This election season has certainly been a roller coaster of a ride. And I hate to say it, but it's reminded me that sometimes it feels like we live in a world of intractable conflict. Wars in Ukraine, in the Middle East, political polarization here in the United States, I know a lot of people who've been telling me that just gathering with family for the holidays can be a struggle. With all of this conflict. I think there's certainly been times when I have felt like, I don't know, maybe we're somehow getting worse at this, at just talking with each other and that maybe we'd all be better off if we could reconnect with the art of compromise, if we were more willing and able to give something up every now and then, maybe that could make a world of difference. But to that, my guest today would say, not so fast.

Many people think about conflict resolution is that it's a compromise and in some situations might be the optimal solution, right? But if you zoom out a little bit, then you can start to kind of mix and match and problem solve together.

Dr. Peter Coleman is a social psychologist and he's author of the book "The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization." He's a researcher at Columbia University, where he runs this place called The Difficult Conversations Lab. Really fascinating. After decades of work in the field, Coleman knows a lot about how our brains and our bodies respond to conflict. So today we sat down to talk about why difficult conversations are so difficult and why our evolutionary instincts makes them feel maybe even harder these days. Perhaps most importantly, at the end of the discussion, you're going to hear some simple steps we can all take to get better at conflict resolution. Whether it's with a coworker, a neighbor, or even a spouse. I think some of his tips are going to surprise you. They surprised me. They're going to make you think differently. I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, and this is Chasing Life. I have so many questions about this topic, but let me just start off by asking this. Is it harder nowadays, do you think, to have a difficult conversation than it was during the time when you first started studying this?

I think it's harder for more people more of the time because of the culture that we live in today. The climate right now, certainly in the U.S., but frankly, in many democracies around the world are so polarized that when things happen, whether it's Covid or, you know, a presidential campaign or a war, they become quickly weaponized and quickly polarizing. And then we have a very hard time talking about them. So this is a particularly tense time. Some of that is political leadership. But, you know, it does lead to, it basically trickles down because you start to see these kinds of divisions in families and workplaces that feel like they become intractable, right? And by some measures, we are as or more polarized than we were just after the U.S. Civil War. There are many factors that contribute to it. But if you look at some of the metrics, this is an acute time of conflict, tension, polarization, indifference. And we are quick to assume the worst of the other and react in sort of, you know, both physiological but psychological ways.

You've said this a couple of times, but according to these metrics. So so one is to to take away that there have been metrics sort of to study this, that in terms of polarization, for example, we are maybe as bad or close to as bad as we were during the time right after the Civil War.

Yeah. There are different ways that this is studied. Those metrics are more kind of macro metrics. They look at sort of voting in Congress since, you know, 1864 to today. How often do people cross the aisle and join legislation from the other side? And by those metrics, we are as extreme as that time. In fact, a bit more because there's so much enmity in Congress, there's so little opportunity or willingness to work together. The metrics in terms of our feelings of alienation from people of different values, different moral orientations, different politics, that's been really increasing since the late 1970s. So there are now decades of a trajectory of what I would say kind of mainstream sense of polarization and energy of the other.

If you presuppose for a second that humans don't actually change that much, certainly not over a few hundred years: What is going on here? Is it technology? You think you have these people who their attitudes may have always been the same, but now they're more unmasked? Or do you believe that we've changed?

Well, you know, I hate to say this, but it's sort of a both and. I mean, so I was trained as a social psychologist. And part of what I understand is that, you know, humans, we are hardwired to be sensitive to threat. Some of us more than others, right? But when we experience a member of an outgroup, it triggers our amygdala, triggers our sense of anxiety and threat and emotions. And that's, you know, sort of a pretty primitive, an evolutionary instinct that we all live with. But the conditions under which that happens and that's weaponized and that we're fed so much outrage on social media and media, you know, we start to get to a point where we're much more easily triggered. We're much more exhausted. And so that is the reality that we're living in right now, which they feed each other. The more it happens, the more addicted we become to our outrage. I know there's some neuroscience research that just looks at, you know, when you see a tweet from somebody on the other side that says something you think is insane and you experience a sense of outrage and a kind of taste for retaliation, that it triggers parts in the brain that are triggered by narcotics. So these are, you know, addictive substances, but it isn't one thing. There is a constellation of things that contribute to pitting us against our neighbors and pulling us apart. And I think we sometimes look for the answer. Right. Is it Donald Trump? Is it gerrymandering? Is it, you know, algorithms that sort us into our tribes? Well, to some degree, yes. Right. It's a combination of things that come together that trigger us and keep us addicted to this dynamic and create this powerful riptide that, you know, basically pits us against one another.

