Any wife will tell you — in a relationship, there is a marked difference between simply hearing the sound of someone’s voice and actually listening to what is being said by them.

Last week, I wrote regarding the toxic, inflammatory political rhetoric in our nation — I believe it is time for both sides to simply stop. Regardless of how much they may love their own opinions, neither side is exclusively right or wrong, and it’s high time all of us admit as much.

In response, a friend asked me a very simple question: “how do we get to a point where both sides can actually discuss these issues and not curse at each other?”

In other words, how can we actually listen to what each other is trying to say instead of having words that don’t 100 percent align with ours automatically rejected by our eardrums?

After researching it, I found a very intriguing answer.

Stanford social psychologist Robb Willer believes the solution may not lie in what we are saying but more how we are saying and framing it.

Not surprisingly, Willer and his co-workers found that people struggled to set aside their reasons for taking a political position and failed to consider how someone with different values might come to support that same position.

In an intriguing study, they presented liberals and conservatives with polarizing messages. The first one was about same-sex marriage. One version of the message emphasized the need for equal rights for same-sex couples, which is the sort of fairness-based message liberals typically espouse. It is framed in terms of a value — equality — that research has shown resonates more strongly among liberals than conservatives.

At the same time, another version of the message was designed to appeal to values of patriotism and group loyalty, which have been shown to resonate more with conservatives. It argued that “same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans” who “want to and do contribute to the American economy and society” just as any others, including military service.

Liberals showed the same support for same-sex marriage regardless of which message they encountered. But conservatives supported same-sex marriage significantly more if they read the patriotism message rather than the fairness one.

Then the group presented liberals and conservatives with different versions of messages supporting increased military spending. One message argued that we should “take pride in our military,” which “unifies us both at home and abroad.”

The other argued that military spending is necessary because, through the military, the poor and disadvantaged “can achieve equal standing,” by ensuring they have “a reliable salary and a viable future path above the challenges of poverty and inequality.”

For conservatives, it didn’t matter which message they read; their support for military spending was the same. However, liberals expressed significantly greater support for increasing military spending if they read the fairness message instead of the patriotism one.

If you’re thinking that these reframed arguments don’t sound like ones that conservatives and liberals would naturally be inclined to make, you’re right. In an additional study, they asked liberals to write a persuasive argument in favor of same-sex marriage aimed at convincing conservatives — and even offered a cash prize for one writing the most persuasive message.

Despite the financial incentive, just 9 percent of liberals made arguments that appealed to more conservative notions of morality, while 69 percent made arguments based on more liberal values.

Conservatives weren’t much better. When asked to write an argument in favor of making English the official language of the United States that would be persuasive to liberals (same cash incentive), just 8 percent of conservatives appealed to liberal values, while 59 percent drew upon conservative values.

So why is moral reframing so hard? There are a number of reasons. You might find it unsettling to endorse any values that you don’t hold yourself. You might not see any link at all between your political positions and those of the “opposition.” And you might not even realize that those ‘on the other side’ have different values from your own, and a completely different view of life.

But whatever the source of the chasm, it seems it can be at least somewhat bridged with effort, consideration, and a speck of couth.

Maybe reframing political arguments in terms of the morality of “the other side” should be viewed less as an exercise in strategic persuasion and more as an exercise in real, substantive perspective taking. To do it you have to be brave enough to acknowledge that neither side owns that monopoly on right and wrong. Then, you make an effort get into the heads and hearts of the people you’re speaking with, think about what they care about, and make arguments that in some way reflect their principles.

If we can do just that, it will show that we view those each other not as enemies, but as people worthy of consideration, along with their view of life and living it.

I don’t expect us to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.” We need to disagree, but do so respectfully, and with a heart that leads us to seek enlightened discussion and debate. Maybe a little empathy can help us all get to a place where such is not just possible, but probable.

With that empathy, even if the arguments that you wind up making aren’t those that you find most appealing, you have at least dignified the consideration of your political rivals with your attention and decency.

Which, if you think about it, is the very least that we should offer each other.