top of page
Search

REDUCING CONFLICTS: Neuroscience Techniques for Dialogue in Times off Conflict

  • Writer: Marcela Emilia Silva do Valle Pereira Ma Emilia
    Marcela Emilia Silva do Valle Pereira Ma Emilia
  • Oct 2
  • 6 min read
A luminous brain with purple and green lights in space, connecting via lights beans to a globe showing grey conflict zones and distant smoke
Global Conflict and Neuroscience as a Solution

🧠 Reducing Conflict


In October 2025, the world simmers with conflicts beyond headlines: Israel’s escalating offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon, with intense airstrikes killing hundreds of civilians in Beirut (International Crisis Group, 2025), and the ongoing Gaza war, with over 45,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, now exceeding 50,000 total (ACLED Conflict Index, 2025). In Sudan, civil war has claimed 150,000 civilian lives and displaced 12 million amid droughts and famine (CFR Conflicts to Watch, 2025). These global events ripple into our lives: heated work debates on economic impacts, family arguments over political news, or X threads turning toxic. But neuroscience offers practical techniques to transform these moments into constructive dialogue.


🔬 Understanding the Brain in Conflict Times


A classic lighthouse with red and white stripes, emiting a strong light bean over a calm sea, while a storm background with lightning and turbulent waves recedes, symbolising the transition from conflict to dialogue.
From Storm to Guiding Lighthouse

The raw truth: conflict isn’t just “different opinions.” It’s a bodily threat state. When the system perceives risk (status, justice, identity, resources), it prioritizes speed over accuracy: amygdala and insula fire; the ACC monitor’s conflict; the PFC struggles to keep up. For conversations that resolve (not inflame), we must hack the circuit—physiology first, cognition later (Lieberman, 2007)


In simpler terms? In disagreements, the brain enters "survival mode": the amygdala (fear center) triggers rapid emotional responses, while the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), handling empathy and regulation, needs time to engage. In contexts like Lebanon’s crisis, where recent strikes spark global debates on “defense vs. aggression,” this leads to rapid online polarization (Statista Conflicts Worldwide, 2025). Unlike our previous polarization post, we focus on action: training the brain to pause and connect, using neuroplasticity for lasting dialogue habits.


  • Perceived Threat → Bias for “us vs. them,” narrow focus, moral/threat language, and quick responses (short-term > long-term) (Brady et al., 2017).

  • Conflict Monitoring (ACC) → Detects clashes in goals/values; higher load, higher reactivity.

  • Regulation (PFC) → Reinterprets, curbs impulses, seeks solutions; works best after physiology calms (Ochsner & Gross, 2005).


❓ Regulating Emotions: The Foundation for Dialogue


A translucent human figure in a meditative pose emanating concentric circles of white and light blue around the head and chest , as dark stress smoke dissipates, symbolising emotional regulation and the power of pause.
The Power of Pause and Breath

Emotional regulation is the first step to reduce conflict—backed by Immordino-Yang & Damasio (2007), showing managed emotions enable social learning. The practical “4-7-8 pause” (mindfulness-inspired) involves inhaling for 4 seconds, holding for 7, and exhaling for 8, lowering cortisol in minutes to calm the amygdala.


What to avoid?


  • Public shaming / “link-bombing” (raises defenses).

  • Moralizing/threatening words (“coward,” “unacceptable,” “always/never”)

  • Physiological deficits (sleep, hunger, heat/noise).

  • Multitasking (emails/telempathy during debate).

  • Absolute certainty (zero openness to nuance).


Everyday Example: Picture a meeting on Trump’s tariff impacts—threatening 65,000 Brazilian jobs (Agência Brasil, 2025). A colleague calls your proposal “reckless.” Instead of reacting, pause and breathe. Result? Say: “I see your concern about jobs—tell me more.”


🧩 Active Listening: Building Brain Empathy


Two neural human silhouettes facing each other, with sound waves and lights connecting their brains and chest, forming an empathy bridge over cracked ground.
The Empathy Bridge

Active listening isn’t just hearing—it’s processing with the mPFC to foster empathy. Leong et al. (2020) show polarized neural responses fade when we try to understand, releasing oxytocin (connection hormone). Spend 10-12 minutes without interrupting, paraphrasing: “It sounds like you’re frustrated because...”.


Practical Example: In a family debate on Gaza, where Sudan’s famine affects 522,000 infants (Statista, 2025), say: “You’re saying the images make you feel helpless? I feel that too.” This eases “social pain” in the cingulate cortex.


✨ Advanced Techniques: Gradual Exposure and Shared Narratives


A calm person siting at the head of a meeting table, emanating a soft light that dissipates tension from pointing and discussing colleagues.
The Peacemaker at the Epicentre of Debate

Beyond listening, try gradual exposure: 5 minutes with an opposing view to reduce uncertainty intolerance (van Baar et al., 2021). Or build shared narratives, focusing on common values to activate the default mode network (DMN) for creative insights.


Pratical Example: In X debates on Lebanon’s offensive (Hart International, 2025), shift from “security vs. human rights” to: “We both want peace—how can we build it?”


🧭 Full Playbook: 7 Steps with Examples


An overhead view of an old navigation map on a wooden table, with routes for "Coherent Breathing", "Active Listening", and other steps. Surrounded by a magnifying glass, a balanced scale, earphones, a pen, and parchment with the world "Empathy".
The Dialogue Tool Map

  1. Coherent Breathing (4–6 cycles/min)


    How to: Sit, focus on long exhalation (4–5s inhale / 5–6s exhale) for 90–120s.


