Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview with Venezuelan Opposition Leader Maria Corina Machado; Israel Braces for Retaliation from Iran and Hezbollah. Interview With The Director Of The Carnegie Middle East Center Maha Yahya; How Gender Divides The American Electorate; How To Become A "Supercommunicator". Aired 10-11a

Aired August 11, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:36]

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Today on the program, an exclusive interview with the so- called Iron Lady of Venezuela. The U.S. says her opposition alliance won the recent presidential election but she's now in hiding, as sitting president Nicolas Maduro threatens her and insists victory is his.

Also with Hamas' chief negotiator dead and fears of a widening war ever growing, what is next for Israel and its neighbors?

Then, America has the possibility once again of having a madam president. But this election is about gender and many more ways than that. I'll explore with the "Atlantic's" Derek Thompson.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: But first here's my take. There's been a tendency among Democrats to get exasperated at the American people for not voting their material interests for policies that would help them better their conditions. They wonder, as the title of a book raising the concern, goes, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" And what they really mean is what's the matter with America?

But in recent years, a growing body of scholarship has shown that people don't tend to vote rationally, but rather use voting to express themselves in emotional, ideological and moral ways. This view of human behavior, which I would associate with scholars like Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Haidt sees elections as involving a great deal of intangible intuition and passion. Voters choose from the gut and then rationalize their choice consciously or not.

Kamala Harris' campaign seems premised on this latter intuition-based approach. Ever since she became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Harris has run a remarkably focused and disciplined campaign. What it seems deliberately light on substance and high on feelings. You don't see the dozens of policy papers that were hallmark of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Harris has not yet given extensive interviews or done press conferences, which would force her to detail her positions on specific issues.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we have an election to win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: Instead she has introduced herself to the American people in entirely human terms, presenting herself as a dynamic, warm, funny, and optimistic person.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: It's heavy on vibes. And so far, it seems to be working. Her running mate pick follows the same pattern. The practical choice would have been Josh Shapiro. He is a smart, effective, popular governor of the swing state with the most electoral votes. The math makes sense. Instead, she chose the governor of a bluer state but one who projects an image that has resonated throughout the country, a folksy, affable kindhearted man.

The Tim Walz pick reminds us that sometimes EQ is as important as IQ. This is a turning of the tables. Donald Trump and the Republicans have tended to be masters of the politics of emotion, emphasizing strength and evoking fear. But for now, Harris' hopefulness, the sense of joy that Walz speaks of on the campaign trail appears to be dominating.

There's also a turning of the tables in another sense. In every presidential election of the past three decades until 2020, the Democrats, now the party of the college educated class, nominated someone who had a degree from Harvard or Yale at the top of the ticket. But now Harris and Walz are continuing the turn away from the ivy league, begun by Biden and Harris, and it is the Republicans who have an all-ivy ticket with one billionaire and one venture capitalist.

[10:05:00]

Watch Tim Walz's video during his first campaign for governor giving voters tips on how to fix a burned-out headlight harness with an $8 part. It's hard to imagine Barack Obama doing that. So far, the Harris approach has allowed her to right the sinking Democratic ship. Solidly blue states that had turned into potential toss-ups are now back in the blue column. She's leading Trump in some national polls and is effectively tied in the swing states.

But this momentum probably has a ceiling. America is evenly divided. Since 2000 presidential elections have been close run affairs with the exception of Obama's wins. It seems likely that this one will also be decided by a few hundred thousand votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Nevada. To prevail Harris will have to start filling in the substance of her campaign.

The Democrats' biggest strength is the issue of abortion. And she has been eloquent and effective on it. Their biggest weakness is immigration, which galvanizes Republicans and even some independents. Harris has been speaking much more about that than Biden did and she's been given a gift by Donald Trump when he forced Republicans to abandon the bipartisan immigration bill. That was basically a Republican wish list.

He gave the Democrats an escape hatch on the issue. Rather than having to defend their decidedly weak and hapless stand on the collapse of the asylum process they could now simply point out that they supported a bipartisan tough crackdown at the border. and Trump did not. Harris has already said she would try to pass this bill if she wins and she should go further by pledging to junk the entire asylum system and build a new one.