You know, this point you're making, I think is really interesting. I am a neuro guy. I studied neuroscience. And I think the point that you're making that as humans, we sort of evolved to in some ways be suspicious of each other. That was an ingredient for survival. And when we weren't as suspicious of each other, times were there was more harmony. Those were in some ways more unusual times because they were they didn't sort of coincide or relate as much to how we were programed genetically. We had to work hard to to get to that point. And it was fragile, it sounds like. And we're seeing the fragility of that. We're sort of being more reduced now and at times in the past, as well, as you point out, to our more primitive instincts, which is to be highly suspicious and skeptical of each other.

Well, I guess what I want to say is I want to point to some research is a man named Doug Fry, who is an anthropologist who has studied peaceful societies for all of his career and studied, you know, hundreds and hundreds of peaceful societies through history and today. And part of what he argues is that oftentimes we sort of misunderstand our story as humans. Right? Because what he would argue is that homo sapiens, we lived in small groups, right? And in those small groups, we walked together, we traveled together, we hunted and foraged, and that's how we lived our life. And that the archeological evidence shows no evidence or little evidence of war, of group on group war, until about 10,000 years ago, which is relatively short in our history. When we stop and settle and start to claim land, you know, farmland or fish or fishing spot or something like that, and then accumulate stuff, you know, we now own this stuff. We own this land. We have mortgage. And that's when inequality and envy and, you know, a sense of sort of injustice starts to come in. And that's when you see group on group violence and war. So he always points to the fact that historians or even anthropologists will look back about 10,000 years long time and say humans have always done this. But he said, well, no. You know, the fact is that most of us are hardwired to cooperate and to need each other, particularly humans. Right. Because we're so vulnerable for the first two years of our lives that we need others to survive. And so we're in some ways hardwired to cooperate with others in order. That's how we're formed. And in smaller groups, that is what we're inclined to do. As you say, the sort of suspicious or threat instinct helps us survive, but also needing other people. Many would argue that that's more fundamental to us as a species.

That's a really interesting point. And even this this notion of rugged individualism versus reciprocal altruism, I mean, the idea that it feels good to do good for somebody else, that if I do something nice for Professor Coleman, that I will actually probably feel good about that. That makes me hopeful. I mean, that we are we are sort of hardwired that way, that somehow we evolve to take some pleasure and some joy in doing something nice for someone else. That's a really good thing.

Absolutely. And again, I do think it is fundamental to our survival, which is good news, right? You know, my mentor, Mort Deutsch, was a theorist who studied, he basically was trying to avoid thermonuclear war. He'd been in World War two and he came back and he did a theoretical study on cooperation versus competition in groups. And it was when the U.N. was forming. And he's interested to know, how do we know that, you know, the member states are going to just compete and, you know, undermine each other, or under what conditions will they come together and work together? And so he saw cooperation and competition as these sort of two fundamental aspects of human dynamics. But there is, as you were alluding to, something of an asymmetry because competition can trigger threat. Right. And so it can trigger fear and more primitive emotions. And so ultimately, you have to have enough cooperation, enough shared goals and norms and rules so that when conflict happens, it's manageable. I like to use sports as an example of this because we think of sports like football, baseball as a competitive process. It is. But it's also oftentimes teams who are cooperating together. And there's always norms and rules and referees. Right. So, you know, the laws and rules and regulations of society or of sports or associations allow us to be competitive to a certain degree. Right. And so society needs both. Right. But what he saw, which I think is important, is that when you're in a competitive group and there's a conflict, it goes a very specific direction. You know, I see you as the problem. You're an obstacle to my goals. I need to do whatever I can to take you down. So if you're in a cooperative group and there's a problem, then we have a problem. We have to figure this out together. Very different sort of mindset about how to resolve conflict comes from those two different kinds of dynamics.

I do think this point about having an agreed upon platform of of truth or an agreed upon platform of facts, we may disagree on many things, but at least we can agree on a common platform of truth, that that seems to be harder to achieve. And there's not a question in there, but it's just an observation I make even among my my own kids. I, I remember talking to my daughter, who was, I think 13 or 14 at the time, about something that she had seen on social media. And it was funny. But then I said to her, I said, you know, that's not true, right? And she said to me something, Professor. She said, "look Dad, I don't think any of it's true." And it sort of struck me, you know, thinking about your work, thinking about Jonathan Haidt's work, what happens to a generation of people who grow up with really not having a locus of truth?

