’re talking to someone who thinks Meta actively censors Christians, due to their negative personal experience with Facebook. Here’s what I might say.

“(X) I don’t trust Facebook either. I think Zuckerberg is almost exclusively driven by profits, and I’m sure Meta has inappropriately censored and shadowbanned plenty of accounts.”

“(Y) I also doubt they’ve targeted Christian accounts deliberately, such that we can fairly say Facebook is ‘censoring’ Christians. Mostly, I think this because it’s not in their interest to do so—especially in America.”

Notice, given what I know about my conversation partner, I’ve found a point of common ground in X, then nuanced with Y. Normally, we simply ping pong back and forth, saying, “I disagree,” or, “That’s sort of true, but…” This manner of debate can reinforce an “us versus them” mentality. Try active nuancing instead.

Zuckerberg, wearing a $900K watch. Image by David Paul Morris, for Bloomberg.

The purpose of statement X is to signal your membership in their tribe, then immediately break from tribal lines with your counterpoint Y.

“(Y) I think Elon Musk is a brilliant engineer, and he’s great at optimizing complex processes. He’s also, of course, a successful businessman who’s done a lot of good for society.”

“(X) Musk is also powerful, wealthy, and, to be honest, self-absorbed. I think he has too many competing interests to have such significant power in Trump’s administration. Twitter, SpaceX, and Tesla could all inappropriately benefit from his decision-making through the so-called ‘DOGE’ (department of government efficiency) program.”

Here, again, I’ve begun by signalling “I’m no threat to your tribe” by presenting my honest viewpoint that doesn’t further my argument and likely overlaps with my conversation partner.

I’ve found several benefits to active nuancing. In my experience, mixing in this simple rhetorical device into conversations can dampen the effects of tribalism, and improve conversation outcomes drastically. I list five upshots below.

The Upshots

First, the first statement X puts their guard down, because you’ve taken a step to show that you’re not really on an opposite side; active nuancing blurs tribal lines. I think active nuancing does this even better than agreeing with their point. I’ve also found that it deactivates your lizard brain and tribal biases, consciously reminding yourself that, wait, I don’t have to be on an opposite “tribe” either.

Second, as an act of self-discipline, active nuancing slooowwwwsssss the argument doowwwwwnnnnn, cooling your temper and theirs. It also shows your “opponent” that you understand them, that you can guess where you overlap before they even say their point.

Third, instead of simply agreeing and then nuancing your view, you’re double-nuancing. You’re getting a chance to make two points—one that garners their sympathy without ceding ground, preempting their argument, and one that counters their position. “I advocate for X and Y” brings information to the conversation from each belief, both X and Y, while also adding information through the combination, X and Y together.

Fourth, active nuancing controls the direction of the conversation. Say your opponent rattles on for five minutes without giving you a chance to counterpoint—first, stay quiet to improve your position. You’ll seem calm and collected if you don’t resort to interrupting, and people periodically dig themselves into holes. When space arises for you to speak, “let your first word be your breath,” then, use active nuancing to control the conversation’s direction, picking one of their ranted topics to focus on.

Finally, I think we can all agree we regret some conversations. We might’ve come across too harsh, edgy, or over-confident, or we might regret not speaking up for fear of retribution. Active nuancing helps with both problems, and I can confidently say: I’ve never regretted active nuancing. That in itself makes it worthwhile.

Good, fruitful discussions require more than just active nuancing. Socratic questioning, good-old-fashioned active listening, taking a break to fact-check a statistic, and just admitting wrongness, all play crucial roles. Active nuancing, however, takes it to another level.

Pitfalls (Especially for Christians)

A few pitfalls to avoid: Don’t be dishonest, or try to say something that you don’t really believe in the first statement, X. This temptation arises most prominently in a group setting, where you’re alone in your stance. You might hedge more than you really should over a controversial issue to avoid embarrassment.

(The following example is aimed at my Christian audience.) The most difficult of these I’ve faced was when a friend brought up decorating with traditional Scottish artifacts—fairy, nature, Wiccan symbols. Another friend, who had enjoyed a pint or two, turned to me and asked, “Aren’t you a Christian, isn’t this like, you know, pagan?” He asked it with a twinkle of humor in his eye, but waited expectantly.

Wiccan “Common Book of Shadows”

I faced a choice: Joke about the question (probably the easiest path), lie (“doesn’t really matter to me”), or active nuance (a difficult step, given that I’d also partaken in a pint). I chose the latter.

“(X) Well, fun, surface-level use of stuff like Harry Potter paraphernalia, or idle decorations based on your cultural, Scottish heritage, are great. I'm not really concerned about those.

(Y) However, if they’re more than decorations, and they actually take meaningful significance to you, then, yeah, I think that’s dangerous because I do believe in dark spiritual powers.”

The second friend instantly regretted asking. “Sorry if that was an uncomfortable question. Didn’t mean to, you know, stir the pot.” To my memory, the first friend who decorated with Wiccan ornaments then cryptically replied, “There’s a whole ‘nother side of me that you guys know nothing about.” With that disconcerting statement left hanging, I silently prayed for her (demonic powers are no joke), then we moved on to other topics.

Suffice to say, active nuancing works well—just don’t be dishonest about your preemptive olive branches.

Active Nuance This Year—See What Happens!

Countless examples of active nuancing come to mind. In conversations about religion, Christians can find common ground with plenty of young folks. Most people at least believe in some kind of “bespoke spirituality.” Consider a go-to active nuance:

“(X) I believe that different religions offer wisdom and insight into life. Understanding the spiritual side of life is crucial to living well.

“(Y) I also think Jesus offers the exclusive way to ultimate truth. Without Jesus, no one can enter a good relationship with God.”

We see Paul employing a similar strategy in Acts 17:22-31, appealing to the Thessalonian’s “unknown god” as a common starting point. The short speech to Roman judges by Paul is the exemplary example of modern-day “apologetics.”

Of course, all this is an abstraction of the flow of regular conversation. It will never be so formulaic as “X, then Y.” Instead, consider the concept a practical tip. Nobody executes an idea like this perfectly, but it is one piece of the puzzle of communication to fit in—one that I see rarely utilized.

The general habit of active nuancing works wonders in the deepest conversations with friends, but works even better for hot topic arguments with less-than-best-friends. I hope it will level up your controversial conversations with family over the holidays. Practice active nuancing in 2025 and watch your deep discussions steadily improve with practice.

As Jefferson Fisher famously concludes in his popular, short-form videos, “Try that, and follow me!”

Soli Deo Gloria