We live in a different world from when that system was created and our laws must reflect the reality that there are now millions of asylum seekers across the world. Will the Harris strategy work? It's early still, and it will be a tough close contest. She has real vulnerabilities but so far she has chosen a somewhat unusual path that could pay off in November.

Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link to my "Washington Post" column, and let's get started.

It has been two weeks since Venezuela's elections and the United States and many countries in the region have said that the winner by a landslide was the opposition candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez. But incumbent president Nicolas Maduro, who has ruled for more than a decade, claims he is the victor and is showing no signs of letting go of power. His authorities have violently cracked down on protesters and they say they have arrested thousands of people.

My next guest is the country's leading opposition figure, Maria Corina Machado, who was banned from running for president and assigned Edmundo Gonzalez to run in her place. She fears for her country, but also her own safety, including her life.

Machado joins me from an undisclosed location in Venezuela.

Maria, welcome. First, tell us about your own personal safety. How worried are you that we know that there are the police and looking for you, even as we speak?

MARIA CORINA MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER: Well, Fareed, everyone in Venezuela fear for their freedom being taken away and for their lives. As we speak tens of our leaders around the country, of our movement, are being taken away even from their house. As you said thousands have been detained. 24 people have been killed. And we get threats every single day from the regime that they're going to go against Edmundo Gonzalez for me.

ZAKARIA: What do you think happens next? Because Maduro is refusing to relinquish power, they're cracking down on protesters. They're jailing people. How can you hold on? What is -- do you have a plan?

MACHADO: Certainly we do. And it is very important to understand the magnitude of what happened on July 28th. Against all obstacles with the media totally censored with threats and we were able to organize a network in which volunteers displayed all around the country more than one million people with specific tasks worked that day and were able to get the proofs in the original official tally sheets that Edmundo Gonzalez won by a landslide.

[10:10:08]

This is something the regime never expected. And I have to say that that day, we got cooperation from the military and the officials of the electoral council in every single polling stations. So we were able, in 24 hours, to have the proof in our hand. These tally sheets were digitalized, are in a Web page for the world to see and scrutinized. So this is a moment totally different from what we lived before.

The regime is in its weakest position with no legitimacy, unleashing this, you know, wave of terror and persecution that has isolated them not only from the Venezuelan people but also from the international community. So this a moment to keep pressing, to make Maduro understand that his best option is to accept the terms of a negotiated transition to democracy.

ZAKARIA: What would you like the United States to do? It has said the election was a fraud, that you in fact won. Do you want to see more?

MACHADO: Absolutely. Not only from the United States, I am very thankful for the Biden administration and to both parties in Congress. Venezuela is a bipartisan issue because it is well understood that it's a major priority in terms of national security and the security of the hemisphere because Venezuela has turned into the ally in the region of Russia, Iran, China, Cuba.

That from Venezuela is a safe haven for irregular activities of criminal networks that are spreading in the region. Not only narcotrafficking, but illegal mining, profit of human beings. So it is a critical issue to solve this conflict in Venezuela. We have a new unique sense to do it peacefully.

ZAKARIA: How worried are you that this is a country that eight million people have left from. This is the largest migration out of a country in decades and as long as I can remember. Are you worried that what is left behind is a very broken society and it will not be possible to amend it?

MACHADO: On the contrary, we've reached this point because in the last months something unique arose. This is a social movement that has tear down all the barriers, the (INAUDIBLE) divide us. Black and white, rich and poor, left and right. We have demolished those division. This is a united country and we will keep fighting. We have a united opposition that goes beyond a political party. That goes beyond political party.

And we are opening our arms to more and more people that didn't supported Edmundo Gonzalez on the election day. But that today we're all united for the truth to prevail or popular sovereignty to be respected, and to move ahead in a healing process that will make Venezuela not only a free country, we'll make it the energy hub of the Americas. We will make it a prosperous nation in which our children will come back.

ZAKARIA: Maria, thank you so much. It's so wonderful to hear from you and please stay safe.

MACHADO: Thank you very much. We'll do our best in that sense, and we will prevail. Believe me. We need you. We will prevail.

ZAKARIA: That was Maria Machado.

