In business disagreements / arguments / political warfare, I've found it very useful to state my opponent's view as clearly as I can, ask him if that hits his main points, and then respond.
I think it would be very, very valuable to have formal debate as a standard part of the high school curriculum. Probably not feasible with the public schools as politicized as they now are, though.
A worthy topic that perplexes us all. But why are we having the extreme polarity of thought now? This isn't a chronic American problem, but it feels very entrenched now. I wonder if the brain patterns we see when comparing hot political issues today would register on scans the way religious issues did decades ago. Would the Protestant/Catholic difference look similar? Would Christian vs Muslim issues be similar? I doubt Buddhism vs another religion would find comparable polarity. We are dealing with dueling secular religions and we don't know how to deprogram this.
Agree -- it would be fascinating to time travel with MRI machines and look at the brains of, say, Protestants and Catholics during the sixteenth century or in Ireland during the 20th. The political stuff is aggravating for people today because it's embedded in their sense of identity while it's also embattled socially. Seems like the only way to unwind is to either unmake the "identity-ness" of political conviction -- or make disagreement about it nonthreatening. That's the challenge.
I almost think that you should be required to have a five-minute conversation with someone who doesn't share your political ideology in order to vote. Spend five minutes talking about something other than politics or the weather. Make it amicable, and ideally substantive, shake hands, and then you can register to vote. If you can't do that, there is no way you can claim to be informed enough to cast a responsible vote anyway.
I'm not making a literal public policy proposal. I'm just throwing a theoretical idea out there to see what might germinate.
It is really annoying and alienating when you're on a camping trip, or a religious service, or a small live music venue, and a complete stranger decides to bludgeon you over the head with his political views. I've seen people of both left- and right-wing political persuasions do this all too often. And we wonder why there's an epidemic of loneliness in this country.
If we can't find political common ground (which we still can, although it often requires skillful facilitation), we still need to be able to have conversations that recognize each other's humanity. Something less drab than the weather, less contentious than politics. A Republican and a Democrat bonding over the shared ordeal of potty training their children, or old episodes of Seinfeld, or who makes the best French fries in town. If we had more conversations like that people would be more apt to recognize when a public figure is trying to poison them against people in their own communities and families.
"Is this news, or entertainment masquerading as news?" "Is this person a thoughtful public commentator or a conflict entrepreneur?" "Is this helping me to make informed, responsible choices, or just giving me ammunition to use next time I go to my in-laws' house for dinner?" "Is it really plausible to believe that the guy I was talking with about skiing yesterday is complicit in a highly synchronized, evil conspiracy, just because he belongs to a different political party than I do?
"Is this making me happy?"
Those are dangerous questions if your livelihood or political career depends on poisoning people against each other, or caricaturizing your opponents.
"A Republican and a Democrat bonding over the shared ordeal of potty training their children, or old episodes of Seinfeld, or who makes the best French fries in town. If we had more conversations like that people would be more apt to recognize when a public figure is trying to poison them against people in their own communities and families." Love this. We have lost the skill -- and the will? -- of finding common ground. I think it's critical to be able to speak to anyone -- to show up as oneself, and meet the other person for who they are, to find that common ground, which is also a discovery of common humanity. We don't really do character education anymore, or it seems that we don't. But the price is visible here, in the loss of vitally important basic character traits. When we lose interest in connecting, we lose a lot of our humanity.
An fMRI while watching ("p-p") stories would show the human brain traversing the bridge between the right and left hemisphere. The bridge area perhaps being the place of most balance and therefore receptivity, one might even say, comfort.
Charts and sample brain photo's are good pictorials, as well.
You are touching on the reader learning from variety of directions!
Next perhaps, including a verbal recording of your article? (new substack tool)
A very interesting example of a Persuasion strategy can be found in ‘The Farm by Lough Gur", which is about an Irish family, the O'Brien's, in the second half of the 19th century. One of the daughters, Bessie, was a fierce advocate for Irish independence and wanted Revenge on the English. She even told her mother that SHE would be a traitor if she stood up for those English.
