We’re revisiting a question we frequently get: “Why bother talking to somebody if you aren’t going to change their mind?” Especially in the argument culture, conversing with someone who won’t change their mind can seem pointless, an exercise in futility. While persuading someone to change their mind is a good and worthy goal in a conversation, and sometimes people’s opinions need to be changed, it’s also worth recognizing goods that often come about even if the other party isn’t budging on their views. On today’s episode, Tim and Rick spend time spotlighting signs of change that aren’t immediately evident and points of unobvious agreement, and they also identify some of the benefits we often miss in our disagreements with others.
Tim Muehlhoff: Welcome to The Winsome Conviction Podcast. My name is Tim Muehlhoff. I'm a professor of communication at Biola University in La Mirada, California, where I teach classes on conflict resolution, family, gender, a class on marriage, a lot of important topics. But maybe one of the most important topics I get a chance to talk about is communication and civility, in today's crazy argument culture. That prompted Biola to start something called The Winsome Conviction Project, where we try to reintroduce compassion, civility, empathy into our public disagreements. And it's a pleasure to do both the podcast and co-direct the project with Dr. Rick Langer.
Rick Langer: Thanks Tim. And I'm a professor here at Biola as well, in Biblical Studies and Theology Department and Director of the Office of Faith and Learning. And as Tim mentioned, we're co-directors of The Winsome Conviction Project. We spend a lot of time talking about things about, well, how people talk to each other, particularly about areas related to conviction, Christian conviction and our concern is universally, how can we have well-formed convictions and how can we communicate them well? So it is very much a conviction oriented set of concerns that we have.
But the other thing I would point out is that we do have a conviction about the value of conversation and interaction, the value of compassionate conversation, and that has prompted me to do any variety of things in the past six or eight years. One of them was I got involved with a group called Better Angels and began moderating some workshops with them for a while, and that was before we started our own Winsome Conviction Project here at Biola.
But I was telling a guy about this experience, the Bravery Angels Project puts together people who are just politically progressive and conservative, reds and blues. You bring them together for a weekend workshop and they talk about their differences of conviction and things like that. And the operating assumption is that no one's going to walk in being a Democrat and walk out being a Republican. I mean, that could happen, but no one's assuming that. But rather that you would walk out perhaps understanding the person better, things like that.
So anyhow, I was just chatting with a guy at a dinner party afterwards, kind of the next night or something, and he asked me what I've been doing, and I mentioned doing this sort of a workshop, and he just said, "Well, why bother talking to anybody if you're not going to change anyone's mind?" And as I mentioned, that was probably six or seven years ago. And I think of the critiques, I mean, he wasn't being mean at all. He was asking a question, he was not planning on joining me at the next event, but he wasn't being mean at all. He was just saying, "Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me."
And I think that question, I've heard reincarnated more different times, more different ways than perhaps any other question that I've encountered. So I thought it'd be good to just take a few minutes and ask and answer that question. Why bother talking if we're not going to change somebody's mind?
Tim Muehlhoff: It'd be fun just to bounce off each other what we think about.
Rick Langer: Yeah. And let me just take a few minutes to think about what's lying underneath the surface of a question like that. And so in a cultural communication climate that is built around argument and polarization, the goal is for your side to win and the other side to lose. So in effect, what's going on a person's mind when they ask, one of the things that might be going on a person's mind when they ask a question like this is Rick, this is playing a football game and not having anyone win, right?
Tim Muehlhoff: Right. Why play the game?
Rick Langer: All you're doing is kicking the ball around.
Tim Muehlhoff: I'm from Detroit. I resonate with that. I resonate. I'm there.
Rick Langer: And perhaps a better analogy is just like when people go out to play tennis, if they just hit the ball back and forth. And sometimes you'll do that, you'll just play around but not really play a game of, and it feels like a failed effort. And I feel like we've moved into a culture, the argument culture, where it is indeed about winning and losing. And if you only have a conversation, then the game hasn't been played and a winner hasn't been declared. And so it's worth nothing that way.
Another perhaps less extreme or less mean-spirited way to put things is that many people assume that when conviction and conflict, resolution to that conflict simply means that one person or the other comes to see the lights so you end up agreement, in agreement. So the only benefit, the real problem is this. When convictions disagree, the real solution is simply to make them agree. So a good conversation about conflicting conviction is this one where both parties end up agreeing though they didn't agree when they walked in the door. And that's what it means to be good, it's to get it better by eliminating the disagreement. And in practice, that doesn't happen a lot.
