High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out
- Downloads：9633
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-09 05:18:57
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Amanda Ripley
- ISBN：1982128577
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
When we are baffled by the insanity of the “other side”—in our politics， at work， or at home—it’s because we aren’t seeing how the conflict itself has taken over。
That’s what “high conflict” does。 It’s the invisible hand of our time。 And it’s different from the useful friction of healthy conflict。 That’s good conflict， and it’s a necessary force that pushes us to be better people。
High conflict is what happens when discord distills into a good-versus-evil kind of feud， the kind with an us and a them。 In this state， the brain behaves differently。 We feel increasingly certain of our own superiority， and everything we do to try to end the conflict， usually makes it worse。 Eventually， we can start to mimic the behavior of our adversaries， harming what we hold most dear。
In this “compulsively readable” （Evan Osnos， National Book Award-winning author） book， New York Times bestselling author and award-winning journalist Amanda Ripley investigates how good people get captured by high conflict—and how they break free。
Our journey begins in California， where a world-renowned conflict expert struggles to extract himself from a political feud。 Then we meet a Chicago gang leader who dedicates his life to a vendetta—only to realize， years later， that the story he’d told himself about the conflict was not quite true。 Next， we travel to Colombia， to find out whether thousands of people can be nudged out of high conflict at scale。 Finally， we return to America to see what happens when a group of liberal Manhattan Jews and conservative Michigan corrections officers choose to stay in each other’s homes in order to understand one another better， even as they continue to disagree。
All these people， in dramatically different situations， were drawn into high conflict by similar forces， including conflict entrepreneurs， humiliation， and false binaries。 But ultimately， all of them found ways to transform high conflict into good conflict， the kind that made them better people。 They rehumanized and recategorized their opponents， and they revived curiosity and wonder， even as they continued to fight for what they knew was right。
People do escape high conflict。 Individuals—even entire communities—can short-circuit the feedback loops of outrage and blame， if they want to。 This is an “insightful and enthralling” （The New York Times Book Review） book—and a mind-opening new way to think about conflict that will transform how we move through the world。
That’s what “high conflict” does。 It’s the invisible hand of our time。 And it’s different from the useful friction of healthy conflict。 That’s good conflict， and it’s a necessary force that pushes us to be better people。
High conflict is what happens when discord distills into a good-versus-evil kind of feud， the kind with an us and a them。 In this state， the brain behaves differently。 We feel increasingly certain of our own superiority， and everything we do to try to end the conflict， usually makes it worse。 Eventually， we can start to mimic the behavior of our adversaries， harming what we hold most dear。
In this “compulsively readable” （Evan Osnos， National Book Award-winning author） book， New York Times bestselling author and award-winning journalist Amanda Ripley investigates how good people get captured by high conflict—and how they break free。
Our journey begins in California， where a world-renowned conflict expert struggles to extract himself from a political feud。 Then we meet a Chicago gang leader who dedicates his life to a vendetta—only to realize， years later， that the story he’d told himself about the conflict was not quite true。 Next， we travel to Colombia， to find out whether thousands of people can be nudged out of high conflict at scale。 Finally， we return to America to see what happens when a group of liberal Manhattan Jews and conservative Michigan corrections officers choose to stay in each other’s homes in order to understand one another better， even as they continue to disagree。
All these people， in dramatically different situations， were drawn into high conflict by similar forces， including conflict entrepreneurs， humiliation， and false binaries。 But ultimately， all of them found ways to transform high conflict into good conflict， the kind that made them better people。 They rehumanized and recategorized their opponents， and they revived curiosity and wonder， even as they continued to fight for what they knew was right。
People do escape high conflict。 Individuals—even entire communities—can short-circuit the feedback loops of outrage and blame， if they want to。 This is an “insightful and enthralling” （The New York Times Book Review） book—and a mind-opening new way to think about conflict that will transform how we move through the world。
Reviews
Andrea McDowell
，