Next on GPS, Israel is bracing for a violent response after the killing of senior Hezbollah and Hamas figures. I will ask Ronen Bergman whether Israel has a plan for what to do next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:46]

ZAKARIA: Last week, Israel killed Hezbollah's top military commander Fuad Shukr in Lebanon and is believed to be behind the assassination of Hamas' political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran. Both Hezbollah and Iran have vowed revenge on Israel.

I'm joined by Ronen Bergman, staff writer for "The New York Times" magazine and the author of "Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations."

Ronen, welcome. Tell me first, based on your sources, always excellent, what seems the most likely time of attack? And what kind of attack are you hearing that Hezbollah or Iran is preparing?

RONEN BERGMAN, STAFF WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: Thank you, Fareed. Thank you for the compliment. The assessment now is that it is not a synchronized attack. The coordinated attacks. Hezbollah will start and Iran will attack few hours maybe more after Hezbollah. It will happen in early next week and there are some assumptions based on some intelligence that it will take place on Monday, August 12th, which is also a religious date in the Jewish calendar because this is the day when the, according to tradition, the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish people went to exile.

[10:20:23]

According to Israeli intelligence, as much as they know, it seems that both Iran and Hezbollah believed they need to retaliate, but not retaliate so significantly so not force Israel into a counterattack, which could lead to a deterioration to a regional war. ZAKARIA: So would it be fair to say that many people in the Israeli

military and defense establishment and the defense minister, the army chief of staff agree broadly with the Biden administration's pressure on Netanyahu?

BERGMAN: I think if you could run a ball, and said the leadership of the defense establishment, the IDF, the Shin Bet, the Mossad, both intelligence agency, you will find a consensus supportive of any kind of pressure from the U.S. government on Netanyahu to sign a deal, to go for a ceasefire. Not just because of the hostages, but also in some kind of a settlement of a day after in Gaza to break in the Palestinian Authority something that Netanyahu refuses to do.

Again, because the French voice coalition, they all believe this war needs to end I think that behind the scenes, there are even Israeli officials who actively speak with American colleagues and tell them you are our only hope. You are the only way that we can move Mr. Netanyahu to do something, to accept the deal.

ZAKARIA: Ronen, let me ask you a border question, which is it does feel like this whole period of hostilities has become a kind of a long low-grade war for Israel. This must be taking a toll on Israeli society because Israel has genuinely fought short wars. Often further away from Israel. This is a different kind of struggle. Is Israel -- how are people feeling about it?

BERGMAN: People are sad, exhausted, frustrated, angry. There's a sense of despair. More and more stories about Israelis who leave Israel. Some of them for very short time, meaning until the expected Iranian retaliation comes and then they come back. But some of them for longer term, some permanently. People do not feel safe.

We look at October 7th, 2023 as massive intelligence blunder. Similar, as they say, to the one exactly 50 years and one day before. But that war lasted 18 days, and here we are almost a year after and Israel was not yet able to achieve even one of the two main goals that it sets to topple, dismantle Hamas, capture or kill its leaders, and free the hostages.

And because this war is run without the ability to finish it with a political move, with a day after that will ensure that Hamas would not retake the street once the IDF is out, then it can go on and on, and people in Israel I think for the first time at least in my life since I remember, they feel a deep sense of lack of confidence that Israel would prevail. That is not clear.

It was always thinking the politicians are corrupt. Maybe the organization or the bureaucracies is not functioning well, but at the end Israel will prevail. Israel will bring the promise that is inherent to the establishment of Israel. A place to keep the Jews safe. And people are losing the confidence of Israel being able to fulfill that promise.

ZAKARIA: Ronen Bergman, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you.

[10:25:04] BERGMAN: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, if Israel and Hezbollah's relatively low-grade cross border fighting erupts into something much larger, what will it mean for Lebanon and for the region at large? I'll explore that when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: A week ago marked four years since the terrible port explosion that wrecked whole sections of Beirut and injured some 6,000 people, killing another 200. This is the sound of Israeli fighter jets over Beirut this week as the Lebanese wait for a potential escalation of the long-simmering skirmishes across the country's southern border between Hezbollah and Israel. What might such an escalation look like? Can it be avoided?

Joining me now is Maha Yahya, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center from Beirut. Welcome, Maha. Tell me the last time around when Iran and Israel went through this process, it was all fairly well- choreographed. While the Iranians did do a big attack, they essentially alerted the Israel and the United States so that the missiles could be intercepted.