The parents became concerned, whether because they were afraid Bessie would get in trouble with the authorities or just because they feared the toxic effect of her anger on her personality and soul is not clear.
First, the mother asked her other daughter, Sissy, to read to Bessie from Charles Lamb’s writings about the sufferings of chimney sweeps are other children. She then pointed out that these suffering children were not Irish…they were English.
Then, Uncle Richard, who was a priest, was asked to talk with Bessie, and to do so as a patriot as well as a priest. He took a less-emotional and more strictly-logical tack with her. Responding to her desire for Revenge, he asked: supposing young Tim Healy came to the door and demanded revenge…because the O’Brien’s in the Middle Ages blinded their conquered foes, Father Richard and Mr John O’Brien must have their eyes whipped out today! What would you say to that?”
Uncle Richard also responded to Bessie’s utopian vision of an independent Ireland, with a king and queen and any number of prices and princesses, and most of all, no rents or taxes. And an army, and a navy, and the railroads, and the theaters…Uncle Richard asked where we would get the money for all that.
“Wouldn’t England keep us up?”
“She’ll likely deny herself that pleasure”
Richard then went on to sketch a more-realistic picture of Irish independence, what it would look like and how it could be achieve.
I think this combination of an emotional appeal, probably transmitted via Stories…and strictly logical arguments…can be very effective at persuasion.
I perceive a considerable reduction in people's ability and willingness to state disagreements coherently and using evidence or logic. And it's not just political matters. In investing, for example, people on discussion sites often react to a critique of a stock or bond they like with an assertion such as "Dumb. NVDA will be 800 by the end of the year."
Which seems to me like a good way to lose money. Personally, if somebody can identify something wrong with my case for an investment I hold or am thinking about, I'd like to hear it.
"Prophecy masquerading as reason", now that's a powerful keeper! :)
In business disagreements / arguments / political warfare, I've found it very useful to state my opponent's view as clearly as I can, ask him if that hits his main points, and then respond.
I think it would be very, very valuable to have formal debate as a standard part of the high school curriculum. Probably not feasible with the public schools as politicized as they now are, though.
A worthy topic that perplexes us all. But why are we having the extreme polarity of thought now? This isn't a chronic American problem, but it feels very entrenched now. I wonder if the brain patterns we see when comparing hot political issues today would register on scans the way religious issues did decades ago. Would the Protestant/Catholic difference look similar? Would Christian vs Muslim issues be similar? I doubt Buddhism vs another religion would find comparable polarity. We are dealing with dueling secular religions and we don't know how to deprogram this.
Agree -- it would be fascinating to time travel with MRI machines and look at the brains of, say, Protestants and Catholics during the sixteenth century or in Ireland during the 20th. The political stuff is aggravating for people today because it's embedded in their sense of identity while it's also embattled socially. Seems like the only way to unwind is to either unmake the "identity-ness" of political conviction -- or make disagreement about it nonthreatening. That's the challenge.
I almost think that you should be required to have a five-minute conversation with someone who doesn't share your political ideology in order to vote. Spend five minutes talking about something other than politics or the weather. Make it amicable, and ideally substantive, shake hands, and then you can register to vote. If you can't do that, there is no way you can claim to be informed enough to cast a responsible vote anyway.
I'm not making a literal public policy proposal. I'm just throwing a theoretical idea out there to see what might germinate.
It is really annoying and alienating when you're on a camping trip, or a religious service, or a small live music venue, and a complete stranger decides to bludgeon you over the head with his political views. I've seen people of both left- and right-wing political persuasions do this all too often. And we wonder why there's an epidemic of loneliness in this country.
If we can't find political common ground (which we still can, although it often requires skillful facilitation), we still need to be able to have conversations that recognize each other's humanity. Something less drab than the weather, less contentious than politics. A Republican and a Democrat bonding over the shared ordeal of potty training their children, or old episodes of Seinfeld, or who makes the best French fries in town. If we had more conversations like that people would be more apt to recognize when a public figure is trying to poison them against people in their own communities and families.
