Bringing political discussion to rationality

[Craig234]

The topic of this thread is to ask, what approaches have you found if any that help people who are taking an irrational view on an issue, to move to a more rational one?

For example, one of the basic manipulations in communication is termed "FUD", a noun meaning "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", as a goal for some communications. Examples might be, 'Trying these hairbrained and unproven expensive measures about climate change will do nothing but make the scientists who advocate them rich and bankrupt our country', or 'Obamacare will destroy our healthcare system and make us socialist', or 'You'll pay into Social Security for decades and get nothing for it, so support our privatization plan'.

When tobacco companies were threatened by the Surgeon General - in the days when government more reliably served the public interest - the gained decades of continued smoking by attacking the warnings with claims that 'the science is not conclusive'. It was a marketing strategy. Later they went from the U and D in FUD to the F, with arguments about how smoking restrictions were a step towards losing your freedom.

If you are talking about climate change with someone, and they say they don't think we know for sure what's causing it or how to fix it and we can't afford to waste money on it, how do you get them to take a more rational view of the issue? It'd be nice if you could show them a leaked video of a media master mind saying privately, 'we're being paid good money to lie to the public to get them to think the science is not clear and it's an expensive waste of money', but we don't have that video, and it's not 100% if we did.

One approach I've found sometimes works - nothing works a lot - is analogy. People often are irrational because they have some special interest or haven't thought through an issue. But they might have a more fair view of a similar issue or have realized a rational position on something similar.

An obvious example is equal inter-racial marriage rights and equal gay marriage rights. They may be caught up in gay bigotry or a community that has smothered them in anti-equality views, but they likely at this point are part of the vast majority who have no issue with inter-racial marriage, and they can see the thinking that was so strongly opposed to inter-racial marriage and it might help them realize their own similar mistake.

But it's pretty rare it seems.

I saw a good example this week. A small town mayor had a lot of citizen complaints about the cost of gasoline, there the price was above average but their wages are below average. He decided to try to help by opening up a city-run gast station not for profit to get others to lower their prices, and it worked. Now prices are below average.

The story interviewed a relative of the mayor in the state legislature who is against the policy, and he said 'this is total socialism' as his explanation for opposing it. Now, I find that a pretty irrational position. It has nothing to do with the problem and the measure taken in whether it's good or bad. It's simply putting a label on it he and some others are conditioned to react to with mindless opposition, and that's the argument.

How do you get someone like that to be more rational?

I don't mean getting citizens to support the policy so that he's politically threatened and backs down - that's not making him rational on the issue.

One answer is, it's not clear we can. We just have to write off a large percent of the public as irrational and hope it doesn't spread too much.

Another is that big media campaigns can help, but the problem there is - even if it's the case - there isn't big money being spent on such big media campaigns.

It is spent on the other side - half a billion opposing Obamacare, big money attacking climate change measures, big energy companies are lobbying the state to make the mayor's policy illegal in the story above - but there isn't a lot of money being spent to use the big media approach to educate the people. And that's not really the topic - it's more the one on one topic, you're talking with a person who is not being very rational on an issue.

All in the Family was another approach - satire. Jon Stewart uses the same. Have Archie Bunker or a Stewart correspondent or Stephen Colbert argue for the 'crazy' position in order to help people see that argument is wrong. Watching Archie Bunker look silly about getting a transfusion from a black person helped people who actually would refuse such a transfusion be more rational about the issue. That doesn't usually work as much one on one.

The 'you are being manipulated' argument doesn't work as well as I'd hope. The archetype I use for that issue is, a snake oil salesman comes to a small town and tells the people how great his garbage is, and when the town doctor says 'you know me, and I'm telling you he's a con man', the snake oil salesman attacks the doctor by saying he's protecting his own business - he doesn't want you to get the cure, it'll put him out of business. And people fall for that sort of thing a lot.

Tell them big polluters like the Koch brothers are manipulating them to hate the EPA, and they don't respond by recognizing it and adjusting their position usually.

Once people develop a loyalty to a liar - 'you can only trust Fox News, not the lamestream media' - it takes a lot to shake it.

A logic class can sometimes help, if we could get that in public schools. No time soon.

But this is a pretty important topic for our political discussion culture. Free speech is weak enough with things like the media situation, we can use improvement to the little discussion citizens have who are bombarded by polished propaganda and rarely get to discuss issues with other citizens.

This is just a list of a few things to do.

Have you found other things that work, or are you finding it not very possible to help people change from an irrational view?

 

[dank69]

I tried the technique of using a topic that is dear to a specific poster here and it failed miserably. Specifically, I knew this poster works with GMO foods and views anti-GMO crowd as insane. I showed him the parallels between that and anti-MMCC crowd and nothing. You can't help people that don't want to be helped.