Is it your sense in Lebanon that they expect something similar, a kind of almost choreographed escalation so that it doesn't get out of control? Or is there fear of an all-out war?

MAHA YAHYA, DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE MIDDLE EAST CENTER: Good morning, Fareed. Thank you for having me. I think there is a genuine fear of an all-out war in the sense that things can get out of hand very quickly.

There is the expectation that there will not be a repetition of April 13 in the sense that, you know, Iran telegraphed its intentions 72 hours earlier. And we saw the kind of flight show and, you know, sending out drones seven hours ahead, et cetera. So, that this time there would be a coordinated attack. It would be an attack against a military target.

They will, I suspect, avoid civilian infrastructure or civilian areas but would focus on a military target. But that it would be a surprise and this time around the attack would be -- you know, the intention would be to cause pain, to retaliate in a way that leaves an impression and does what April 13 could not do, which is from an Iranian perspective, restore deterrence.

They thought that the April 13 attack and the kind of tit for tat that we saw had ended that episode there. And therefore, there wasn't going to be an escalation anymore. Now, they realize that the -- what they thought had been a deterrence was not a deterrence. And that the Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, is willing to up the ante even further.

So, I think, they're hoping that with this attack they'd be able to restore some sort of a deterrence. This does not mean --

ZAKARIA: What do you think --

YAHYA: -- by the way, that attack is going to happen. Sorry.

ZAKARIA: Is Lebanon -- you know, are people in Lebanon worried that this tussle between Israel and Hezbollah is going to result in massive destruction of the country itself which is, in any case, kind of in an economic crisis?

YAHYA: They are terrified in all honesty. I mean, across the country people are terrified of another conflict. Nothing will happen without Hezbollah when it comes to the decision regarding war. At the same time, Iran is coordinating very closely with Hezbollah.

If Hezbollah were to retaliate and attack Israel in a more systematic manner, respond in a more systematic manner than what it has done so far, this would not happen without an Iranian green light. So, there is very tight coordination across both capitals.

My sense, honestly, is that with this new effort, this new call by the Qatari, Egyptian, and United States government to resume discussions around the prospect of some sort of cessation of hostilities in Gaza with very needed release of hostages with some Palestinian prisoners, that this may bring about the very needed -- desperately needed de- escalation in the region. This would allow the Israelis to say, we've brought home the hostages.

This is an increasing demand and it's absolutely shameful that 10 months after this started there are still so many hostages still in captivity. At the same time, it allows the Iranians to say, OK, the blood of Ismail Haniyeh did not go in vain. We managed to secure a cessation of hostilities and it with appease Hezbollah at the same time.

So, it would stave off this kind of back-and-forth -- you know, an escalation that even if the intention is to keep it limited could very easily -- I mean, the slightest accident could really derail it into a much larger confrontation that would drag everybody else in and would really become regional.

[10:35:02]

It will not remain limited to Lebanon and to Israel.

ZAKARIA: Fascinating. A complicated situation. Thank you, Maha Yahya, for joining us.

Next on GPS, the 2024 election is a battle of sexes, a man and a woman, both seeking the presidency. My next guest says, gender will shape the vote, but not in the way you would imagine. Listen to his fascinating take when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:08]

ZAKARIA: For years many have pointed to a growing gender gap in American politics. Polls have shown a long-term trend of young women moving increasingly to the left while young men turn more to the right. The divide could sharpen as November's election is now a contest between a Democratic woman, Kamala Harris, and a Republican man, Donald Trump.

But my next guest says that's not the full story. That the two parties are not so much divided by gender but rather by their views on gender. Derek Thompson is a staff writer at "The Atlantic." Derek, welcome.

First, I just want to clarify the issue. There is a gender gap and has been for a long time, right, in terms of who votes for which party?

DEREK THOMPSON, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: There has been a very stark gender gap in the American electorate for decades. Majority in American men have not voted for the Democratic candidate for president since 1976. That was for Jimmy Carter. And women have not consistently voted for Republicans since 1980.