So people then ask, well, why bother if we're going to end up disagreeing anyhow, just as much as we did beforehand? Why do we bother talking about it at all? So I think those are some things that are sitting underneath that kind of a question.
I would probably add one more thing for Christians, and that is that we think if we have a Christian conviction about some particular matter, then that's the Christian view of it and if someone disagrees, then they must not be Christian, or they must be a failed Christian, a defective Christian who needs fixing. Because we assume that on any given matter, there's only one Christian viewpoint. And I do think there are certainly things that are that way that, the deity of Christ, if you deny it, is effectively denying a definition item of the Christian faith.
And so this is commonly how we separate different kinds of denominations from cults or sects or things like that that we deemed to be non-Christian, the deity of Christ or salvation by grace through faith or whatever it may be. There's certainly issues that all Christians would agree on, but the question is, are there any other ones that we might disagree on, like immigration or gun control, or how to best respond to something like abortion? There's perhaps a lot of room for those disagreements. So these are these confusions that sit underneath that surface.
That said, let me just take a few minutes to kind of brainstorm about some things that I think actually might be valuable in a payoff. Even when you don't change your mind without going to a bigger thing, just say, "Okay, here's a couple of thoughts." And perhaps the first thing I'd say is that complete change sometimes does actually happen, and that can be a really good thing because sometimes people's opinions need to be changed, but it rarely happens instantly and all at once.
So in light of that, a series and an ongoing conversation is oftentimes the best way to accomplish the change. And the mere fact that this particular conversation led to no change and the person entered it with no intention of changing, I'm like, "Well, okay, but let's keep that wheel turning and see where it goes." Best example of this is CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien having, I don't know what, 10 years of conversations about things before CS Lewis finally came to Christ. And I can't imagine the number of times Tolkien might've come home. And was he married? Yeah, he was married, because he had kids and all that. So anyhow, if Tolkien came home and his wife asked him, "Well, how'd the conversation with Clive go?" Or Jack or whatever they called him and if he said, "Oh, he didn't end up agreeing with me, it was a failure." I'm like, that would've been a really bad choice. You just needed to keep that going.
So that's one of the things I just want to kind of highlight. There's a value in that continuing conversation.
Tim Muehlhoff: So you know Noreen and I were on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ forever, and you have a background with Cru. We're huge fans of what Cru is doing. When I first went on staff, I went to Miami of Ohio University, first day on the job, first day on campus, sit down with the guy, pull up the four spiritual laws. He goes, "I'm in." I go, "What?" He goes, "Yeah, I'm ready. I'm ready." I go, "What?" He goes, "Dude," out of his backpack, he pulls out a beat up four laws that looks like it's been in the water, in the wash. He was Operation Sunshine, Daytona Beach.
Rick Langer: Oh wow.
Tim Muehlhoff: On the beach a Cru student walks up and basically says, "Are you interested in Jesus Christ?" He goes, "No." "Well here, just read this." And he grabs it and he keeps it. He periodically looks at it and then periodically runs into Christians, never letting on that he's thinking about things. So when I sit down with him and pull out the four laws, he goes, "Yeah, I'm ready." And I'm like, "Oh, I'm going to love being on staff here at Miami."
But it was the cumulative effect of all these little interactions that any one interaction you were to walk away going, "Well, that didn't do anything." I'm sure the very first person who gave him that four laws on the beaches of Daytona would've thought, well, that was a waste of time.
Rick Langer: Wasted effort.
Tim Muehlhoff: He's going to throw this thing out as soon as I turned my back. So I love your point is you have no idea what's percolating. And Lewis and Tolkien, or Antony Flu, the British atheist.
Rick Langer: Atheistic philosopher who-
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah, a million conversations with Christians along the way, and finally he embraced a concept of God, maybe the god of Aristotle, but hey, it took a long time and if we get discouraged because we don't see rapid results, we forget the cumulative effect of all these mini conversations.
Rick Langer: Yeah. Now, for our original question, I should point out that I'm simply, I'm not quite answering that when I'm saying, well, sometimes people do change, but it is a really good reminder psychologically when you're having these conversations. Wait, wait, let me be really careful how I assess the value of this.
Perhaps more the point is the fact that I would say when we talk about no one changed their mind, I would like to say nuance is actually a change of mind. In other words, when people have a polarized, simplistic, straw man view of an issue and they walk away with a more nuanced and deeper understanding of how the other person sees it, that is a change and that is a meaningful change. It can really make a huge difference not only in the individual person's life, but their attitude towards others and the entire communication climate in the organization or the church or the community, wherever you happen to be.
