Relationship Complexification
Find cross-cutting identities before confronting divisive differences
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 90%
Relationship Complexification counters the brain's tendency to sort people quickly into ingroups and outgroups. Eagleman proposes deliberately finding the identities and interests that cross-cut the obvious division: a shared hometown, hobby, favorite animal, profession, or other authentic connection. That added context keeps the other person represented as a person rather than only as a hostile category. Dialogue then aims to understand the other person's internal model without requiring either side to change its conclusion. The sequence matters: establish enough human connection that a later disagreement becomes information about someone already known, not proof that a faceless group is contemptible. Eagleman presents this as a practical way to reduce polarization, not as a path to universal agreement or a substitute for boundaries.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Understanding another person's internal model does not require agreement
- 02A person belongs to many overlapping groups rather than one political category
- 03Shared identities can keep social attention engaged during disagreement
- 04Human contact can make an abstract outgroup member harder to dehumanize
How to run it
- 1
Notice the label
Identify the single category you are using to summarize the other person and the assumptions attached to it.
- 2
Elicit their model
Ask questions that reveal how their experience and priorities led them to their position.
Pro tip Listen to understand the route to the belief, not merely to prepare a rebuttal.
- 3
Find cross-cuts
Look for real memberships, interests, or experiences that overlap with your own groups.
Pro tip Use specific commonalities rather than generic claims that everyone is the same.
Watch out Invented rapport undermines the connection the method depends on.
- 4
Humanize before debating
Use eye contact and conversation to establish person-to-person contact before focusing on the most divisive point.
Watch out Complexification does not require tolerating abuse or abandoning safety.
- 5
Hold both truths
Recognize the other person as likable or understandable while preserving honest disagreement about the issue.
Pro tip Measure success by improved understanding, not conversion.
In the wild
Eagleman imagines two people discovering a shared cuisine, place, or interest and building a connection before learning that they hold different political views. The earlier bond creates a reason to lean in and listen rather than dismiss immediately.
→ Political difference is encountered inside a richer model of the person.
Eagleman suggests noticing that a supposed outgroup member also loves surfing, golden retrievers, or the same hometown. These are illustrative shared identities that complicate a one-dimensional social category.
→ The brain has more than one group membership through which to interpret the person.
Common mistakes
Treating understanding as agreement
The method asks you to model another perspective accurately, not to adopt it.
Leading with the sharpest divide
Beginning with an outgroup conflict can reinforce the single label before other human connections become visible.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for dialogue across political, cultural, or social divisions where some genuine common ground exists.
Not ideal for
It is not a demand to agree, excuse harmful conduct, or remain in an unsafe interaction.
From the transcript
“It's not equivalent to agreeing with them.”
“figure out the all the things that cross cut in the relationship”
From the episode
Stanford Neuroscientist: Can’t Remember Your Dreams? Your Brain May Be Warning You!