I found this book interesting but not particularly useful。Ripley very capably tells the easy parts of the story， roughly captured in the subtitle: why we get trapped and how to get out。 But the trickier parts， though often alluded to， are otherwise avoided: what is high conflict， when is it necessary， and how can you tell if your 'good vs。 evil' narrative is justified？I mean， I get it: I deactivated my FB account and almost never post on Twitter because it seems to me that every issue， no matter I found this book interesting but not particularly useful。Ripley very capably tells the easy parts of the story， roughly captured in the subtitle: why we get trapped and how to get out。 But the trickier parts， though often alluded to， are otherwise avoided: what is high conflict， when is it necessary， and how can you tell if your 'good vs。 evil' narrative is justified？I mean， I get it: I deactivated my FB account and almost never post on Twitter because it seems to me that every issue， no matter how minor， is immediately compared by all participants to the Lord of the Rings， and everyone spends their time figuring out who's Sauron， who's the Fellowship， who's the Ring-bearer， how to get them to Mordor， and then goes about slaying all the Orcs absolutely believing that they have the right of it。 Sometimes it's justified （slavery， misogyny， etc。） and often it's not， though I rarely feel qualified as an outsider to weigh in （nor do I want to， because that is the shortest possible distance to being labelled Sauron）。 I have often been labelled the Sauron by all sides in any particular dispute， which I think is typical for those in environmental or climate careers: on the one side， I've had conservatives criticize me to my face and in the press as an anti-freedom hoax promoter determined to destroy their lives， capitalism and Canadian democracy; and I've had those farther to the left of me criticize me personally and publicly as willing to allow large numbers of people to die unnecessarily， pro-capitalism， and probably （or definitely！） racist。 It seems extremely unlikely that both of these portrayals are true， and neither feel helpful。 I would love to find a way to create spaces for more constructive conversations， but I don't know if this book helps me get there。 I already try to do a lot of the things she writes about， but if someone is determined to see you as a source of evil， in my experience， they will continue to。I tried to consider her analysis from the vantage point of 'high conflicts' I've been involved in， willingly or not （mostly not）， in the course of my life and career， and rarely found much that could or would nudge someone involved to consider whether or not it was a good use of their time or energy。 For example， my years working in wind energy: I worked for a small family consulting company hired by small also mostly family businesses building wind projects， but we were routinely demonized in the press and to our faces as corporate overlords making huge salaries by destroying rural communities （I took a pay cut for that job）。 For the public consultation sessions I managed， my staff were often assaulted; people would stand on their chairs with bullhorns and yell into them， "This is a police state！" Most of those projects were five or ten turbines。 Wind energy is a necessary part of the energy transmission; these were communities where there had never been energy projects before， so one could not argue they had been asked to contribute too much to the common good。 As I listened （audiobook version）， I asked if there were anything here to nudge a wind opponent into considering whether the good-vs-evil narrative was true， or a good use of their time and energy， but I don't think there was。 I've just re-listened to Appendix 1 which is "How to Identify High Conflict in the World。" One of her questions is about "language that is disproportionate to the conflict，" and it seems pretty clear to me that comparisons to a police state （or getting worked up enough to punch a young man in the face who had been hired to help with the logistics of the public meeting） were disproportionate。 But I can't see any of the meeting attendees agreeing。 To them this really was an apocalyptic scenario。On the other hand， if I think about communities or people who have genuinely been abused， where true evil has been involved， it often happens that they are told they're being "overly sensitive" or misremembering or otherwise being disproportionate in their response， when say they want not to spend time with their abusers or want them to have legal consequences for their actions。 I remember during the Ghomeshi trial when two of the complainants said in texts or emails to each other that they wanted Ghomeshi to lose。 "I want so badly for that piece of shit to pay for what he's done，" one of the complainants wrote to another。 But is that really disproportionate， under the circumstances？ The judge ruled yes， and the case was dismissed。So what gets counted as "disproportionate language" depends entirely on perspective and context， and bring you right back to the question you started with: whether or not the language was disproportionate depends on whether or not the high conflict was merited。 It's a circular argument。I don't blame Ripley for not having the first idea how to resolve this， but it should have been more thoroughly addressed and acknowledged in the text。 