So I'm like, yeah, they still believe, they'd still vote the way they voted before.
Tim Muehlhoff: That's so good.
Rick Langer: But they understand something different. And that attaining nuance is no small thing for the good functioning of a society, a church, an institution, or any kind of a community or group.
Tim Muehlhoff: So I get to UNC Chapel Hill, I'm going to do a master's. I'm actually on staff with Cru during my entire master's and PhD. So I get there, Rick, and I just don't lead with the fact that I'm a Christian or that I'm on staff with Cru, Campus Crusade. So I'm privy to a lot of backdoor conversations. Like I'm a grad student.
Rick Langer: Because they don't know.
Tim Muehlhoff: They don't know. Hey, here's Tim, the grad student, he's a little bit older, but he's one of the grad students. Rick, the way, and this is North Carolina, which is still the Bible belt-ish. The way they were talking about people of faith, that are just blinded by the Bible, they don't think anymore. It's all group think and X, Y, and Z. And I'm just sitting there horrified, going, they're absolutely talking about me, and what do you do?
So over time, I don't know if I changed opinions, I changed attitudes. The attitude towards a conservative Christian over time changed. You're right, they're still voting the way they're voting. They still view social issues the same. But now when they think of a conservative Christian, they go, "Well, there is Tim, and he is odd but likable. And I think he's a grad student. He's putting his hours in, so I can't dismiss all of them." That's not a bad thing to do when it comes to a conversation.
Rick Langer: Yeah. It's actually a great point on the nuance thing. You can nuance opinions and perspectives and propositional truth. You can also nuance the human being side of it. What type of human beings are those who hold this viewpoint? And then you meet one of them, you're like, oh, they aren't as weird, funky, ugly, evil, terrible as I thought they were, because I have this living example of a person who holds that viewpoint, but they aren't the kind of person I would associate with that viewpoint. So there's two places for nuance in that.
Tim Muehlhoff: And vice versa. So I get to UNC Chapel Hill, Rick, I don't know anything about feminism except that it's wrong. Why is it wrong? My pastor said it was wrong with the really conservative church that I went to after I became a Christian. So now I get to UNC Chapel Hill, I'm assigned as a teaching assistant to Dr. Julia Wood, who's been on this podcast and are bringing up to speed on feminism. You can go check it out. It's brilliant. And I don't know anything, I just know it's wrong.
But I couldn't tell you about Seneca Falls. I couldn't tell you anything about a feminist. And then I start to meet her, a compassionate, brilliant person who caress deeply about women and men. And now my view, and by the way, there's still things about feminism I struggle with. And I think some parts, the third wave of feminism maybe is anti-biblical, but not the first wave where women are considered fully human, should earn the same wages, get paid for the same. So whenever you say feminism, boy, I'm thinking Dr. Wood.
And though I haven't changed my view on abortion or anything like that, but now I think let's not be so hard on, come on. We can't paint them with such a negative, right. You know what I mean? That's a powerful thing to accomplish, even though technically no position was changed. That's the value of having these conversations.
Rick Langer: Yeah. A couple of interesting things about nuance, just as you think about this. I'm a fan of nuance. And one of the things that's interesting is learning to point out weaknesses in another person's position in such a way that they can acknowledge this weakness without having to abandon all hope or burn the ships or all these things. It allows room for person to breathe, and even if you believe, but they really need to abandon that position. And I'm just like, yeah, back to Tolkien and Lewis, where give them some room to breathe and give them some room to process. And so that I think is an enormously helpful thing.
And it usually comes with being able to see, okay, there's more going on here than I thought there was. I had a firm conviction because I had a simple viewpoint. Now that I have to deal with the complexity, I have to think about this more. And that might well lead to a deeper conviction. It might lead to a change of mind. But in all cases, if you're just presenting things in a way that allows a person the freedom to stand without abandoning all hope, painting themselves, jumping off the cliff or impaling themselves on their intellectual sword because, oh, I've been so wrong. It allows room for real growth.
Tim Muehlhoff: John Stackhouse, a Christian apologist wrote a great book called Humble Apologetics, and in it a great quote, he said, "Don't try to convince him Christianity is true, convince him first that it might be true." And I like that.
Rick Langer: Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: Put that little seed of curiosity is nice.