Draw parallels to the leaded gasoline debate and still nothing. THIS time is different. THIS time the liberals are the ones making money off of fear, not the big corporations. The corporations are the victims.

It's funny and sad and frustrating all rolled into one.

 

[alkemyst]

The problem is so little of our public understands anything they talk about.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The real question is, how can you be sure you are on the right side of the issue?
Take dank69's example above. He clearly thinks that he is on the right side of the GMO issue, but the science clearly does not show that GMO food is hazardous. His analogy tells us something but not necessarily what he thinks it does. It seems to me that either dank69 or I have fallen victim to a bias. So, how to know which one?
If we could solve that problem the solution to the problem of convincing others would follow.

 

[alkemyst]

The real question is, how can you be sure you are on the right side of the issue?
Take dank69's example above. He clearly thinks that he is on the right side of the GMO issue, but the science clearly does not show that GMO food is hazardous. His analogy tells us something but not necessarily what he thinks it does. It seems to me that either dank69 or I have fallen victim to a bias. So, how to know which one?
If we could solve that problem the solution to the problem of convincing others would follow.

A strong educational background and self-research that you keep your biases out of.

 

[Rebel_L]

I think the key for having a rational discussion is to work on eliminating the influence of emotion on the conversation.

To do this effectively though it a huge challenge, and that goes for both parties of the conversation. Even if both sides know their own personal biases and triggers well so as to try and lower their impact it can still be hard to have that discussion if the other side is unaware of them and keeps unknowingly poking the other with a stick.

I personally find even if you have most standard things covered (like being polite and avoiding overt anger, intimidation, name calling) unless you know a person really well the conversations often can be derailed even by something as little as the language you choose. I am not talking about obvious offensive language and insults, but ordinary words that have taken on slightly different meanings for one person vs another. (often its simple things like someone who uses word hate to describe something they dislike vs someone who uses the word to describe things they utterly despise. I have also seen where someone due to their past history has a really negative reaction to a word like forgiveness which I for instance see as a rather neutral word)

Another thing that I have often found that makes it difficult to come eye to eye with people is that different people have different rankings on the relative importance of various parts of life. Someone who values privacy more than security for instance may rationally be more concerned about the government listening to everyone's phone call than the person who values security above all else and so long as their life is not actively inconvenienced is happy to give up lots of privacy for extra security. Both sides in this case think the other is out to lunch when really neither side is wrong, they just simply do not agree on where the balance between the two sides should be.

For some of the approaches you mention it is easy to see how they can be effective some times and backfire others. Analogies for instance can be very helpful for letting someone view their thought process in a hopefully less emotionally charged environment, but what if the area you are drawing the analogy in is one that is emotionally charged for that person, then instead of giving them an emotional safe zone to test their thinking process in it all of a sudden just adds to the problem. Pointing out that someone may have mislead them into believing something silly is just as easily taken as a personal attack that calls them stupid as trying to get them to think for themselves.

The media tends to be all about getting people emotionally involved in discussions to give them a personal involved feeling so they stay engaged. This is great for getting ratings, but not good for rational discussion.

I would say that knowing the person your talking to well is the key to having that rational conversation you want. It gives the trust between the two parties that they will not take comments as a personal insult as quick and it also makes it easier to avoid walking into emotional quagmires that lead to more irrational thinking. I also thinking taking a break from a discussion if you can see people getting emotionally involved is useful (that includes yourself), give time to let tempers relax then keep working on the discussion.

 

[dank69]

The real question is, how can you be sure you are on the right side of the issue?
Take dank69's example above. He clearly thinks that he is on the right side of the GMO issue, but the science clearly does not show that GMO food is hazardous. His analogy tells us something but not necessarily what he thinks it does. It seems to me that either dank69 or I have fallen victim to a bias. So, how to know which one?
If we could solve that problem the solution to the problem of convincing others would follow.

You know I have absolutely no problem with GMO food, right?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You do realize that most posters in p & n and listeners of talk radio have no interest in rationality, right?

 

[Whiskey16]

You do realize that most posters in p & n and listeners of talk radio have no interest in rationality, right?

Nor pragmatic, reflective, insightful, empathetic, respectful, and educated thought..........

 

[Paul98]

It takes knowing that long held beliefs will not change right then. It takes both showing the incorrect and correct thinking someone already has. Then it takes well reasoned factually backed up presentation to someone who is willing to listen. You need to make sure they understand what you are saying and not what they think you are saying. The other thing is knowing the main discussion points of the other side before going in. Then talking about them before the other person brings them up. Then answering any more questions they might have while not attacking an incorrect position that they would have already said, thus not putting them on the defensive.

I find talking in person first then showing facts which can be found on the internet to back it up this approach can work well.