For many political "high conflicts，" there is a kernel underneath of justified grievance where some participants may be involved in a legitimately good-vs-evil confrontation， and where that's true， I can't see the value of the "contact" Ripley proposes as a method for leaving the conflict。 Almost all of the examples in her book are ones where the people involved in peacemaking were observers （eg。 liberal Jewish New Yorkers meeting conservative Christian rural Michiganers for a cultural exchange; none of those involved in the debates about gun control， say， had lost loved ones to gun violence）。 One wonders what would have happened if the cultural exchange involved， say， Black Americans descended from slaves and Klu Klux Klan members。 What kind of burden would that place on the Black participants？ Would it be fair or humane？ Isn't this a true good-vs-evil situation， where high conflict is understandable and possibly even required， and where any potential peacemakers would need to be sensitive to the emotional and psychological toll this would have on those most affected？（There have been such exchanges。 One here in Canada that I really appreciated was a reality TV show where anti-indigenous racist White Canadians went to live in homes in various Canadian indigenous communities， and learned more about the cultures and communities that they assumed they already understood perfectly well。 There were significant transformations that， though not universal or perfect， were really lovely to watch。 https://www。aptn。ca/firstcontact/ Still， I think it is impossible to discuss such projects ethically without acknowledging the burden this places on those who have been harmed， historically。）Isn't that conflict， in fact， and more like it， at the heart of the political polarization happening in America today？ No matter how it's metastasized， no matter how many of the sub-arguments and platforms have grown into unjustified High Conflicts of their own， it's hard to see how the polarization in America can be addressed without some truth and reconciliation process （another term that Ripley does not mention in this book， though I kept waiting for it） around the slavery， genocide， and misogyny at the foundation of the American experiment。 Indeed， I would expect any long-lasting peace from any conflict resolution process would need to include relevant and appropriate apologies， but that too was never mentioned。 Trust can only grow where any previous harm has been acknowledged， and a process for amends has begun。What else she does mention:1。 Low Trust。 Again， one would expect in genuine good-vs-evil situations where high conflict is justified， that trust would be very low。 Low trust in a particular conflict doesn't tell you on its own that a conflict is too high， because the question is self-referential。 2。 Do other people withdraw from the conflict， leading to two binary extremes？ Again， this is a self-referential question。 In situations of abuse， even extreme abuse， bystanders often "withdraw" from the conflict， leaving the abused person feeling abandoned and alone。 "Two binary extremes" can be a predator protesting their innocence and a victim determined to get out of the situation and a bunch of mushy bystanders not wanting to 'take sides。' "Two binary extremes" can look like the descendants of former slaves demanding compensation for the economic benefits of the infrastructure and economy their ancestors were forced to build for free， and the descendants of former slaveowners demanding they "get over it" because it was a long time ago， and a bunch of conflict avoidant bystanders not wanting to 'take sides。' This does not tell you whether the high conflict was justified and can be used as a weapon to further harm those who are trying to escape abuse or change oppressive practices。3。 Does the conflict seem to have its own momentum？ Same。The fact is that the central question of our time is how to tell when the good-vs-evil narrative is justified and when it's not。 I agree with Ripley that it's now being reflexively deployed in all kinds of situations where it does little good and a lot of harm。 But some consideration of when and how a real reckoning is necessary， and what bystanders can do besides either inflaming the conflict or refusing to take sides （which only makes it worse） is necessary in this kind of book if it's going to be of real value to creating progress。 。。。more
Madeline Dew
，
so this is a pretty great book that majorly helped give framing and words to some feelings ive been having lately - like， for example， the all or nothing radicalism of the right is obviously terrible， but so is the all or nothing radicalism of the left， because neither will ever be genuinely productive。anyway i dont wanna talk politics， but basically this is a really great discussion on the big differences between productive， messy， good conflict which promotes curiosity， learning， frustration， so this is a pretty great book that majorly helped give framing and words to some feelings ive been having lately - like， for example， the all or nothing radicalism of the right is obviously terrible， but so is the all or nothing radicalism of the left， because neither will ever be genuinely productive。anyway i dont wanna talk politics， but basically this is a really great discussion on the big differences between productive， messy， good conflict which promotes curiosity， learning， frustration， and change， as oppose to the other kind of conflict， which i will leave to the book to explain。 really good stuff in today's absolutely polarising climate！ 。。。more
