How to Argue Agains Conservative Talking Points
We've all been in political arguments when both sides seem securely entrenched in their views and unwilling to budge an inch. In the rut of conflict, it may seem like your opponent lacks logic or evidence, merely some recent research points to a unlike problem: Nosotros're non recognizing each other'southward values.
In a study published in 2015, Stanford sociologist Rob Willer and Academy of Toronto social psychologist Matthew Feinberg looked at how we tin can ameliorate political conversations about some of the most contentious problems. They found that people oft assume that anybody has the same values in listen when they talk over moral or political topics. But rather than arguing based on our ain values, their experiments advise, we might have more productive conversations if we try to recognize the other person's values—then reframe our statements to speak to those values. As Feinberg and Willer write in a 2022 overview of the inquiry:
Both liberals and conservatives typically craft arguments based on their own moral convictions rather than the convictions of the people they target for persuasion. As a result, these moral arguments tend to be unpersuasive, fifty-fifty offensive, to their recipients. The technique ofmoral reframing—whereby a position an individual would not ordinarily back up is framed in a mode that is consistent with that individual's moral values—tin be an constructive means for political communication and persuasion.
Willer stresses that arguing for our ain values and against someone else's can be challenging because of how nosotros internalize what we believe. "People really care very deeply about their values, so you're essentially asking someone to modify who they are, and change what they care about deeply," he says. However, past finding out what'due south nigh of import to your listener, you might detect some common ground on particular issues.
That's exactly what at to the lowest degree ane organization is discovering today, as they put these insights to piece of work in the field. Especially in the historic period of COVID-xix, this research could be critical for Americans struggling for consensus around basic questions of health and welfare.
Bridging through discovery
In i of their first studies of moral reframing, Feinberg and Willer found that participants in political conversations rarely took the time to explore an antagonist's values. They asked liberal participants to try their all-time to convince conservatives to support-same sexual activity marriage, and found that only 9 percent of liberals made arguments that appealed to conservative notions of morality such as patriotism and grouping loyalty, while 69 pct made arguments based on liberal values such as equality.
The conservative participants didn't practise much better. In a portion of the report, they were asked to try to convince liberals to support making English language the official language of the United States. Only eight percent of conservatives appealed to liberal values during their arguments (such as by arguing that there would be less racism and bigotry with a uniform language), while 59 pct tried to appeal to conservative values (such as by arguing that it would unify the country).
That's unfortunate, because these studies suggest that moral reframing can assistance participants come to understanding around specific issues.
For example, Feinberg and Willer found that conservatives were far more likely to support same-sex union if they heard an argument that emphasized bourgeois values like patriotism. The message, in this instance, was that "same-sex couples are proud and patriotic Americans" who "contribute to American economy and social club." Reading them a liberal bulletin that emphasized equality was much less likely to brand them support same-sex marriage.
Studies by others have institute that pro-ecology arguments can appeal to conservatives if they are based on foundations of loyalty, authority, sanctity, and the "American fashion of life." Similarly, a 2013 written report by Feinberg and Willer establish that conservatives showed more than back up for pro-ecology legislation and greater belief in climate modify "when presented with a purity-based argument that emphasized how dirty, icky, and impure ecology deposition is." In another 2022 study, the pair "found that liberals were more supportive of armed services spending when presented with fairness-focused arguments emphasizing the military'due south role in helping to overcome income inequality and racial discrimination," as opposed to ones that emphasized "American patriotism and world dominance."
This suggests that moral reframing tin exist a powerful tool to assistance u.s.a. have better conversations—just that a considerable number of people don't know how to do it.
Moral reframing in action
There are organizations trying to larn. Since the early '90s, the Boston-based organization Youth on Lath (YOB) has been working to empower immature people by helping brand sure their voices are represented amid influential organizations.
"We started with a mission of putting immature people on the board of directors of institutions, organizations, foundations, whatsoever entity that had significant influence and power over the lives of immature people," explains Carlos Rojas, the director of special projects for YOB. "Over the years, our mission broadened and our mission became to motility immature people from the margins of lodge to the center of the decisions that impact their lives."
Equally YOB'southward mission grew more ambitious, the organization prepare out to be office of local social change campaigns training local activists and leaders to be more persuasive. The work of these organizers required canvassing communities who might exist skeptical of the goals of the canvassers.
In gild to strengthen the social movements they worked with, in 2022 YOB launched the Listening Works project, which helps organizers develop deeper community appointment based on hearing people out. One of the techniques they developed for canvassing in particular is called the A-B-C, which stands for Affirm, Span, Connect.
"We commencement by affirming something, anything that they said, that you can resonate with or that you acknowledge as valid," says Rojas. "You start with any affirmation that you tin can offering the person." This helps build trust. The person you're talking to feels respected and heard, even if y'all totally disagree with what they're saying.
Next, canvassers are told to move into the bridging phase. They are told, for instance, to use words and phrases similar "and," "the style I run across information technology," and "I also think," rather than "but." Finally, the canvassers motion into the connect stage, where they are advised to communicate their perspective through stories, such as their own life experiences, rather than facts and figures.
Rojas explained how this works on a applied ground by talking nigh canvassing he'south washed on bug related to immigration.
"We train people on identifying legitimate motivations that people have," he says. "I've had to knock on so many doors of anti-immigrant people, and one of the things they're so ofttimes worried about is the economy and jobs." Affirming those fears creates an opening for a different story about immigrants.
The A-B-C process demonstrates how moral reframing tin be a powerful tool to connect with people who, on the surface, don't have anything in common with our political orientation.
Insights from this experience and the research might be useful in the fight against COVID-19, by helping Americans to understand why measures like wearing masks and funding health care could be based on conservative foundations like purity, unity, and loyalty, also equally liberal ones like care and fairness. Willer and his colleagues take simply recently started to employ their scientific insights to the pandemic, just they could assist bridge divides between Americans who reject public-health measures and those who cover them.
So, the next time y'all're in a political statement with a friend, think about what they value rather than what you value. And call up about how you tin can accost those values while holding true to your point of view. You might be surprised how persuasive you can be. At the very least, you lot won't feel like you're talking past each other anymore.
Source: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_speak_your_opponents_language_in_a_political_debate
0 Response to "How to Argue Agains Conservative Talking Points"
Post a Comment