Yeah. You know, being skeptical or, you know, skeptical of the truth, I think is a check on, you know, sort of authoritarianism or dominance of one group telling this is the truth. So there's there's value in questioning what is oftentimes presented as truth. I think what you're suggesting is, again, when I grew up, there were you know, three news channels and so we basically all getting the same source of information and we trusted it. We may differ at the extremes, but you know, the basic facts we accepted and that's under challenge now. Again, I think there are benefits to that. And being critical about whose truth are we're talking about. But there are also significant consequences, particularly when the truth becomes weaponized, right? When we start to knowingly go after, you know, a fact science in order to gain power, hold power, you know, stimulate an audience outrage an audience. When we start to do that, we're in trouble. And we you know, we have been doing that. And it is in some ways an artifact of just the, you know, pluralism of media and social media that there are so many sources of news. But it is also that some folks have figured out the power of weaponizing facts, science and information.

After the break, we're going to get into things we can all do to survive the difficult conversations in our own lives. You run something called the Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia. And I that was, I was inherently fascinated in just the Difficult Conversations Lab, just the idea that that even exists. I wonder if you could tell me a little bit about that and maybe as part of that, just you must have had to define what a difficult conversation was. And I don't know, are there ingredients or criteria for what qualifies?

Yeah, of course. It's a continuum. Some are a little bit difficult, some feel impossible. Right. And and this was because about 20 years ago, what I became interested in, what we would call intractable conflicts, long term, protracted, seemingly endless conflicts like we see in the Middle East or like we see in Kashmir or we saw in Northern Ireland and even in our homes, right? We get estranged from people, a sibling, a cousin who we used to get along with, and now we just can't tolerate them. And we still have to see them once or twice a year. But it becomes so hard to engage in that. So we built a lab at Columbia and we were interested in studying moral differences, abortion, climate change denial or acceptance. Then basically what we studied now for 20 years is what are the conditions under which those conversations where you're morally opposed to somebody on an issue go well or don't. Like what are the conditions where they collapse, people get angry, they walk out, they get furious, or are willing to continue the conversation? And, you know, we've learned a lot of things. We've done a lot of research on this. But I'll stress one thing. And this is important, I think, for listeners to understand is that when you enter these conversations around important differences, the first things you say and do matter the most, right? As you enter the conversation, if you enter with an attack or you enter with these are the facts and you've got the facts wrong or you know, those conversations escalate, get stuck and go nowhere, right? And so the initial conditions that you establish as a participant in these conversations, whether you're asking questions, whether you're sort of more open, whether you have attitude or not, these things matter because they sort of send you off in a trajectory that takes on a life of its own.

Everyone should pay attention to this because I think you've laid out some strategies, you know, to to approach some of these conversations. I will say, as someone who works in the media, that in having, you know, reported a lot on Covid, one of the things that I thought was sort of interesting as I started to dissect what was going on and how a public health issue became so polarized was that a lot of times what upset people wasn't the issue itself, but the perceived values of the people who were in charge of those issues. So they they would see public health leaders such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, as someone who was very autocratic, you know, very dogmatic, and not necessarily someone who had their best interests in mind. So it wasn't even about does an RNA vaccine work? Like as nuanced an issue as that may be. But what are the values of the person who I'm having this discussion with or having this debate with even, which I thought was really interesting. And and I found, according to some data that I looked at, that scientists and public health officials and others have increasingly been perceived as arrogant, which broke my heart as a scientist myself, but I felt was also something you had to pay attention to. If you're being seen as arrogant, then right away, going into a dialog slash debate, the deck is sort of stacked against you. And I think that that's a problem. One of the other things you write about and talk about is simply. Getting to know the other person's story. Seems to go a long way.

You are absolutely right. And I think we really want to underline this and highlight this. One of the reasons I wrote the Way Out book was because one of my concerns was that we were at a time of great division and enmity in this country. There were organizations that were kind of bringing people together, encouraging people to get together and talk to each other across their differences. And many of those things would blow up. People would sort of react or overreact to them because they would get in on an issue right away. And again, these are issues that oftentimes we don't really have a good grasp of, but we feel passionate about. Right. And so they would blow up and it would backfire. And I was concerned about that being a primary way that we were trying to combat polarization is just encouraging people to talk to one another without understanding, well, what are the conditions under which that's helpful. And one of the things that's helpful that you're alluding to is that we have some kind of rapport, some kind of relationship, some kind of understanding of each other.