Joelb
，
“High conflict” is Amanda Ripley’s term for the intractable， energy-sapping conflicts where people choose sides and find it impossible to understand how any sane person could possibly see the issue differently。 This very readable book by a seasoned journalist analyzes high conflict’s nature， explores how we get trapped in it， and shows how we can extricate ourselves from it。 Ripley builds the analysis around the stories of some very real but very painful conflicts， such as a divorcing couple， “High conflict” is Amanda Ripley’s term for the intractable， energy-sapping conflicts where people choose sides and find it impossible to understand how any sane person could possibly see the issue differently。 This very readable book by a seasoned journalist analyzes high conflict’s nature， explores how we get trapped in it， and shows how we can extricate ourselves from it。 Ripley builds the analysis around the stories of some very real but very painful conflicts， such as a divorcing couple， a small-town community leader and a Chicago gang leader。 These examples facilitate explorations of the role of binary thinking， the influence of “fire starters” （people in ones life who revel in conflict and fan its flames）， and the fact that conflicts usually are not about what they seem to be about， but tap into people’s values， emotions and sense of self worth。 The second half of the book， still using stories of real people enmeshed in real conflicts， explores tactics for finding one’s way out of conflict。 Spoiler alert: none of them lead to getting adversaries to change their minds。 Conflict can be healthy and should not be avoided， but it should be managed in ways that explore its complexity while respecting the perspectives of all involved。 。。。more
Sarah
，
I spend a lot of time thinking about our political divisions and how they seem to have widened lately。 I also spend a lot of time flummoxed by how people can think the way they do and ultimately devolve to the assumption that it's their source of information， even though I should know that there are many factors。 This book made me take into account some of those factors and made me turn the lens back on myself as well。 I had to do more self reflection with this one than I have with the last few I spend a lot of time thinking about our political divisions and how they seem to have widened lately。 I also spend a lot of time flummoxed by how people can think the way they do and ultimately devolve to the assumption that it's their source of information， even though I should know that there are many factors。 This book made me take into account some of those factors and made me turn the lens back on myself as well。 I had to do more self reflection with this one than I have with the last few books I've read like this。 The process is sometimes painful but more beneficial。 。。。more
Priti
，
For the most part， I enjoyed the stories shared in the book。 In the process of reading， much to my surprise and dismay， I found myself in the middle of "high conflict"。 I will try some of the strategies suggested e。g。 ask if everyone in the group would be open to resolving conflict， identify a mediator， work on a shared interest etc。 Much of the "high conflict" in my case appears to be due to many feeling psychologically unsafe， and possible trauma。 Would "looping" feedback help people feel safe For the most part， I enjoyed the stories shared in the book。 In the process of reading， much to my surprise and dismay， I found myself in the middle of "high conflict"。 I will try some of the strategies suggested e。g。 ask if everyone in the group would be open to resolving conflict， identify a mediator， work on a shared interest etc。 Much of the "high conflict" in my case appears to be due to many feeling psychologically unsafe， and possible trauma。 Would "looping" feedback help people feel safer？ I am not sure， and will ask the group。 。。。more
Becky Proctor
，
This is a book for any of us who work along-side， live next to， share family bonds with or basically function in communities with other humans who see things differently than we do。 In other words， this is a book for all of us。
V
，
A terrific book， and I highly recommend it。 So we’ll written and thoughtful。 V
Rob Reid
，
