Looping for Moderation
Curiosity is the first step toward 4D living
Looping, Active Listening and Pluralist Labs
One of the themes of the Summit from last week was the broad concept of active listening, especially in the realm of civil discourse.
It probably sounds really obvious to people who work in this space full-time, but it wasn’t terribly obvious to me. When I think of civil discourse, I tend to focus on how we talk to one another—debating, expressing opinions, and asserting arguments. It’s easy to forget that one of the most crucial elements of communication isn't talking, but listening.
This revelation struck me because, like many others, I often focus on how to express myself—whether in the classroom, in debates, or through writing. In academia, there's a heavy emphasis on honing your voice and articulating thoughts clearly. We even have resources like an Expressive Communication Center on campus, which helps students and faculty alike master the art of public speaking. But it’s good - particularly for those of us who use our voices for a living - to remember that communication is more than just expression; it’s also about listening and understanding the other person's perspective. That often gets overlooked.
I will also admit that I’ve always found the concept of active listening a little too “therapist talk” for me. But seeing it in action was really helpful. It’s not about making people comfortable or avoiding conflict or doing yoga together at sunrise or whatever else I associated it with.
It’s fundamentally about getting curious. And it’s deeply and wonderfully four dimensional.
Looping as a Robustness Check
Active listening—truly listening— is a great tool for meaningful communication, but it’s also an essential tool in our toolbox for navigating our 4D shared landscape. It’s hard to create accurate maps when we operate off stereotypes of other people and other positions and it’s hard to navigate the world if we have a fundamentally inaccurate view of what other people are thinking.
One great example of active listening that I learned about at the summit is a concept from Amanda Ripley’s book High Conflict. She introduces a technique called “looping”, which she learned from training in conflict mediation. Looping is a three-step process that helps clarify what’s going on in any conversation. The steps are pretty basic, but have profound results:
1. Listen closely to the other person.
2. Repeat what they said back to them in clear and elegant language.
3. Finally, (this might be the most important piece) ask them if your summary is accurate.
This technique might sound simple, but it’s powerful. By reflecting their thoughts back to them, you show that you’re genuinely trying to understand, not just waiting for your turn to speak.
You also give the other person the chance to clarify their thoughts, which we often can’t do when we’re in reactive/defensive debate mode. It gives us enough space to clarify what’s really at stake and what each person really cares about.
But perhaps even most importantly, it minimizes avoidable misunderstandings. It’s actually a really great example of the robustness principle in action. Listening actively and then looping back to check for errors in understanding can prevent misunderstandings, reduce conflict, and build stronger relationships, whether in professional settings, personal relationships, or broader societal debates.
It’s a self-correcting virtuous cycle rather than a self-reinforcing negative cycle of binary arguments and stereotyped thinking.
Get Curious in 4D
Another method of active listening I learned about comes from the Pluralist Lab, where participants engage in a structured group conversation about a polarizing political or social issue. In this exercise, participants are given colored paddles to represent their stance on an issue. They are then asked to explain why someone with the opposing color paddle might hold their beliefs.
The brilliance of this approach is that it pushes people to step into the shoes of their ideological "opponents" and offer a good-faith interpretation of the other side’s views. Instead of rushing to accuse or diminish, participants are encouraged to present the most charitable and thoughtful version of the opposing argument.
It also encourages people to get curious about why people might hold the views they do. It’s hard to throw stereotypes at someone sitting right in front of you, especially when they’ll have the chance to respond. Unlike anonymous internet commenting, in this context you’re forced to actually get curious about why someone might believe what they believe.
The result? A more respectful, engaged conversation where people who disagree explore a shared landscape together.
Notice, the goal isn’t to get people to agree. It’s just to lay out the parameters of our shared landscape and start building a better map.
It also forces us to think in 4D. Most Pluralist Lab participants walk away understanding that the social and political landscape is a lot more complicated than they first thought. Binaries are broken down and people have a better sense of what’s really at stake.
Conclusion: The Importance of Listening Before Speaking
I’m working on adding in more looping opportunities in my daily life and you should too! It can be a bit awkward at first, but as Ripley mentioned in our discussion with her, eventually it happens almost automatically. It becomes part of who you are: a curious explorer, learning more about our shared world.
For further exploration, check out the resources at Ripley’s Good Conflict. There are a ton of activities and other ideas for how to get curious about what people are thinking and how to have better conversations and, yes, better conflict.
As always, let me know what you think! What are other great examples of active listening? What kinds of situations does active listening work and where does it fall apart? Have you used any of these approaches in the classroom? Your personal life? Meetings? If so, how did it go?
Finally, if you like what you read, please subscribe and share! Reader shares are how I find most of my readers and it really means the world.
Lauren, Great post on two levels. First, as someone who was there with you and a long time fan of hers, Amanda Ripley's work is remarkable. Something we peacebuilders have done in one form or another for ages. Second is more you. I'm really thinking through a "theory of change" that suggests that the best way to get lasting, meaningful change is to start in mainstream America and build outward. You've helped spark me to think in those terms. My blog post next Monday. Thanks a bunch.
Nice summary! I think of listening as the inhale and talking as the exhale. You need both to survive. I also appreciate very much the idea of listening to learn, rather than listening to fix, or listening to disagree, or even listening to find common ground (which can devolve into simply waiting to share something similar you’ve seen or experienced). All kinds of listening are helpful, but listening to learn something you didn’t think of might be the one from which all of the other forms flow. Would be curious to hear what others think!