I want to make sure we're defining the terms appropriately here for this conversation. But let's talk about the term compromise. What is compromise specifically?

So compromise is a method of conflict resolution or dispute resolution. It's usually splitting the difference. That in some situations might be the optimal solution. Right? That you really just come to a compromise on that issue. You know, I have to give a shout out to Mary Parker Follett. Mary Parker Follett was an American social worker at the turn of the last century. And she would tell a story about compromise versus what she called integrative solutions. The most classic example is your kids come up to you. They have an orange and they're fighting over it. Right? They both want the orange. And you say, okay, well, let me just cut the orange in half. That's compromise. And that's where most of us go right away. What Follett would say is, well, ask them what do they want it for? What's behind this? Because first may say, well, I want to eat it. I want the fruit. And the other might say, well, actually I'm making marmalade. And I wanted I wanted the peel. And you could say, well, you can both have everything. You know, all of what you want. That's not a compromise. That is a more what we call integrative solutions. It's finding out what's behind their needs in this situation and then being creative and problem solving around how does everybody get more of what they want, not just half of what they want.

Again, I hope people are taking notes because I think the idea of understanding to the extent that you can, but understanding people's motivations are really important. You may assume that their motivation is the same as yours, but in that case they just wanted the orange peel, whereas I wanted the actual fruit.

Absolutely. And it's a it's such a rookie mistake that we all make all the time. When I was trained as a mediator, I was trained as a mediator in Queens and a community mediation center. And one of the first mediators I had, I was co mediating with another white man and we came in and there were two Asian American citizens from Queens who were landlord tenant, and they were in this very intense dispute and it seemed to be about payment of the rent and when it was going to happen. And we kept going after the money because, you know, that's what they were saying was important. And then when we kind of moved them apart, what they said to us is, you know, he humiliated me. He challenged me publicly and I was embarrassed and lost face. And I need an apology. I'll pay the rent, but I need an apology. Well, we had no idea. We were thinking this is all about the money. That's what they were saying. We were taking them at their word. But the truth is, that wasn't the issue, right? It wasn't the most important issue. But we couldn't see it because of our own cultural backgrounds or our own assumptions. Right? We make those mistakes all the time. And so taking the time to kind of explore what's really important to you here, and it may be the money or maybe something else or some combination of things critical.

Sometimes people just don't want to feel like they were taken advantage of, that they were not respected. And if you can just inject that, you're not being taken advantage of, there is a lot of respect for you, maybe it goes a long way. But if you continue to carry out that line of thinking, is the desire to resolve a conflict, to compromise, to cooperate, is that always a noble goal or can there be a downside to that?

You know, it does take two to tango. So if you're in a dynamic, in a conflict with someone else who you don't trust or who you distrust, who, you know, given the opportunity, will take advantage of you. And if you're certain about that, then they may eat your lunch. If you're honest with them about what you need, they can manipulate that. So part of it is you what's important to you in terms of achieving your goals or having this relationship. But part of it is the other party and your sense of them. And so there has to be some kind of basis for trust or modicum of trust in them. And that's oftentimes where like third parties, mediators come in or even judges come in because then you don't have to necessarily trust them. You trust the process.

You've alluded to this, but there are these moments in conflict discussion that are the most critical for for making progress. You mentioned the initial conditions, those first counters being critical. The other things that you write about are the negativity effect and the positivity reservoir. Can you define those?

Yeah, a lot of this is derived from John and Julie Gottman in their work in marriages, but it does apply to most social relations. So in psychology there is a pretty robust effect that negative experiences and positive experiences are not equal, that negative experiences of another person are more formative. They last longer, they really hurt more. And stay with you longer? Right. So, you know, we meet for the first time, and the first thing that happens is you say something disrespectful for me or you challenge me or you humiliate me or something like that. Well, good luck. Or we're not going to go very far, or it's just going to escalate. Right. Because those negative experiences are so profound. What Gottman finds in marriages is they bring in couples and they have them sit in and say or talk about a conflict that you have. Usually it's over sex or money or the children. Those are the three conflicts in marriages. And so the couple will talk about a conflict. They videotape it and then they code it for the emotional experiences of the partners. And what they find is that those couples that have equal negative experiences of each other and positive experiences are in big trouble because the negative is going to overwhelm the relationship. Because what Gottman would say and I think this is critical, is that ideal relationships have a 5 to 1 positive to negative ratio. Right. Five more fun teasing, cute connections, to every time I sort of say I have a problem with this, right, and confront you. We find in our lab closer to 3 to 1. Again, these are strangers. These are people that don't know each other, don't have an ongoing relationship. And they're talking about oftentimes political issues. But we find that if the dynamic doesn't have enough kind of positivity and curiosity and respect for one another, then it's going to get derailed. So that's the negativity effect and what he would call the emotional bank account that in relationships, the more positivity you have built up, the more you have a solid foundation in order to be able to work through a conflict and tolerate it.