A book that proposes a pathway to addressing our world’s most intractable conflicts- the Israel-Palestine conflict， the current Democrat/Republican divide in the United States， failing political systems- runs the risk of naivete and both sides-ism。 Ripley’s predominantly “can-do” attitude towards conflict strikes me as overly optimistic， but she does at least cursorily acknowledge limitations of well-informed strategies- that transforming “high conflict” into “good conflict” may lead to improved A book that proposes a pathway to addressing our world’s most intractable conflicts- the Israel-Palestine conflict， the current Democrat/Republican divide in the United States， failing political systems- runs the risk of naivete and both sides-ism。 Ripley’s predominantly “can-do” attitude towards conflict strikes me as overly optimistic， but she does at least cursorily acknowledge limitations of well-informed strategies- that transforming “high conflict” into “good conflict” may lead to improved understanding and dignity without anyone changing their mind， that conflicts based on power differentials （e。g。 marginalized Catholics in Northern Ireland and people of color in the United States） are not so easily improved through relationship-building， that justice （in the case of Colombian rebels） is not always served so much as violence minimized。 More importantly， this book provides success stories where conflict mediators have successfully provided pathways for de-escalating violence or building understanding。 I recommend following Ripley’s book all the way to its strong closing chapter， as well as appendices which provide concrete tips for identifying high conflict in the world and in our own lives， resources for mitigating conflict through active listening， and suggestions for avoiding unnecessary groups and interacting across groups where possible。 。。。more
Jill Waldman
，
This book is amazing。 I heard Amanda Ripley being interviewed on a podcast and I went on Amazon and bought it on the spot。 The author brilliantly describes the way conflicts escalate and consume us - from divorces to politics to gang wars。 She expertly weaves throughout case studies of real people to illustrate the process and also offer pathways to de-escalate and communicate。 She also has some choice words to say about lawyers。 ;） It dragged a little at the end， but there were parts of this bo This book is amazing。 I heard Amanda Ripley being interviewed on a podcast and I went on Amazon and bought it on the spot。 The author brilliantly describes the way conflicts escalate and consume us - from divorces to politics to gang wars。 She expertly weaves throughout case studies of real people to illustrate the process and also offer pathways to de-escalate and communicate。 She also has some choice words to say about lawyers。 ;） It dragged a little at the end， but there were parts of this book where I was nodding and exclaiming “yes！” out loud on the subway like a crazy person。 If you want to understand the past four years of why you get so enraged on Twitter， and maybe even learn how to back away， read this book。 。。。more
Rachel Ciampoli
，
I really enjoyed reading this and hearing the stories of different people who have been caught up in high conflict。 We are all in the midst of lots of it these days and this helped me to see how I can recognise it， steer clear of it where possible， and also humbly admit where I am stuck in it。 I believe this is a really important book for now。
Karen Levenson
，
Life-changing。
Jennifer
，
I took my time with this as there is a lot to digest。 Interesting examples and theories on why and how we enter into conflicts and behavior surrounding them。
Diane Dreher
，
Fascinating book that shows what happens to us emotionally that drags us into "high conflict，" turning disagreements into polarized factions and conflict into combat。 Excellent insights into one of the major problems of our time， a problem of perception and reaction that keeps us from working together to solve other problems in our neighborhoods， relationships， government， and the environment。 Highly recommended。 Fascinating book that shows what happens to us emotionally that drags us into "high conflict，" turning disagreements into polarized factions and conflict into combat。 Excellent insights into one of the major problems of our time， a problem of perception and reaction that keeps us from working together to solve other problems in our neighborhoods， relationships， government， and the environment。 Highly recommended。 。。。more
Daniel Bloom
，
Interesting read。 Left me with more questions than answers
Lorraine Mercer
，
Good learning experience Learn about conflict and how to manage。 Don’t try to change people。 Learn their story and hear their view of events。 Respect their point。 Avoid big conflict by increasing the positive in the relationship。 Do not post negative on social media。 Accurate the positive。 High conflict is expensive and decreases quality of life。 Focus on family to break out of conflict
Aaron Mikulsky
，
I enjoyed High Conflict and Amanda's stories and examples。 I recommend this read！I like how the book uses the metaphor of the La Brea Tar Pits off Wilshire Boulevard in the Miracle Mile district of Los Angeles。 This prehistoric death trap symbolizes high conflict！High conflict is defined as a conflict that becomes self-perpetuating and all-consuming， in which almost everyone ends up worse。 Typically an us-versus-them conflict。 Some people are more susceptible to high conflict than others。 Thes I enjoyed High Conflict and Amanda's stories and examples。 I recommend this read！I like how the book uses the metaphor of the La Brea Tar Pits off Wilshire Boulevard in the Miracle Mile district of Los Angeles。 This prehistoric death trap symbolizes high conflict！High conflict is defined as a conflict that becomes self-perpetuating and all-consuming， in which almost everyone ends up worse。 Typically an us-versus-them conflict。 