Calamities threaten our world. War is constant. Terrorism is common. Migrants seek refuge. Poverty is extreme. Inequality is growing. Racial tensions are rising. Women are mistreated. Climate change is looming. Diseases are running rampant. Health costs are soaring. Schools are deteriorating. The news leaves us overwhelmed and depressed.

These crises are gigantic in scope and scale. Because of their immensity, none of these problems can be solved without widespread cooperation. Indeed, real solutions require collaboration among diverse groups of people with conflicting beliefs and values. It’s not just that warmongers need to stop fighting, racists need to stop discriminating and ignorant fools need to learn basic facts. In addition, those of us who are neither warmongers nor racists nor fools need to work together despite our differences and disagreements. The refugee problem cannot be solved unless a number of countries with disparate goals and assumptions agree on the nature of the problem and its solution and then come together to convince everyone to do their share. The problem of climate change cannot be solved unless countries all over the world agree that there is a problem and then curtail their production of greenhouse gases. Terrorism cannot be exterminated until every nation denies terrorists safe haven. It will never be enough for one person or even one country to decide what to do and then do it alone. They also need to convince many others to go along.

That much is obvious. What is not so obvious is why smart and caring people do not just do it. Why don’t they work together to solve their common problems? Contemporary science gives us remarkable powers to learn, to communicate and to control our futures. Yet we fail to use these abilities for good. So little gets done when so much is at stake! These same problems are bad for those on both sides of the disputes, even if some unfortunate groups are harmed much more than others. And yet politicians from various countries, and indeed politicians within the same country, quibble instead of cooperating, undermine instead of supporting, interrupt instead of listening, and draw lines in the sand instead of proposing compromises that could gain mutual agreement. Politicians add to the problems instead of solving them – or they propose solutions that they know will be rejected immediately by their opponents. Some exceptions – notably the Paris Agreement on climate change – show how countries could work together, but such cooperation is all too rare.

This is not only the case in politics: Facebook, Skype, Snapchat, smartphones and the internet make it much easier than ever before to communicate around the globe, and many people do spend a lot of time talking with friends. Nonetheless, these exchanges almost always occur within bubbles of allies with similar world views. Moreover, discourse has reached a new low on the internet. Complex issues are reduced to 280-character tweets or shorter hashtags and slogans. Even thoughtful tweets and blog posts are often greeted with contempt, gibes, humour and abuse by internet trolls. Moderate opinions encounter immoderate insults that masquerade as wit and spread wilful misinterpretation of opponents. The web makes it easier for large numbers of critics to attack quickly, viciously and thoughtlessly. This new medium and culture reward bluster instead of modesty and leave little incentive to be caring or careful, fair or factual, trustworthy or thoughtful. Rhetoric gains likes. Reason receives dislikes. The medium that should be our tool shapes our actions and goals.

This dark picture is not always accurate, of course, but it is accurate too often. And many of these disparate problems stem largely from the same source: a lack of mutual understanding. Sometimes people avoid talking with each other. Even when they do talk, there is little communication of ideas on important issues. As a result, they cannot figure out why other people believe what they say. Politicians cannot work together, at least partly because they do not understand each other. Opponents will never agree to bear their share of the burden if they do not understand why that burden needs to be carried.

This lack of understanding might sometimes result from incommensurable world views or conflicting assumptions that prevent mutual comprehension. However, political opponents too often do not even try to understand each other, partly because they see no personal or political gain in reaching out and being fair. Indeed, they often have strong incentives neither to reach out nor to be fair. Tweeters and bloggers go wild on the internet, because their goal is to gain likes for their jokes and gibes. They receive few such rewards on the internet from balanced attempts to see the other side in contentious debates. Why should they try to understand their opponents when they think that they are bound to fail and get nothing in return for their attempts? Admittedly, many interesting and insightful conversations do occur on Twitter and the internet, but the huge number of lurking trolls scares off many potential contributors.

When they give up on understanding, they turn to wilful misunderstanding and misinterpretation. People on both sides of divisive disputes repeatedly put words into each other’s mouths and then retort or snort, ‘I cannot imagine why they think that.’ Of course they cannot imagine why their rivals think that, because they have formulated their rivals’ views in that way precisely in order to make those views look silly. They know or should know that they are misrepresenting their opponents, but they do not care. Their goals are not to convince opponents or to appreciate their positions. They seek only to amuse their allies by abusing their opponents.

These attitudes undermine respect, connection and cooperation. You hold your position; I hold mine. I cannot comprehend how you could be so blind; you have no idea why I am so stubborn. I do not respect your views; you return the favour. We abuse and come to despise each other. I do not want to meet with you; you do not want to deal with me. I refuse to compromise; so do you. Neither of us is open to any possibility of cooperation. No progress is made.

How did we get here?

How did we fall into this cultural hole? How can we climb out? The full story is complex, of course. Anything as widespread and intricate as a culture is bound to have many aspects and influences. These issues should not be oversimplified, but it would be overwhelming to try to discuss all of the complications at once. Consequently, this short book will emphasize and explore only one part of the problem. I focus on this one part because it is often overlooked, because it is fundamental, because it lies within my expertise, and because each of us can do something about it in our personal lives instead of having to wait for politicians and cultural leaders to act. We can all start to work on the problem right now.

