Recognize the perspective gap before responding

Pause before reacting to disagreement to ask what information or experience could make the other view coherent.

Why it works

Naive realism fires automatically: when someone disagrees, the brain generates an explanation centered on their flaw (bias, ignorance, bad faith) rather than an informational difference. Inserting a deliberate question — "what would I need to know to reach that view?" — interrupts the automatic attribution and recruits perspective-taking circuitry instead.

How to do it

1. When you feel certain the other person is wrong, write down one sentence: "A reasonable person might hold this view if they ___."
2. Fill in the blank with information, experience, or values that differ from yours — not character flaws.
3. Only respond once you can articulate the strongest version of their position.

Evidence

Ross and Ward documented naive realism through a series of attribution and conflict-resolution studies, showing that people reliably perceive their own views as objective and unmediated while attributing others’ views to bias or self-interest. (observational)

Much of the supporting evidence is from social-psychological laboratory studies; generalization to everyday high-stakes conflict is plausible but less directly tested.

Sources

• Ross & Ward (1996), "Naive Realism in Everyday Life," in Values and Knowledge, Erlbaum

Common mistake

Treating perspective-taking as "agreeing" — the goal is to understand the logic, not to endorse the conclusion.