Some people are more susceptible to high conflict than others。 These people are quick to blame， certain that they are right， and always on guard。 High conflict is about stagnation。 High conflict involves certainty， rigidity， righteousness， rumination， assumption， advocacy， feelings of happiness when bad things happen to the other side， zero-sum thinking， and where violence is more likely。 To recognize high conflict， look for sweeping， grandiose， or violent language to describe the conflict， and notice if rumors， myths， or conspiracy theories are present。Good conflict is friction that can be serious and intense but leads somewhere useful。 Does not collapse into dehumanization and is also known as healthy conflict。 In healthy conflict， there is movement。 Questions get asked。 Curiosity exists。 In good conflict there is humility， fluidity， many different emotions， complexity， novelty， and passion。Contact theory is the idea that people from different groups will， under certain conditions， tend to become less prejudiced towards one another after spending time together。 “The effectiveness of contact theory has been illustrated in more than 500 experiments， all over the world。” When we get to know people， we can’t reduce them to just one thing。 Usually， relationships make it harder to dismiss and dehumanize other people。 Fourth Way is a way to go through conflict that’s more satisfying than running away， fighting， or staying silent， the three usual paths。 It’s leaning into conflict。 Humans have certain fundamental emotional needs including a sense of belonging， for self-esteem， for control， and for a meaningful existence。 Contempt， on the other hand， is the strongest predictor of divorce according to psychologist John Gottman。Questions to manage one’s ego:Does it need to be said？Does it need to be said by me？Does it need to be said by me right now？To create a culture that is conflict resilient or to prevent high conflict:1。 Investigate the understory - The understory is the thing the conflict is really about， underneath the usual talking points。“Blame almost always masks vulnerability。”2。 Reduce the binary - don’t let complexity collapse into competition。 In a political system you can use ranked-choice voting and third parties。 Most democracies use proportional representation and have more than two parties。 The United States is the exception。 The United States is more polarized than most countries in the world today because of this。 Avoid referendums。3。 Marginalize the fire starters - try to rely on people and news sources who are unafraid of complexity， ones who are more curious than righteous， most of the time。 Ripley uses the classic example of the Hatfield and McCoy families as well as Syrian president Bashar al-Assad。4。 Buy time and make space - Rutger Bregman’s wonderful book Humankind contradicts the classic novel Lord of the Flies。 The boys who were stranded on a remote island created space and time as well as rituals to combat conflict。 Looping for understanding is an iterative， active listening technique in which the person listening reflects back what the person talking seems to have said。 It involves listening in ways people can see。 “Show them you’re listening; don’t tell them you are。" “Most of us do not feel heard much of the time。 That’s because most people don’t know how to listen。 We jump to conclusions。 We think we understand when we don’t。 We tee up our next point， before the other person has finished talking。” “Once we feel understood， we see options we couldn’t see before。 We feel some ownership over the search for solutions。” The magic ratio is when the number of every day positive interactions between people significantly outweighs the number of negative， creating a buffer that helps keep conflict healthy。 5。 Complicate the narrative - feel curious when you feel threatened。 Notice and amplify contradictions that you see in the real world。 Incite curiosity by asking questions。 “One of the burdens of high conflict is that it doesn’t allow for delight， for these little moments of joy。 Curiosity is a prerequisite for delight。”Other examples in the book that stood out to me were: The mid-1970s Palestinian Liberation Organization （PLO） and their commando unit called Black September; the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative; the Baha’i faith in that we are all connected where there is no us or them。 [Baha’i teachings revere Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad， believing that all major religions come from one spiritual source。]; Curtis Toler - the violence interrupter， actor， and a former leader in the Black P Stone gang - his life story is amazing as well as the history and psychology around gangs in Chicago is very interesting; The Adams and Jefferson story was super cool！ 。。。more
Sara
，
This is a 3。5。 I found some gold nuggets in this book but overall I expected much more。 It was not a deep and scholarly analysis， was mostly focused on societal conflicts rather than interpersonal and stories were too long with much unnecessary details。
Rosemarie Donzanti
，