My answer is that many people have stopped giving reasons of their own and looking for reasons for opposing positions. Even when they give and are given reasons, they do so in a biased and uncritical way, so they fail to understand the reasons on each side of the issue. These people claim too often that their stance is so obvious that anyone who knows what they are talking about will agree with them. If so, opponents must not know what they are talking about. Even before their opponents start talking, these people feel confident that those on the opposing side must all be deeply confused or misinformed or even crazy. They disparage their opponents as so silly that they cannot have any reason at all on their side. Then they cynically assume that reasoning won’t do any good anyway, because their opponents are driven only by emotions – fear, anger, hatred, greed or blind compassion – and do not care about truth or about the same values that matter to them. As a result, elections are decided by who gets out the most voters and perhaps by who creates the most rousing or humorous advertisements and slogans instead of by who gives the strongest reasons for their policies. This strategy cannot help us climb out of our rut.

We need to state and understand arguments on both sides. We need to offer our reasons to our opponents and demand reasons from them. Without exchanging reasons, we cannot understand each other. Without understanding, we cannot figure out how to work towards a compromise or cooperation with each other. Without cooperation, we cannot solve our problems. Without solving our problems, we will all be worse off.

How do we get out of here?

This analysis of the problem suggests a solution. We all need to communicate more and in better ways. One crucial step is to assert less and question more. The most useful questions ask why we believe what we do and how our proposals would work. These questions ask for reasons of different kinds (as we will see), so the point is that we need to learn how to ask each other for reasons. Even so, questions are not enough by themselves. Asking for reasons won’t help if nobody can supply them. Answers take the form of arguments that express our reasons. Thus we need to learn how to offer appropriate arguments when asked, how to appreciate the arguments that others make, and how to spot weaknesses in our own arguments as well as arguments on the other side. I will try to begin to teach some of these lessons in the following pages.

These lessons need to begin with a rough understanding of what reasons and arguments are. Chapter 6 will go into more detail, but we should head off some common misunderstandings from the start. Many people mistake reasons and arguments for weapons in a war – or at least in a competition, like a debate. That is far from what I am recommending here. Wars and competitions cannot help us work together.

Instead, I will present reasons and arguments as attempts to increase understanding. When I give you a reason to justify my claim, my reason helps you understand why I believe that my claim is true. Similarly, when you give me a reason for your claim, that reason helps me understand why you believe in your claim. Our reasons can achieve these goals without convincing either of us to change our minds at all. We might continue to disagree, but at least we understand each other better. That mutual understanding is what helps us work together.

The same goal can be aided by another kind of reason that explains why something happens. It is useful to know that an event, such as an eclipse, will occur. This knowledge enables you to go and watch the eclipse. However, it does not help you predict future eclipses. You cannot figure out when an eclipse will occur without understanding why eclipses occur (and without a lot more information as well). To predict the future, we need explanations or explanatory reasons why events occur in the present. And we need to be able to predict the future in order to determine which proposal will (in the future) succeed in solving a problem. That is why we need explanatory reasons if we are to work together fruitfully.

Because we need reasons, we also need arguments. The kind of arguments that I will discuss here are not verbal fights, such as when married couples or political rivals ‘argue’ by yelling at each other. Arguments as I will present them here are more constructive than that. Roughly, an argument is given when – and only when – someone (the arguer) presents one claim (the premise) as a reason of some kind for another claim (the conclusion). The reason is the premise, and the argument presents that premise as a reason. The purpose of the argument is to express the reason to an audience and thereby to increase their understanding either of why the conclusion is true or why the arguer believes the conclusion.

This definition excludes some exchanges that are often called arguments (such as cursing at another person), and it includes other things that are often not seen as arguments (such as explanations). It does not pretend to capture common usage. Nonetheless, it picks out what we need in order to understand each other and work together.

Although we need more arguments of this kind, we should not argue all day long. Everybody needs a break. Moreover, arguments are not all we need. Arguments do little good when the audience is not receptive, so we also need to learn social skills and habits in order to encourage our audiences to be receptive to reasons. We need to learn modesty (or not claiming to possess the whole truth), graciousness (including conceding opponents’ good points), patience (in waiting for audiences to think through our points), and forgiveness (when an opponent refuses to concede our own good points). Although much more is needed, arguments play an important role in a larger scheme that can solve or at least reduce some problems in our culture. Thus arguments are necessary even if they are not sufficient by themselves to solve our problems.

Reason and argument are often presented as if they were enemies of emotion, but that is another misunderstanding to avoid. Reasoning often guides emotions, such as when evidence of a friend’s treachery makes me angry at that friend. Indeed, emotions can be reasons in the broad sense that I am using here. The premise that I feel love when I am with someone is a reason to spend time with my beloved and to believe that this time will be well spent. The premise that I feel fear when I drive too fast is a reason not to drive so fast and to believe that driving very fast is dangerous. In such cases, emotions and reasons do not compete and might not even be distinct. Strong feelings can be rational too. We do not always need to suppress emotion and to remain calm in order to use reason and argument.

More generally, misunderstanding reasons and arguments can lead to cynicism and contempt for reasoning and argument. That cynicism and contempt is part of what causes the problem of polarization. Hence, learning to understand and appreciate reasons and arguments properly can help to solve part of the problem. It can help us climb out of our cultural rut.