I think everyone who's listening is probably thinking about their own relationships right now. My, my, my wife hates it when I squeeze the toothpaste too close to the exit. She's like, why don't you squeeze it from the bottom and then roll it up. And it's just it's funny to me that that's the thing that she gets, really. But you know what, Professor? I know I do it because it's easy and it makes her happy. So there's my positivity reservoir.

Sure, sure, sure. You're putting money in the bank.

Money in the bank. We're going into the holiday season. By the way, I have, like, a lot of members of my family with me right now because of these hurricanes. They live in Florida. And and so they've been coming in and it's been great. I really enjoy spending time with my family. But but I think one of the things that comes up, even as I was telling people I was going to be speaking with you, was this idea that you're often presented with difficult conversations when you're hanging out just with your family. Holidays come up. You may have a pushy relative who wants to discuss politics over Thanksgiving dinner, whatever it may be. What how do you how do you handle that?

Great question and something that most American families are experiencing right now. But one of the things I want to really encourage is that, you know, before you have dinner, before you get together, you think a little bit about what do you want to have happen? Because if you kind of wander into and say this about Trump or this about Harris or, you know, then it's probably going to be predictable, right? One thing that I would recommend is you consider a week or so before you get together that you give them a call or text and say, hey, would you take a walk with me? Would you walk with me outside? And increasingly, there's neuroscience research supporting this, and that is that there's oftentimes a lot of power in movement, and particularly movement together. And diplomats have known this instinctually for a long time. When they get stuck in a negotiation, they'll sometimes say, let's take a walk. You know, let's walk in the woods and walk outside. And I did this with a neighbor of mine because I wrote this book The Way Out. About a year later, I thought I got to literally walk my talk. And so I'd become estranged from a neighbor. And I gave him a call and said, Would you take a walk with me? And and he was very suspicious. He was like, Well, I'm happy to sit down with you, but why are we walking? Are you CIA? Is there will there be surveillance? I think genuinely concerned about that. But we met and we went for a walk outside. We walked in the park here and he was anxious and I was anxious. You know, we both knew that we were very different political camps and that if we got into that, it would be difficult. But we started with I said, Who are you? Tell me who, where are you from? You know, I've known him for 15 years. I really had never asked, you know. And so he sort of told me his story. And then he said, Where are you from? And I told him mine. And we had some kind of common connections. And so we started with what I would call dialog, sharing our stories, not interrogating and questioning each other and not immediately into politics. But what we also find is that when you walk physically with people ideally outside and side by side, a very different kind of physiological connection happens that you get more in sync. You start to feel a little bit more compassion and connection than you do if you sit at opposite sides of the table and talk at each other. And as a mediator or a peace builder, what we often do is that we bring people into a room. We don't give them any food. We have them sit opposite each other and basically they see each other as the problem. So calling your brother in law uncle the week before and saying, Would you take a walk with me? And then being prepared about what do you want to get out of this walk? And what what do you hope to communicate to them? And, you know, that would be one recommendation that I would make. That can be a very powerful thing to do if you have the time and willingness to do that.

I love that. I really like that. It's something that I'm going to do. You've given me a piece of guidance and advice and strategy that I will employ immediately.

Fantastic. Happy. Very happy to hear that.

You are hopeful. Some of these are difficult topics, but there is a way out.

I think there is. I mean, again, as I said, if you go back 2 million years, we knew how to do it then. We were walking together then, working together then, and we were problem solving like that. And we can return to that sense of connection. But, you know, we're we're in a difficult era. We're going to look back at this time and think, wow, you know, we were on the brink because there's so many things that are beyond us. It sometimes does feel impossible to talk to them. But we can.