I read this book for two reasons…first， some of the concepts were introduced on a call I was on recently and second， because it is a book that was discussed for the Open Discussion Project。 To me the true value of the book is the framework/definitions and case studies it provides for thinking about high conflict situations。 We had and have the fear and manipulation trifecta with the political environment， COVID， and a world full of people feeling self-rightious and being judgmental。 Traditional I read this book for two reasons…first， some of the concepts were introduced on a call I was on recently and second， because it is a book that was discussed for the Open Discussion Project。 To me the true value of the book is the framework/definitions and case studies it provides for thinking about high conflict situations。 We had and have the fear and manipulation trifecta with the political environment， COVID， and a world full of people feeling self-rightious and being judgmental。 Traditional media with 24 hour news cycles and social media with instant， non-stop messages of alarm and hatred have fueled the fire。 News stations and newspapers are looking for the next “Watergate” and a Pulitzer Prize for breaking high profile news。 They are fear mongers who are incentivized to create high conflict， drive fear and widen polarization。 My frustration has been a lack of critical thinking from really smart people regarding what the news reports。 Listening to or reading headline news only from outlets that feed confirmation bias is dangerous。 Reading this book was a great opportunity for me to reflect on how I think and my own personal biases。 I am hoping that this book is a good “firestarter” for me and others in diffusing high conflict。Valuable definitions and concepts discussed in the book:High Conflict， Good Conflict， Binary Issues， Firestarters， Conflict Entrepreneurs， Hyper-polarizarion， Looping， Active Listening， Genuine Curiosity， Confirmation Bias， 。。。more
Ryan
，
I liked this deep dive into what creates and how to overcome conflict。 I was expecting more of an examination of personal conflict， and that is included， but the book focuses more on group conflict。 I enjoyed the stories and psychology behind why humans conflict with each other。 A great reminder of how and why to avoid thinking in "us vs。 them"。 I liked this deep dive into what creates and how to overcome conflict。 I was expecting more of an examination of personal conflict， and that is included， but the book focuses more on group conflict。 I enjoyed the stories and psychology behind why humans conflict with each other。 A great reminder of how and why to avoid thinking in "us vs。 them"。 。。。more
K Steward
，
Amanda Ripley has done an amazing job of researching and writing about conflict， how it happens and how to get out of it。 It was so helpful I feel like I should read it again right now so I don't forget anything！ Amanda Ripley has done an amazing job of researching and writing about conflict， how it happens and how to get out of it。 It was so helpful I feel like I should read it again right now so I don't forget anything！ 。。。more
Coucou Caram
，
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK。 SHE GETS IT JUST RIGHT。 THANK YOU， AMANDA RIPLEY！ I HOPE PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU BECAUSE YOUR MESSAGE IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR。
Heath Salzman
，
Every year I read a few books that clearly stand out among the rest。 This is one of them for 2021。 Ripley applies her journalistic gifting with great effect， tracking the nature of conflict and asking what makes it good or bad， how to get in it and how to get out of it。 I absolutely recommend this to everyone。 In fact， it should be required reading in schools， especially during these contentious times！
Paul Miller
，
Highly readable introduction of a framework about the nature of conflict， deeming unhealthy conflict as "high conflict" where it feels like a trap we can never exit。 A few hallmarks of "high conflict" are the focus on group identity -"us" and "them"， de-humanizing of individuals， and attraction of "conflict entrepreneurs"， firebrands who seek to benefit from inflaming passions by focusing on what divides us。 Nothing highly original here， but at least you'll gain a new language to describe identi Highly readable introduction of a framework about the nature of conflict， deeming unhealthy conflict as "high conflict" where it feels like a trap we can never exit。 A few hallmarks of "high conflict" are the focus on group identity -"us" and "them"， de-humanizing of individuals， and attraction of "conflict entrepreneurs"， firebrands who seek to benefit from inflaming passions by focusing on what divides us。 Nothing highly original here， but at least you'll gain a new language to describe identity politics and critical race theory， and the contrast with the philosophies of Martin Luther King。 。。。more
Ann Campbell
，
