I dunno about this. Conservative arguments are always couched in terms meant to appeal to liberals -- or to values like equality and fairness (which everyone ostensibly supports). On the other hand, the article elsewhere talks about the effectiveness of 'deep listening.' I'm on board with this. Here's a quote from the article:
Instead of pelting voters with facts, "we ask open-ended questions and then we listen," Fleischer told me in April. "And then we continue to ask open-ended questions based on what they just told us."
In talking about their own lives, the voters engage in what psychologists call "active processing." The idea is that people learn lessons more durably when they come to the conclusion themselves, not when someone "bitch-slaps you with a statistic," says Fleischer. Overall, it's a task designed to point out our common humanity, which then opens the door to reducing prejudice and changing opinions.
http://www.vox.com/2016/11/23/13708996/argue-better-science
From the site:
Anyone who has argued with an opinionated relative at Thanksgiving about immigration or gun control knows it is often impossible to sway someone with strong views.
That’s in part because our brains work hard to ensure the integrity of our worldview: We seek out information to confirm what we already know, and are dismissive of facts that are hostile to our core beliefs.
But it’s not impossible to make your argument stick. And there’s been some good scientific work on this. Here are two strategies that, based on the evidence, seem promising.
No comments:
Post a Comment