Rick Langer: And that's a great, great way to put what I'm trying to describe here is give the person some room to breathe and some room to process it, and it's far more likely that they might be able to make some-
Tim Muehlhoff: And keep the relationship going. See, that was the beauty of grad school, Rick, is all of us were grad students. Hey, we might have our disagreements, but we're all pulling our hair out because we're trying to finish our thesis. We're teaching classes. Life's crazy. Oh my goodness. And yeah, we disagree about X, Y, and Z, but how are you doing? How's your thesis going?
I mean, those points of contact and humanality, that's huge. We need to not rush past those is we're in this together. We both want good marriages, even though we define marriage differently. We want to raise good kids, even though we really disagree on X, Y, and Z. That commonality is such a great place to build off of when it comes to communication.
Rick Langer: It's interesting, as you mentioned that, that is one of those things that I saw happening in those workshops with Braver Angels was that people would make those connections relationally, and it did change a lot of that. It created a little bit of that room to breathe.
Tim Muehlhoff: Hey, remember when we went to the convention? I think it was their first convention, right?
Rick Langer: Yeah, I think so.
Tim Muehlhoff: Okay. We went to the first convention. As we walked in, either I didn't fill out the form correctly or they made a mistake, but when you walk in, you are handed a lanyard that is either red, Republican, blue, Democrat. I walk in, they give me a blue lanyard, which I'm like, oh, okay, good. I'm more of an independent, but I probably lean towards the Republican platform more if you force me to choose between the two.
But I have a blue on, so the first thing people did, Rick, it was hilarious. They look me in the eye, their eyes were dark, they would see the color of my lanyard, and they thought they knew everything about me because of my blue lanyard. And it was so fun to dispel because I kind of played devil's advocate a little bit with, oh, I actually kind of, and they'd re-look at the lanyard and go, "I didn't expect that coming from you."
So how often do I do that with people? I size them up so fast, it's ridiculous. And conversations is a great way just to add complexity to how you view a person.
Rick Langer: Yeah. And actually, I think complexity and nuance are like cousins or something, brother and sister, I don't know what it is, but they're really, really valuable for helping people to understand. And like you say, the complexity, that was another thing that happened to me. I just thought about this with these workshops where I was at one of the workshops where the conservative group was talking about an issue. I had an entire workshop, and I don't think there's probably, they're always small. The ideal number I think was seven from each side. I think this probably had five people, maybe six. I don't think there was a single person in that conservative pool of that group that was actually pro-life, which was surprising to me. I mean, I'm the moderator, so I am not sharing my views in the context. But this issue came up and we were talking about it, and I was expecting to see some people who are pushing back on this.
And it was one of those interesting moments for me in complexifying my own thinking about what do you associate with conservatism? And it was stunning to the people on the blue side of this to find anybody, because that's just what they thought. And it made me stop and think, yeah, people just, there's complex reasons why people were there. And just identifying the blue lanyard doesn't tell you nearly as much as you think it does. People are way more complex than that.
Tim Muehlhoff: Hey, let me give you one from the world of martial arts. So in the system I trained in Shaolin kung fu, the instructor would say, "Sparring is the proving ground. It's the proving ground. You think you know how to block a kick. Let's see you do it. Let's see you block a kick of a black belt."
Rick Langer: When someone's actually trying to kick you, not just the movement.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah, a non-cooperative partner. And that was interesting because we had learned some pretty funky blocks, and you get in there, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. It worked totally in practice. I think that's the great value of having conversations with a person. At the end of the day, they're not leaving because as I'm explaining my reasons why I hold my position, they're asking really annoying questions. And I'm going, you know what? I still believe my position, but I don't think that's a great reason to hold to it. I need to revisit that. I need to think that.
There's huge value in sparring with people who don't agree with you because it really clarifies your thinking in really powerful ways. I wonder sometimes if Christians ever spar. We get in our community, we get in our in-group that believes exactly like we do, and I never have contact or sparring sessions with people who don't believe like me. One, because I might be afraid that the conversation's going to go south. I might be afraid that they have questions that I really can't answer, and it's going to put me in a tailspin. But I meet a lot of Christians who never spar. They never have an opportunity to do it.
So we've got to find ways with our students to get them to spar. That's why I bring in a friend of mine who's an adult convert to Buddhism. See, I could get up and do it, Rick, right? I could say, "Hey guys, for the next 15 minutes, let me present to you-"
Rick Langer: I'll be a Buddhist.