This is a well-written and well-argued study of how people end up in us/me-versus them situations and how to try to deescalate them。 It moves back and forth between larger system conflicts and personal issues （such as divorce， etc）， but the focus is always on what a person can do in the situation it uses as examples。 The strongest message is that personal relationships fed by regular， positive interactions are the strongest defense against high conflict because it's hard to reduce someone you kn This is a well-written and well-argued study of how people end up in us/me-versus them situations and how to try to deescalate them。 It moves back and forth between larger system conflicts and personal issues （such as divorce， etc）， but the focus is always on what a person can do in the situation it uses as examples。 The strongest message is that personal relationships fed by regular， positive interactions are the strongest defense against high conflict because it's hard to reduce someone you know well into a two-dimensional caricature。 。。。more
Dave Conroy
，
Written with the right tone at the exact moment in time that it is needed， Amanda Ripley parses through the divisive rhetoric and polarization of many societies and suggests a way out of this space。 The most poignant idea to me was that people don’t need to agree in order to make progress， but they do need to feel heard。 We need to be heard before most of us are ready to listen to contrary views。 The question is， “Who listen to one another first？” The book is a worthwhile read for everyone。
Nabeel Hassan
，
High conflict people （HCPs） have a pattern of high-conflict behavior that increases conflict rather than reducing or resolving it。 This pattern usually happens over and over again in many different situations with many different people。 The issue that seems in conflict at the time is not what is increasing the conflict。 The “issue” is the high-conflict personality and how the person approaches problem-solving。 With HCPs， the pattern of behavior includes a lot of:Blaming othersAll-or-nothing thin High conflict people （HCPs） have a pattern of high-conflict behavior that increases conflict rather than reducing or resolving it。 This pattern usually happens over and over again in many different situations with many different people。 The issue that seems in conflict at the time is not what is increasing the conflict。 The “issue” is the high-conflict personality and how the person approaches problem-solving。 With HCPs， the pattern of behavior includes a lot of:Blaming othersAll-or-nothing thinking Unmanaged emotionsExtreme behaviors 。。。more
Tara Hamilton
，
I really enjoyed this book。 It’s about embracing complexity to avoid high conflict but it’s also full of entertaining and heartfelt stories。
Margherita Melillo
，
A crucially important topic for today's world。 I wish we talked more about how polarizing debates leave everyone worse off。 We should all learn how to avoid high conflicts to have a successful marriage， a positive friends' group， a thriving community， or a healthy democracy。 This book definitely taught me a lot about how to identify unhealthy conflicts， and gave me some insights on how to possibly get out of them。 Giving yourself time and distance is a well-known strategy。 But the book goes on t A crucially important topic for today's world。 I wish we talked more about how polarizing debates leave everyone worse off。 We should all learn how to avoid high conflicts to have a successful marriage， a positive friends' group， a thriving community， or a healthy democracy。 This book definitely taught me a lot about how to identify unhealthy conflicts， and gave me some insights on how to possibly get out of them。 Giving yourself time and distance is a well-known strategy。 But the book goes on to show how vital is to appreciate the complexity of any debates and their understory。 We should never allow ourselves to use general categories （eg Republicans， or Israelis， or perhaps also the industry） to stereotype people without making an effort to understand their point of view。 We should be very careful of the language we use。 The book illustrates these points through some very interesting stories: gang conflict in Chicago， Colombia's guerrilla， a Jew community in Manhattan on a mission to get to know some midwestern Republicans。 I think these were all powerful examples， and very interesting stories per se。 On the down side， for my own taste the book bit too introductory， too little in-depth， and after all too short。 It's good if you want to get a first appreciation of the subject， but it will leave you with many questions unanswered。 。。。more
Shirley
，
After reading this book， I am looking at conflicts with a brand new perspective。 Amanda Ripley weaves together so many great stories to help us understand the structure of good conflict and high conflict。 She also provide us the tools for how to recognize and exit high conflict。 The stories were powerful; some are incredibly moving， and some are hilarious。 All in all， the book gives me hope that our humanity will triumph over high conflict， and our curiosity will help us connect and unit。 I’m so After reading this book， I am looking at conflicts with a brand new perspective。 Amanda Ripley weaves together so many great stories to help us understand the structure of good conflict and high conflict。 She also provide us the tools for how to recognize and exit high conflict。 The stories were powerful; some are incredibly moving， and some are hilarious。 All in all， the book gives me hope that our humanity will triumph over high conflict， and our curiosity will help us connect and unit。 I’m so glad this book exists， especially now。 。。。more
Stephen
，