If I may humbly and anecdotally, because it's just my own experience, I think the idea and you've alluded to this, but the idea when you're a little bit vulnerable with somebody, all of a sudden there is a outsized sort of impact of that in terms of people wanting to react favorably to you, too, maybe even reaching out to you to wanting to help you in some way.

And I have to tell you a quick story of my first solo mediation and community centers say you're supposed to come mediate with other mediators 12 times before you go. The second time I was called in for mediation, they said, We're busy, you're on. And I walked into a room which was filled with two families together who were very angry about the fact that their boys were getting in trouble together. And so one of the mothers said, you can never see them again. And then they started to fight and it was a mess. And they've been referred to mediation. And it was a difficult conversation. It was very complicated. And there was a lot of aspersions being cast and anger. And at some point. The mother on one side said to the mother and the other side, We haven't seen your daughter Bella, for a while. And the mother that she was talking to welled up and said, "That's because she's sick. She's been in the hospital now for the last two weeks. We don't know what's going on. It's making me crazy. But she's been sick, and so that's why she's not away." And everything changed. We came to an agreement. They wouldn't see each other again. And then I went off to write the agreement. They went out into the foyer to wait for a while, and when I came back, they said, Never mind. We're going to go have dinner. We're good, you know. So it was this kind of transformational moment. And when it's genuine and when it's people have the courage to open up like that, even in contentious encounters like that, it can be a breakthrough. It can be a watershed moment.

Somebody said to me once, and I really like this, they said, it's hard to hate close up.

Yeah, Yeah.

It's hard to hate close up. So simply just getting in the room with people not trying to judge them from afar on a social media website or, you know, as a keyboard warrior, just getting to know people, sharing their stories. It's not a panacea. And I don't think either one of us are Pollyannish about this.

It's hard. Yeah, it's hard.

But that can go a long way. Professor, thank you so much for your time. This is great on Zoom, but I hope to meet you in person sometime. Maybe we can take a walk together in nature.

Let's do that. That would be very fun and powerful.

'That was Peter Coleman, author of The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Up next, I'm going to answer a listener question for our segment On Call. We'll be right back. This week's listener question comes from Mandy. Mandy asks, What is the best over-the-counter option for treating fall allergies? Well, first of all, I have to tell you that there have always been fall allergies. But if you think the allergies seem worse this year and are lingering longer, you are right. As the weather gets warmer and it stays warmer, that also means that the first frost is often delayed in many places. And that means plants have more time to grow, more time to release pollen, and that makes the season longer and stronger. Get this in some places like Reno, allergy season is now 99 days longer than it was in 1970. If these trends continue, there's not going to be an allergy season. It's just always going to be allergy season. Incidentally, just one ragweed plant can give off to a billion grains of pollen, one plant, a billion grains, and many of us feel that. Now, fortunately to your question, there's lots of good over-the-counter options for reducing symptoms. Keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, histamine is likely what is causing your symptoms. So no surprise then antihistamines are going to be your best bet. There are several to choose from, but keep in mind that histamine is a substance that also helps you stay awake. So older antihistamines like Benadryl would make you very sleepy. That's not so much the case nowadays with newer medications. I'm talking about Claritin and Zyrtec and Allegra. These are typically, quote, non-drowsy, because they are less likely to cross the blood brain barrier. Also remember this a lot of your histamine release in the human body occurs between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. when you're starting to wake up. So taking these medications a night before may be your best bet for most people. It is safe to take them every day during allergy season and that can help you really stay ahead of your symptoms. Now, I do want to tell you that there is another version of these medications, a decongestant version that's usually going to have the letter D in the name. Now, those are going to be better for relieving stuffiness and congestion. The only caveat is they're going to have some side effects. Nervousness, sleeplessness. So you don't want to take those at night. They're going to keep you awake and you only want to take these D versions as needed, not regularly. And with those decongestant sprays, be even more careful. That means no more than three days in a row. Mandy, I hope that helps.

Chasing Life is a production of CNN Audio. Our podcast is produced by Erin Mathweson, Jennifer Lai, Grace Walker and Jesse Remedios. Andrea Kane is our medical writer. Our senior producer is Dan Bloom. Amanda Sealey is our showrunner. Dan Dzula is our technical director and the executive producer of CNN Audio is Steve Lickteig. With support from Jamus Andrest, Jon Dianora, Haley Thomas, Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Leni Steinhardt, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. Special thanks to Ben Tinker and Nadia Kounang of CNN Health and Katie Hinman.