 

[Greenman]

The fundamental flaw here is that in this context "rationality" means "thinking the same way I do".
It's also interesting that not a single one of you has mentioned the idea of trying to understand what the other person might be thinking. This is all about changing someones mind because you "know" they're wrong. That sort of arrogance is off putting to most people, and precludes the possibility of learning something yourself.

If you really feel the need to change someones mind on an issue, the first thing you have to do is understand why they think the way they do, and accept it. You're also going to have too entertain the insane concept that they might be right, that you might actually not be the worlds greatest expert on everything.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I honestly think the biggest problem is one of empathy and respect.

There seems to be an underlying assumption in most political discourse that the other side is either ignorant or malevolent. So long as both sides of an issue maintain this stance, it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation. My recommendation is that the next time you have a disagreement with someone on a political of philosophical topic, tell yourself that the other person is as smart as you are, as well-informed as you are, and believes their position is really the best thing for everyone. Once you've granted them that minimum amount of respect, you'll find that your discussion with them is far more reasonable.

Now, that said, that may not bring us to a resolution to these arguments, but at least our arguments will be far more civil.

 

[crashtestdummy]

The fundamental flaw here is that in this context "rationality" means "thinking the same way I do".
It's also interesting that not a single one of you has mentioned the idea of trying to understand what the other person might be thinking. This is all about changing someones mind because you "know" they're wrong. That sort of arrogance is off putting to most people, and precludes the possibility of learning something yourself.

If you really feel the need to change someones mind on an issue, the first thing you have to do is understand why they think the way they do, and accept it. You're also going to have too entertain the insane concept that they might be right, that you might actually not be the worlds greatest expert on everything.

Beat me to it.

 

[Craig234]

Crash, that's actually a different issue.

I agree that most people are not 'malevolent' intentionally, but on the other hand I think many people support things that are malevolent but don't realize it.

I see people often blinded by getting caught up in one way of looking at an issue and not realize the effects their position has.

I don't think the right approach is to pretend the person you're talking with is well informed if they're not. But I do think the right approach is to be benevolent to them, to try to inform them in a way that's good for them, if that's the case, and not to make it something to attack them for. But sometimes pointing out it's the case is relevant.

By the same token, we tend to do better if we say up front what our own lack of information is. But this isn't really the same issue as irrationality.

 

[Sattern]

If something political in nature is discussed we either have to add more information so people can be educated about the subject before they comment or add opinions or make sure we inform a person that is misinformed so they can be taught the truth so they can be confident in what they know about the subject when they discuss it again.

Political talk is a subjective matter and we should be open, yet stick to our beliefs and understandings.

 

[Paul98]

From what I see most of the problems come from ignorance, willful or otherwise. This is what so many people feed on and spread.

 

[Towermax]

The fundamental flaw here is that in this context "rationality" means "thinking the same way I do".
It's also interesting that not a single one of you has mentioned the idea of trying to understand what the other person might be thinking. This is all about changing someones mind because you "know" they're wrong. That sort of arrogance is off putting to most people, and precludes the possibility of learning something yourself.

If you really feel the need to change someones mind on an issue, the first thing you have to do is understand why they think the way they do, and accept it. You're also going to have too entertain the insane concept that they might be right, that you might actually not be the worlds greatest expert on everything.

+1

 

[Attic]

I try to allow myself to be fallible, and where possible speak with like mind people. In political discussion I almost never come across this unfortunately. Speaking with opposite ends of the spectrum I get nearly identical results whenever a point of contention comes up.

Folks willing to change their mind, what I've had in common (i'd guess, patience/empathy/intelligence/reflection). I'm not sure you can change the mind of people who are never wrong or who won't change their mind.

In political discourse the changing of minds is imperative to progress for both the individual, the system, and the process. Top down control, by it's very nature, seeks to limit this type of change in order to maintain control. So government has a huge hurdle to overcome, and IMO needs to be aware of this paradox. How does government empower itself appropriately for the betterment of the individual, if the individual needs to be free to change his/her mind, but the changing of the individuals mind puts government control at risk?

I think if our election process were not first across the finish line that it might help political discourse. We are not nearly as divided as elections seem to show IMO, but the division of the election process appears to filter down into how we debate.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Crash, that's actually a different issue.

I agree that most people are not 'malevolent' intentionally, but on the other hand I think many people support things that are malevolent but don't realize it.

I see people often blinded by getting caught up in one way of looking at an issue and not realize the effects their position has.

The only you'll be able to do that is if you enter with some humility and accept that the same may be true of yourself.

I don't think the right approach is to pretend the person you're talking with is well informed if they're not. But I do think the right approach is to be benevolent to them, to try to inform them in a way that's good for them, if that's the case, and not to make it something to attack them for. But sometimes pointing out it's the case is relevant.

By the same token, we tend to do better if we say up front what our own lack of information is. But this isn't really the same issue as irrationality.