In fact, this concept of a gender gap was first mentioned in a "Washington Post" article in 1981, remarking that the election of Ronald Reagan, the clear election of Ronald Reagan, saw men moving through Republican Party with women moving to the Democratic Party.

So, we've been living in a world with a clear gender gap for at least 40, maybe up to 50 years, but it's only the last two years that people have paid closer attention to this divergence among younger men and younger women.

ZAKARIA: And to you the most interesting thing is that we are now dividing and this is new in terms of views on gender. Meaning, for example, in the old days, a few decades ago, men and women had roughly the same views -- or roughly the same divide on abortion. But that's now dramatically different.

THOMPSON: That's right. Historically, if you ask men and women, are you pro-choice, are you pro-life, it was very difficult to tell the difference between men and women. But in the last few years, women had become much more likely to say that they're pro-choice rather than pro-life while men have basically stayed the same.

But other polls show that men are in fact shifting to the right at pretty much the same rate at which young women are shifting to the left. There's a poll showing that men are more likely to vote Republican or vote for Donald Trump than at any time this century.

So, yes, there is some polling that is suggesting that not only do you have this long-standing gender gap in the overall electorate, you have this polarization happening within the younger elected -- younger electorate among millennials and Gen Z, where they seem to be rolling away from each other in an accelerated pace.

ZAKARIA: So, what is going on, Derek? Why is this happening?

THOMPSON: A couple of things that could be happening. One thing that could be happening is that they're polarizing each other. You know, some people that I talked to say that as women move to the left, it's polarizing young men. Who are saying, you know what? I'm not -- I don't support what feminism means anymore so I'm going to go for Donald Trump.

Other people that I've talked to, including Richard Reeves who is a very wonderful researcher on issues facing young boys and men, have essentially said that the Democratic Party hasn't opened up to young men in a significant way. The Democrat's progressives are much better, he says, at identifying examples of toxic masculinity than in identifying examples of positive masculinity that are distinct from femininity.

But to your earlier point, I think, the strongest evidence that we have is that this isn't just about gender. It's about the way the Democrats and Republicans think about gender. So, one-way it was put to me is that it's not as if, you know, Republicans are from Mars and men are from Venus. It's that Republican men and women are from Mars, and Democratic men and women are from Venus.

And so, essentially you can, you know, look at the way that say J.D. Vance talks about the fact that childless women aren't doing their duty. Or the way the Tim Walz says that the Republican party has become a bunch of he-man women haters. This is the way in which I think that the parties themselves are talking about gender in very, very different ways, and that I think is new.

ZAKARIA: This is the kind of point, I think, that James Carville is making when he says that the Democratic Party has become too feminized, that it sounds too feminized, and it drives young men away, right?

THOMPSON: I know that he said that. I know it was controversial when he said that. And the way that I prefer to reframe it is to put it in the way that people like Richard Reeves have said it, which is that, you know, whether or not the Democratic Party is too feminized, your progressivism is too feminized, I'm not sure that I'm an expert in the sort of optimal level of feminization in any particular party.

What I feel more comfortable is saying something like this. I think progressives and especially very online progressive and I'm extremely articulate at pointing out examples of toxic masculinity. I don't see as much emphasis on the left of highlighting examples of positive masculinity that is distinct from feminism or distinct from femininity.

[10:45:09]

And the fact is, men vote too. And if progressives aren't going to offer a robust vision of masculinity for young men who are looking for that then they are leaving the stage empty. And an empty stage will be filled by people like Donald Trump, who has a kind of apex victim masculinity where he holds himself up as the strongest man, but also feels extremely victimized by the elites.

And then you also, I think, on the right have a kind of traditional puritan kind of masculinity offered by the vice-presidential candidates that Donald Trump has run with, like Mike Pence and J.D. Vance, who I don't think are the same kind of apex creditors that Donald Trump is, but clearly offer, I think, another kind of very traditional masculinity.

I think if Democrats leave that stage bear someone else will fill it. And right now, the polls seem to show that young men are indeed listing to the right. I think because they think the right is the only party that is talking directly to them.

ZAKARIA: Derek Thompson, pleasure to have you on.