"Is this news, or entertainment masquerading as news?" "Is this person a thoughtful public commentator or a conflict entrepreneur?" "Is this helping me to make informed, responsible choices, or just giving me ammunition to use next time I go to my in-laws' house for dinner?" "Is it really plausible to believe that the guy I was talking with about skiing yesterday is complicit in a highly synchronized, evil conspiracy, just because he belongs to a different political party than I do?
"Is this making me happy?"
Those are dangerous questions if your livelihood or political career depends on poisoning people against each other, or caricaturizing your opponents.
"A Republican and a Democrat bonding over the shared ordeal of potty training their children, or old episodes of Seinfeld, or who makes the best French fries in town. If we had more conversations like that people would be more apt to recognize when a public figure is trying to poison them against people in their own communities and families." Love this. We have lost the skill -- and the will? -- of finding common ground. I think it's critical to be able to speak to anyone -- to show up as oneself, and meet the other person for who they are, to find that common ground, which is also a discovery of common humanity. We don't really do character education anymore, or it seems that we don't. But the price is visible here, in the loss of vitally important basic character traits. When we lose interest in connecting, we lose a lot of our humanity.
Storytelling within a story (Emma Stone's story), is a great way of explaining your point here!
Agree, "post-partisan storytelling" = humanity's connection tool.
An fMRI while watching ("p-p") stories would show the human brain traversing the bridge between the right and left hemisphere. The bridge area perhaps being the place of most balance and therefore receptivity, one might even say, comfort.
Charts and sample brain photo's are good pictorials, as well.
You are touching on the reader learning from variety of directions!
Next perhaps, including a verbal recording of your article? (new substack tool)
Thank you for this! Love your thoughts on a dream fMRI study. Not to mention suggestion re: audio. Will look into it!
A very interesting example of a Persuasion strategy can be found in ‘The Farm by Lough Gur", which is about an Irish family, the O'Brien's, in the second half of the 19th century. One of the daughters, Bessie, was a fierce advocate for Irish independence and wanted Revenge on the English. She even told her mother that SHE would be a traitor if she stood up for those English.
The parents became concerned, whether because they were afraid Bessie would get in trouble with the authorities or just because they feared the toxic effect of her anger on her personality and soul is not clear.
First, the mother asked her other daughter, Sissy, to read to Bessie from Charles Lamb’s writings about the sufferings of chimney sweeps are other children. She then pointed out that these suffering children were not Irish…they were English.
Then, Uncle Richard, who was a priest, was asked to talk with Bessie, and to do so as a patriot as well as a priest. He took a less-emotional and more strictly-logical tack with her. Responding to her desire for Revenge, he asked: supposing young Tim Healy came to the door and demanded revenge…because the O’Brien’s in the Middle Ages blinded their conquered foes, Father Richard and Mr John O’Brien must have their eyes whipped out today! What would you say to that?”
Uncle Richard also responded to Bessie’s utopian vision of an independent Ireland, with a king and queen and any number of prices and princesses, and most of all, no rents or taxes. And an army, and a navy, and the railroads, and the theaters…Uncle Richard asked where we would get the money for all that.
“Wouldn’t England keep us up?”
“She’ll likely deny herself that pleasure”
Richard then went on to sketch a more-realistic picture of Irish independence, what it would look like and how it could be achieve.
I think this combination of an emotional appeal, probably transmitted via Stories…and strictly logical arguments…can be very effective at persuasion.
Agree. I will check out the story -- thank you for sharing!
I perceive a considerable reduction in people's ability and willingness to state disagreements coherently and using evidence or logic. And it's not just political matters. In investing, for example, people on discussion sites often react to a critique of a stock or bond they like with an assertion such as "Dumb. NVDA will be 800 by the end of the year."
Which seems to me like a good way to lose money. Personally, if somebody can identify something wrong with my case for an investment I hold or am thinking about, I'd like to hear it.
"Dumb. NVDA will be 800 by the end of the year." Love this. It's prophecy masquerading as reason.