Political animosity undermines the functioning of democracy. Both conservatives and liberals believe that providing facts in political discussions helps to foster mutual respect, but 15 studies reveal that these beliefs are mistaken. Across multiple methodologies and issues—including a survey study with a representative sample, a field study of conversations about guns, an analysis of YouTube comments on abortion opinion videos, and an archival analysis of 137 transcripts from Fox News and CNN interviews—providing personal experiences, not facts, best fosters respect across political and moral divides. The personal experiences most likely to encourage respect from opponents are issue-relevant and involve harm (or potential harm). Mediation analyses reveal these harm-related personal experiences increase respect by increasing perceptions of rationality. Everyone can appreciate that avoiding harm is rational, even in people who hold different beliefs about guns, taxes, and the environment, or are from marginalized populations. Studies show that people believe in the truth of both facts and personal experiences in non-moral disagreements. However, in moral disagreements, subjective experiences are seen as truer (i.e., doubted less) than objective facts. These results provide a concrete demonstration of how to bridge political and moral divides through increasing respect towards political adversaries. Stretching back to the Enlightenment, philosophers and scientists have believed that the truth lies in objective facts, but everyday Americans instead treat subjective experiences as truer, at least in moral matters.