"High-quality listening"...I have found it useful, in business debates, to state the other person's POV as clearly as I can...ask him if this hits his key points...and then proceed to dispute all the ones I think are disputable.
The term 'steelman' has recently been applied to mean the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument, as opposed to 'strawman', the dumbest possible version.
is there data on the role a society's quality of discourse plays in fostering progress?
Specifically, what role does the public demeanor of influential (business, political, religious) leaders play in driving or hindering progress? Have societies led by people who unleash base impulses succeeded in improving people's lives?
(My expectation: societies whose discourse has become debased won't make substantial progress. They must first renew self-esteem and sense of purpose — and that must come from the top. Is this right?)"
“Deep Listening” is a good way to find middle ground from which some workable compromise might give both sides some satisfaction, but when religion is the foundation of the disputing sides, logic is irrelevant—it doesn’t apply. Belief will always trump logic in how deeply people will commit to it.
Religion is not the basis for the political divide in the US as most Americans are neither Jewish nor Muslim, and so there may be middle ground for us to work with. The idea of a two-state solution would be much more acceptable in the US than in either Israel or Gaza. But, of course, the solution must come from the Palestinians and Israelis.
When one side’s position continues to be genocide and the elimination of Israel, where is the middle ground?
I appreciate everything you say. That said, Israel has managed to normalize relationships with multiple Gulf Arab nations, showing a willingness on both sides to strive for peace and stability. It's my hope that with enough careful diplomacy, that will become the default model for relations between Israel and Arab states, and that Iran and its various terror groups will become ever more isolated. That is one potential pathway, but it won't be quick or easy, alas.
His research focused on persuasion, and in that article he outlines the principles necessary to selling, in his words, "flim-flam," in which "flim-flam" is a deeply held belief that is on its surface irrational. ("Holy cow! How can anyone believe that?")
Though Pratkanis includes a number of citations, it is written for the laity and he is clear and concise — and entertaining.
I am strongly attracted his article because each of the 9 techniques he mentions is applicable across cultures.
This tells me that he is talking about biological phenomena, tendencies if you will, that are the products of human evolution.
So it's possible to understand from outside a culture how to influence a culture and, perhaps, open minds.
In particular, his Rules 1 and 2 were, for me, a window into the world of humanity. They were also a warning to me that I'm just as vulnerable to being duped as anyone else.
"High-quality listening"...I have found it useful, in business debates, to state the other person's POV as clearly as I can...ask him if this hits his key points...and then proceed to dispute all the ones I think are disputable.
The term 'steelman' has recently been applied to mean the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument, as opposed to 'strawman', the dumbest possible version.
Love the steelman idea!!!
Related question at X:
"@jasoncrawford
is there data on the role a society's quality of discourse plays in fostering progress?
Specifically, what role does the public demeanor of influential (business, political, religious) leaders play in driving or hindering progress? Have societies led by people who unleash base impulses succeeded in improving people's lives?
(My expectation: societies whose discourse has become debased won't make substantial progress. They must first renew self-esteem and sense of purpose — and that must come from the top. Is this right?)"
https://twitter.com/jarango/status/1730058167378444432
Such a critical and difficult topic.
Do both sides want a peaceful resolution?
“Deep Listening” is a good way to find middle ground from which some workable compromise might give both sides some satisfaction, but when religion is the foundation of the disputing sides, logic is irrelevant—it doesn’t apply. Belief will always trump logic in how deeply people will commit to it.
Religion is not the basis for the political divide in the US as most Americans are neither Jewish nor Muslim, and so there may be middle ground for us to work with. The idea of a two-state solution would be much more acceptable in the US than in either Israel or Gaza. But, of course, the solution must come from the Palestinians and Israelis.
When one side’s position continues to be genocide and the elimination of Israel, where is the middle ground?
I appreciate everything you say. That said, Israel has managed to normalize relationships with multiple Gulf Arab nations, showing a willingness on both sides to strive for peace and stability. It's my hope that with enough careful diplomacy, that will become the default model for relations between Israel and Arab states, and that Iran and its various terror groups will become ever more isolated. That is one potential pathway, but it won't be quick or easy, alas.
Agree where the problem lies.
Okay, you got me thinking. Always a bad thing . . .
My first thought was an article published by the experimental psychologist Anthony Pratkanis in 1995 entitled How to Sell a Pseudoscience. https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1995/07/22165104/p21.pdf
His research focused on persuasion, and in that article he outlines the principles necessary to selling, in his words, "flim-flam," in which "flim-flam" is a deeply held belief that is on its surface irrational. ("Holy cow! How can anyone believe that?")
Though Pratkanis includes a number of citations, it is written for the laity and he is clear and concise — and entertaining.
I am strongly attracted his article because each of the 9 techniques he mentions is applicable across cultures.
This tells me that he is talking about biological phenomena, tendencies if you will, that are the products of human evolution.
So it's possible to understand from outside a culture how to influence a culture and, perhaps, open minds.
In particular, his Rules 1 and 2 were, for me, a window into the world of humanity. They were also a warning to me that I'm just as vulnerable to being duped as anyone else.