Your approach (especially the bolded) drips of condescension. You may be right, and the other person may not be well informed, but if that's your starting assumption before you've heard them out, you're not going to get anywhere with them.

As another poster said, your version of a "rational discussion" is one in which you're right. That can't be the way you operate if you want anything other than a shouting match.

 

[dank69]

The only you'll be able to do that is if you enter with some humility and accept that the same may be true of yourself.



Your approach (especially the bolded) drips of condescension. You may be right, and the other person may not be well informed, but if that's your starting assumption before you've heard them out, you're not going to get anywhere with them.

As another poster said, your version of a "rational discussion" is one in which you're right. That can't be the way you operate if you want anything other than a shouting match.

If a person starts with a post full of misinformation, am I supposed to treat him as well informed? Full of logical fallacies, am I supposed to treat him as rational? You can treat an idiot with kid gloves and the person will still be a belligerent asshole.

Irrational people aren't going to retain my respect, and no, irrational isn't defined here as "what I think is right." Someone posts up some solid evidence and logic that contradicts my position and I will adjust/reverse my position like a reasonable human being, even if they call me an asshole while doing it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You know I have absolutely no problem with GMO food, right?

No I did not. But it does not really matter, I was just using you as a foil not trying to argue the merits of GMO in general. I find it common that two people, both reasonably intelligent and well educated, can read the same research and come to different conclusions. This is mostly due to starting biases. GMO is simply one of those issues that I found it convenient to use due to your previous post.

So, my apology if I misrepresented your stance.

 

[Greenman]

If a person starts with a post full of misinformation, am I supposed to treat him as well informed? Full of logical fallacies, am I supposed to treat him as rational? You can treat an idiot with kid gloves and the person will still be a belligerent asshole.

Irrational people aren't going to retain my respect, and no, irrational isn't defined here as "what I think is right." Someone posts up some solid evidence and logic that contradicts my position and I will adjust/reverse my position like a reasonable human being, even if they call me an asshole while doing it.

Is it your position that people who don't agree with you are irrational, or are you changing the parameters of the discussion?
It appears that you're assuming a position of infallibility, and there can be no discussion from that point. There is no exchange of ideas, all you can do is lecture. I also have to wonder how you present your credentials in such a situation, how do you prove that you've never been wrong about something?
If you are indeed that perceptive, and that bright, I'd respectfully suggest that your time here is wasted, there is an entire world waiting for a man of your vast acumen. We need your help.

 

[dank69]

Is it your position that people who don't agree with you are irrational, or are you changing the parameters of the discussion?
It appears that you're assuming a position of infallibility, and there can be no discussion from that point. There is no exchange of ideas, all you can do is lecture. I also have to wonder how you present your credentials in such a situation, how do you prove that you've never been wrong about something?
If you are indeed that perceptive, and that bright, I'd respectfully suggest that your time here is wasted, there is an entire world waiting for a man of your vast acumen. We need your help.

Your post does not follow from mine. I even stated in my post that:

irrational isn't defined here as "what I think is right."

That has never been my position, so not sure why you think I am suddenly changing parameters.

You see, it isn't that I am always right. I am not always right and never claim to be. What I don't do is "make up my mind" about something that I am not fully educated about. If I am not entirely sure about something, I will hedge my posts with "I think ..." or "it seems to me that ..."

 

[crashtestdummy]

If a person starts with a post full of misinformation, am I supposed to treat him as well informed? Full of logical fallacies, am I supposed to treat him as rational? You can treat an idiot with kid gloves and the person will still be a belligerent asshole.

Irrational people aren't going to retain my respect, and no, irrational isn't defined here as "what I think is right." Someone posts up some solid evidence and logic that contradicts my position and I will adjust/reverse my position like a reasonable human being, even if they call me an asshole while doing it.

Actually, yes, your are. If two sides of an argument don't have the same validity, placing them sid-by-side, on an equal footing, is actually the best way to make that clear. It may not resolve the issue once and for all, but it will at least let everyone better understand what the true disagreement is over and where the other side comes from.

You're certainly right that some people are going to be belligerent and obnoxious no matter what you do. Unfortunately, shouting back at them or treating them with condescension doesn't help you any. The best you can do is offer some civility, and if it's rejected, simply walk away.*



*I should note here that there are obvious exceptions to this, such as gross civil rights violations. But that's its own can of worms, as everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes a violation of civil rights.

 

[Greenman]

Your post does not follow from mine. I even stated in my post that:That has never been my position, so not sure why you think I am suddenly changing parameters.

You see, it isn't that I am always right. I am not always right and never claim to be. What I don't do is "make up my mind" about something that I am not fully educated about. If I am not entirely sure about something, I will hedge my posts with "I think ..." or "its seems to me that ..."

My mistake, I didn't catch that.