THOMPSON: Thank you very much.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, how many of us wish we were better at communicating with others? Well, my next guest says, it is a skill set that can be learned. We'll talk all about it when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:59]

ZAKARIA: We all know someone who is always a hit at dinner parties. They definitely navigate disagreements, put conversation partners at ease, listen attentively, and ask the right questions. These are the same people who seem to effortlessly click with friends and colleagues.

Well, my next guest has a name for them, supercommunicators. And he says they possess a skill set that can be learned. Charles Duhigg is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. His new book is "Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection."

Charles, I want to begin not with the solution but with the problem. Part of what drew you to this book is the way in which we have as a country become unable to communicate particularly across political divides.

CHARLES DUHIGG, AUTHOR, "SUPERCOMMUNICATORS": Absolutely. You know, there was a time when our parents and the parents of folks watching were in school, they took a class called home economics or interpersonal relations. We learned in high school how to have conversations with each other.

But as schools became more technical that dropped out of the curriculum, and we're seeing the consequences of that now. We've forgotten how to have these conversations. We've just gotten out of practice with -- of having them.

ZAKARIA: I wonder whether a lot of it is that we communicate now in a very weird way, largely through emails, through texts, through social media, which is all written, and where you never see the human being you're communicating -- I'm always struck with the fact that I get a certain amount of nasty stuff on Twitter and things like that. I never get that in person.

You know, it's much easier to be really nasty when you're anonymous or pseudonymous and you're sitting in your basement fuming. When you're actually dealing with a human being whom you're looking at it's -- communication is different.

DUHIGG: Absolutely. In the book, there's a story about an experiment that was done where they brought together gun control advocates and gun rights activists. And they brought them together in person in Washington, D.C., and they had a wonderful weekend.

People learned to communicate with each other. They taught them some skills to help them. Then they sent everyone home and they created a private Facebook group for them. And within 45 minutes, people were calling each Jackbooted Nazis. Like it fell apart immediately.

And I think exactly for the reason you mentioned is that oftentimes we tend to forget that different forms of communication have different rules, different norms. And we just assume that if I say something sarcastic, you hear the sarcasm in my voice and forget. But if I type something sarcastic, you'd think I'm being serious. You'll get offended.

ZAKARIA: So, when you talk about supercommunicators -- and to me the most interesting part of your book is, you know, building relationships. How do you -- how do couples fight productively rather than in ways that damage the relationship?

What do you think the key is there? Because that -- in some ways, it's the most important communication human beings will have in their lives because it's daily and it's high-stakes.

DUHIGG: Absolutely. This was actually one of the things that led to the book was that I would come home from work and gotten this bad pattern with my wife, where I'd complain about my day and she would give me good advice. And instead of being able to hear her advice, I would get even more upset.

And I would say, why aren't you supporting me? Why aren't you -- and when I went and talked to researchers what they told me is, look, here's the mistake you're making. We tend think of a discussion as being about one thing, about your day. But actually, every discussion is made up of different kinds of conversations. And they tend to fall in one or three buckets.

There's practical conversations where we're solving problems together, making plans. There's emotional conversations where I might tell you how I feel. I don't want you to solve my feelings. I want you to empathize.

And then there's social conversations which are about the social identities that are important to us and how we think society sees us and each other. And if we're not having the same kind of conversation at the same moment, that's when miscommunication occurs.

So, if somebody is in an emotional mindset, if you match them, or you invite them to match you, then you're going to connect with each other, and you're going to be able to hear each other much better.

ZAKARIA: So, after writing this book, do you feel like your relationship with your wife has gotten better? DUHIGG: So much better. Now, when I come home and I complain and she says, do you want me to -- do you want me just to -- do you want me to solve this problem?

[10:55:01]

Or do you want me just to listen because you just need to vent? And actually, being asked that -- and I do the same thing with my kids. There's this technique that we use called -- that they teach in schools where if someone comes -- my kid comes up with a problem, I say, do you want to be helped? Do you want to be hugged? Or do you want to be heard?

The three kinds of conversations, the practical, the emotional, and the social. And kids love being asked this because you're asking them what they want.

ZAKARIA: Well, practical results from the book already. Charles, always a pleasure to see you.

DUHIGG: Thank you so much for having me.

ZAKARIA: Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

If you ever missed a show, you can always listen to my podcast. Go to CNN.com/Fareed for a link so you can listen on whatever app you use.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)