As we spend time with family over the holidays , political conversations are probably going to come up. Here's how to have those conversations in a way that genuinely opens up the other person's mind — without leaving you feeling like you're beating your head against a wall.
First, it's important to note that trying to argue someone out of their beliefs with facts and logic doesn't work. In The Righteous Mind, sociologist Jonathan Haidt showed this with a series of experiments. He asked participants to read a story — for instance, about a brother and sister having protected sex — and then asked them if the characters' actions were right or wrong.
RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: KEY DATES FOR DEBATES, ELECTIONS, AND TRIALS THAT WILL SHAPE 2024
What he found was that participants' moral intuitions snapped into place almost instantly. Most decided that the characters' actions were wrong. Then, they came up with reasons to justify those beliefs. For instance, many claimed that the brother's and sister's actions were immoral because they might result in pregnancy. When those reasons were proved to be mistaken — in this case, Haidt gently reminded the participants that the siblings were using 100% effective birth control in the story — the participants didn't change their minds. They just grasped for new arguments to support what they wanted to be true.
In his book How Minds Change, David McRaney put it this way: "Reasons, justifications, and explanations for maintaining one’s existing opinion can be endless, spawning like heads of a hydra. If you cut away one, two more would appear to take its place."
So, if facts and logic don't work to change minds, then what does work? One effective approach is to help your interlocutor to explore their own metacognition. Karin Tamerius, a psychiatrist who founded Smart Politics to help liberals have more productive conversations with conservatives, laid out a strategy for this. Even though Tamerius designed her approach to help liberals win over conservatives, the strategy is ideology-agnostic and can be used by anyone.
The first step is to build rapport. As McRaney puts it when describing Tamerius's process, you need to "assure the other person you aren’t out to shame them, and then ask for consent to explore their reasoning." This is the most important step because it gives the other person a safe space to identify holes in their logic and begin to change their mind.
Many of us are tempted to skip this step, but approaching a conversation with the intent to shame or belittle the other person can have disastrous consequences. Leonard Read, one of the most effective champions for liberty of the 20th century, made this point repeatedly throughout his career. "Intolerance, confrontation, disgust with those of opposed views engender not improvement in others but resentment, not progress but regress," he wrote in his book Who's Listening?
The second step is to start exploring the other person's reasoning. Ask them: On a scale of 1-10, how strongly do you believe XYZ policy or idea (for instance, that Trump should be imprisoned for inciting an insurrection)? If they answer with 0-9, ask why they aren't higher. This question encourages them to start marshaling counterarguments against their own opinion.
Either way, listen politely to their reasons and then repeat those reasons back to them in their own words. Ask them if you've summarized their reasons accurately. If not, repeat the process until the other person says you've captured their reasons. The purpose of this is to shine a light on the other person's metacognition and help them to elucidate their own reasoning.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
But what about persuading them? The key to this method is that you don't try to persuade them. They persuade themselves. McRaney argues that "all persuasion is self-persuasion." The idea is that you help the other person explore their own metacognition and spot holes in their own argument while at the same time offering them an emotionally safe space to change their mind without feeling judged.
The combination can be powerful and often works to change minds. But even if it doesn't, it will lead to a healthy conversation about politics that builds bridges between you and your interlocutor rather than driving a wedge between you. And isn't that what the holidays are all about?
Julian Adorney is a writer for the Foundation for Economic Education, a member of the Braver Angels media team, and a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the founder of Heal the West , a Substack movement dedicated to preserving and protecting Western civilization.
Facts and arguments don't change minds. Here's what does
8
0
27.12.2023
As we spend time with family over the holidays , political conversations are probably going to come up. Here's how to have those conversations in a way that genuinely opens up the other person's mind — without leaving you feeling like you're beating your head against a wall.
First, it's important to note that trying to argue someone out of their beliefs with facts and logic doesn't work. In The Righteous Mind, sociologist Jonathan Haidt showed this with a series of experiments. He asked participants to read a story — for instance, about a brother and sister having protected sex — and then asked them if the characters' actions were right or wrong.
RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: KEY DATES FOR DEBATES, ELECTIONS, AND TRIALS THAT WILL SHAPE 2024
What he found was that participants' moral intuitions snapped into place almost instantly. Most decided that the characters' actions were wrong. Then, they came up with reasons to justify those beliefs. For instance, many claimed that the brother's and sister's actions were immoral because they might result in pregnancy. When those reasons were proved to be mistaken — in this case, Haidt........
© Washington Examiner
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