    Why it works: ↑ heart rate variability (HRV), ↓ arousal, boosts executive control (Ochsner & Gross, 2014).



  2. Affect Labeling


    How to: Quietly name what you feel: “frustrated, worried, angry…”.


    Why it works: Labeling reduces reactivity, letting the PFC take over (Lieberman, 2007).



  3. Cognitive Reappraisal


    How to: Shift “they’re attacking me” to “they’re defending a key value.”


    Why it works: Changes meaning → changes state; less threat, more solutions (Ochsner & Gross, 2005).



  4. Guided Perspective (Mentalization)


    How to: Ask: “What’s a good outcome for you?” and “What worries you if we go this way?”


    Why it works: Activates theory-of-mind networks, builds common ground, reduces dehumanization (van Baar et al., 2021).



  5. Self-Affirmation (Before Talks)


    How to: Spend 2 minutes writing 3 defining values (family, competence, justice) with examples.


    Why it works: Lowers identity defensiveness; you negotiate ideas, not “who you are” (Cohen & Sherman, 2014)



  6. Correcting Meta-Perceptions


    How to: “What do you think I stand for? I’ll share what I believe, and you check if I got your side right.”


    Why it works: Exaggerated expectations about “others” fuel conflict; adjusting reduces friction (Mernyk et al., 2022).



  7. Implementation Intentions (IF→THEN)


    How to: “If I hear ‘you don’t get it,’ I’ll pause 10s, breathe, and ask: ‘Which part didn’t make sense?’”


    Why it works: Automates regulated responses in hot triggers (Rollwage et al., 2020).



🗣️ 10 Phrases to Cool the Conversation (and They Work)


  1. “Can I try summarizing what I heard from you?”

  2. “Where do we already agree—and where’s the gap?”

  3. “What’s non-negotiable for you, and what’s flexible?”

  4. “What’s a small step that improves things by 20%?”

  5. “Help me see what I’m missing.”

  6. “Can we pause this and revisit with data X?”

  7. “Willing to name risks on both sides, not just mine?”

  8. “If this goes wrong, how do we catch it early and fix it?”

  9. “What needs to be clear for you to trust the agreement?”

  10. “What 10-minute checkpoint can we set to review?”


How to know it worked? (Simple metrics)


  • Response latency > 2s (less impulsivity).

  • Accurate paraphrasing of the other side (“that’s right”).

  • 1–2 SMART commitments (owner, deadline, criteria).

  • Follow-up scheduled (10 min, within 48–72h).


🧩 Takeaway (30-Second Checklist)


  • Regulate (breathing) → Label (emotion) → Reappraise (meaning).

  • Ask before arguing; summarize before disagreeing.

  • Correct meta-perceptions; seek common goals.

  • Close with SMART agreements + short follow-up.


💓 Conclusion: Practical Action for a Conflicted World


A stylised, calm brain in whit and gold tones, floating above vibrant and peaceful globe with no signs of conflicts.
The Peaceful World and Calm Mind

In 2025, with Gaza and Lebanon shaping our daily talks, neuroscience isn’t theory—it’s a toolkit for real empathy. Try one technique today and see the shift. Reduced a conflict this way?


Comment below! 🗣️




📚  References


  1. International Crisis Group. (2025). 10 Conflicts to Watch in 2025. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2025

  2. van Baar, J. M., et al. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty modulates brain-to-brain synchrony. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2022491118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022491118

  3. Leong, Y. C., et al. (2020). Conservative and liberal attitudes drive polarized neural responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(44), 27731–27739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008530117

  4. Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

  5. ACLED. (2025). Conflict Index. https://acleddata.com/series/acled-conflict-index

  6. Statista. (2025). Conflicts worldwide 2025 - statistics & facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/13125/conflicts-worldwide-2025/

  7. CFR. (2025). Conflicts to Watch in 2025. https://www.cfr.org/report/conflicts-watch-2025

  8. Hart International. (2025). Conflicts to Watch in 2025. https://hartinternational.com/conflicts-to-watch-2025/

  9. Agência Brasil. (2025). Tarifaço afeta exportações brasileiras. https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2025-08/tarifaco-sobre-parte-das-exportacoes-brasileiras-entra-em-vigor-hoje

  10. Harvard Business Review. (2020). How to build empathy during conflict. https://hbr.org/2020/06/how-to-build-empathy-during-conflict

  11. Mindful. (2021). How mindfulness can ease conflict. https://www.mindful.org/how-mindfulness-can-ease-conflict/

  12. Nature. (2021). Neural mechanisms of conflict resolution. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97519-6

  13. Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085654

  14. Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010

  15. Cohen, G. L., & Sherman, D. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137

  16. van Baar, J. M., Halpern, D. J., & FeldmanHall, O. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty modulates brain-to-brain synchrony during politically polarized perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2022491118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022491118

  17. Brady, W. J., et al. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114

  18. Mernyk, J. S., et al. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces partisan conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(3), e2109089119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109089119

  19. Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9713

  20. Rollwage, M., Dolan, R. J., & Fleming, S. M. (2020). Confidence drives a neural confirmation bias. Nature Communications, 11(1), 2634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16278-6v

Comments

bottom of page