Tim Muehlhoff: A Buddhist perspective. And I'll do it. But to bring in my friend Charles, who is an adult convert and totally is all in Buddhism, is he spars with my students in appropriate ways. My students can ask any questions so long as they're respectful. And he's great with them. But it's very interesting to have him go, "Well, no, I don't think it's quite like that. And remember, your Bible is X, Y, and Z, where the Buddha predates the Bible." And students are kind of looking at me like, hey, we need to talk later, because that was a good point he just made. To me, that's really good sparring to realize, hey, it's okay. We're in process and there's good arguments and there's arguments that need to be refined.
Rick Langer: Another thing that was interesting in these workshops that led to this question that first time, why bother going, was having people talk about the stereotypes of their own group. That was one of the first exercise we did. So you get all the blue leaning people and all the red leaning people in their respective rooms, and then you just give them 10 or 15 minutes to just brainstorm, okay, what are the stereotypes that the other group have of you? And they'd list them all out there. And then having them say, okay, so what are they missing about our own view? How do they get it wrong?
So for example, maybe they said that the red folks stereotype the blue folks, the progressives as being people who advocate for the nanny state, that the state's going to take care of you and do all this kind of stuff for you and things like that. And they say, "Okay, so how is that getting you wrong?" And they would say things like, "Well, we don't want the state to run all of our lives, but we do want the state to run a safety net or make provision for these difficulties." So they will often solve it by creating some measure of nuance. And that worked pretty well. They were very quick to do that.
The thing that was murder for them to say is identify the kernel of truth in that stereotype.
Tim Muehlhoff: That's good. That's good.
Rick Langer: And to run with this nanny state one is like their response would be, "Well, it is true that we actually do people." I'm like, "Okay, that doesn't actually work for the kernel of truth in stereotype." And we would go around and around to get people to actually say something like, "You know what? Sometimes we do try to do too much, and there's certain bills that have been passed, there's policies that we do that press the limit on that, or that you can't fund practically or whatever it is," to just be able to acknowledge that and to hear it.
What was really interesting is that they were pressed to do that within themselves. In other words, it wasn't some guy from the other side making them do that. I as moderator wasn't taking a side, but I was just saying, "Keep talking until you've come up with something that actually acknowledges that maybe they just didn't make this up out of nowhere. But rather, there are some things that are true of your side that lead people to misread it. Or maybe there's actual excesses that are really there. They aren't misreading. They've actually seen something that you just think is a small part of the picture, they think is a big part of the picture, but it's really there."
And that right there, again, in that process, no one has, this is the beginning of the workshop. No one's changed their opinion, but they have had to look one another in the eye and said, "Maybe we don't have the perfect opinion. Maybe everything isn't ironclad." And that in of itself is just enormously valuable.
Tim Muehlhoff: Another benefit of this is, so John Gottman is one of the top relational experts in the world. Actually, this was the conclusion of my dissertation of couples that were caught in gridlock. I ended it with a Gottman quote that said, "Unless a person feels understood, they will never consider your perspective." What a great quote.
So let's say you're in a die hard X, Y, or Z. The chances of them changing their opinion in this conversation are pretty small. But the thing Gottman would say, but practice understanding and giving back to them their perspective in such a way that they go, "Yep, that's my perspective. Thank you. Yeah, that's what I believe."
So when I was on the speech team at Eastern Michigan University, you would have a coach assigned to you and you're working on your speech. Okay, so you're definitely tackling an issue from a perspective. He then would set up an audience of 10 people from the team where you would present both sides of the issue, and then they would take a vote, which one you are actually working on for your speech.
Rick Langer: Oh wow.
Tim Muehlhoff: And the coach would say, "Muehlhoff, you better at least get a tie. You better at least get a tie. I want to see as many hands going for A as B." Rick, that was crazy hard because I really did believe speech A, because that's the one I've been working on the entire semester. And he goes, "Okay, I want you to do A and B, and I better get a split vote." That was really hard.
And sometimes I didn't get the split vote. They're like, "Come on, Tim, you're A. Get out of here."
Rick Langer: You're not fooling anybody, buddy.
Tim Muehlhoff: And I thought that was really valuable exercise. And so what value is there talking to a person you know isn't going to change their mind? Because if Gottman is right, the skill of presenting a person's perspective back to them that they would acknowledge is in fact being fair to their perspective, is what's going to change people's minds later in other conversations.
Rick Langer: So that is an interesting point. If you're concerned, and I do want to underscore where I'm giving reasons why there's good things that come, even if a person doesn't change your opinion, I think it's right to remind everybody that that is a legitimate goal in one of these conversations because sometimes people are wrong. It could be you, it could be them, but we know sometimes people are wrong and their opinions need to be changed. So there's nothing wrong with thinking about this as a thing that says, look, some of these things will have that payoff if you're willing to go through a process.
Tim Muehlhoff: Right. And remember, long before The Winsome Conviction Project, we wrote a book called Winsome Persuasion.
Rick Langer: Yes. The point of which was?
Tim Muehlhoff: Persuasion.
Rick Langer: Good.
Tim Muehlhoff: So yeah, we're not opposed to that.
Hey, maybe we close with this. I would say the reason we have a conversation, even though it may not work to persuade a person, is because it's biblical. Right? What does Peter say?
Rick Langer: There's a crazy thought.
Tim Muehlhoff: Yeah. What does Peter say? First Peter, what, 3:15? "I want you to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you." Absolutely be ready to do that. That's winsome persuasion. "But to do with all gentleness and reverence." So God, if that conversation happens, and the only thing that came out of that conversation is you were gentle and reverent, I think the Holy Spirit says, "Well done. You get an A. Because I care about that just as much as what Paul would say, knowing the fear of the Lord we seek to persuade men." Spirit cares about both equally. I think we forget that often. Blessed are the peacemakers, they are the sons of God. And God cares just as much how you say it as what you say. And we need to hold that tension and value both, not just one over the other.
Rick Langer: Yeah. So let me give one more thing.
Tim Muehlhoff: Oh, one more. A bonus.
Rick Langer: If you believe that.
Tim Muehlhoff: This is like a bonus feature.
Rick Langer: It's the bonus round. One of the other things that I found is that it's uncanny how often you actually do find some common ground.
Tim Muehlhoff: Oh? Yeah.
Rick Langer: Without worrying about the agreement, disagreeing how I change your opinion. You bump into, oh, I don't need to change your opinion because we agree on this issue. And that in its own way, back to the understanding issues, I think it helps people move. When you find common ground, that also opens a person up to be able to say, "Hey, wait a minute."
And one of the weird ways that I've found a lot of common ground is when you discover, I thought they just disagreed with everything I value they valued the opposite. And you discover, actually we have almost all the same values, but we rank order them differently. So we both value truth and love. We both value freedom and equality. We both value justice and mercy, but we rank order these things differently. And we see different issues in a given policy, a different personality, a different political party, but there's a core common element of human value that they share an amazing amount with me.
And so for me to dismiss the whole package, because their application and rank ordering of these is problematic. And at the very least I owe them the effort to understand how they have differently valued. And are they really unconcerned about freedom? Do they not care about justice? Do they not care about love as I've imagined them not to? And so I think what we frequently discover is they do. And that gives you this really interesting space of common ground from which to stand and within which to have a conversation.
Tim Muehlhoff: So we'd go to Lucille's Pizza on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill, me and Dr. Wood. And I'll never forget us having our pizza. I go, "Okay, three waves of feminism, give them to me." She goes, "Okay, first wave of feminism, X, Y, and Z." I'm going, "I can sign off on every one of those. Yes." She goes, "Oh, and you know why?" I go, "Why?" She goes, "You're a feminist." I go, "Oh yes, if that's all feminism is Julia, I'm a feminist, but I suspect, but give me the second." Right. Second, I'm probably clocking in 60%. But to hang out there is really good because we know we're going to get to, obviously I'm pro life, obviously I'm traditional marriage, that's obvious. But to find the unobvious areas that we agree-
Rick Langer: Of agreement.
Tim Muehlhoff: That is worth its weight in gold, and we're losing the ability to do that today, I think.
Rick Langer: Yeah. Yeah.
Tim Muehlhoff: Any bonus features?
Rick Langer: No, I think we're good. All I want to do is underscore the fact that there's-
Tim Muehlhoff: I love that.
Rick Langer: A tremendous amount of value in having conversations, even when we don't change a person's mind. So that's just a great thing to keep in mind. And sometimes it changes your opinion of, was this a good or bad conversation? Because if the only thing that makes it good is changing a mind, you're setting yourself up for a lot of things that you'll label as a bad conversation for no good reason.
So with that said, thanks for joining us for The Winsome Conviction Podcast. It's great to have you. We encourage you to subscribe on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And check us out at thewinsomeconviction.com website.