I think you're totally correct about the way to have polite respectful interactions in more formal or less charged contexts and and you do a good job diagnosing what goes wrong but I have to admit to a bit of a different understanding of the underlying dynamics in most internet discussions of politics. I think the focus on reasons and what they are trying to say is often misguided and the very thing that -- in seemingly being patient and listening -- actually makes things worse and responding to reasons is usually less important here to give reasons than make them feel good about interacting with you by not asking for them to explain what they are saying.
I mean it's good to adopt that pose as a matter of politeness but if you take it seriously it doesn't lead to good things because most people don't have a fully developed theory behind their claim and they tend to find it more upsetting to be asked to tie themselves down to a particular claim than to be disagreed with even if that person misunderstands them (and I don't think there was any way to save that interaction above).
Just to give an example, if someone is claiming that affirmative action is a vital policy a serious attempt to understand their position before engaging would ask them to explain what is it they think AA accomplishes that is worth the downsides and why. And that's obviously what you do in a philosophy classroom or formal debate.
Problem is (not to pick on AA this is true of almost every political view people express just more salient here) that most people don't really hold views on politics/religion/morals for the kind of reasons they think they are supposed to have. Rather, they have the view because it's what the kind of people they see as good people in their community say and what the people they see as bad/misguided reject (kinda obvious in religion that beliefs are more social than rational same in politics).
And plausibly that's a perfectly fine reason to believe something but we don't see it as such so people feel embarrassed and ashamed -- more so the more earnestly you ask for them to explain -- why they believe what they do. This is more obvious in AA because people are reluctant to just fabricate principles about race to defend themselves (prob good) but while on most issues a smart person can produce a perfectly cogent thing that sounds like a reason for their view it still feels like being put on the spot and and it's rarely the real emotional cause of their beliefs which tends to be more primal and embarrassing (I don't trust ppl like..., that seems low class, I'm scared and want reassurance).
I don't mean reasons never matter or can't convince someone ever -- on issues that are less identity tied they can persuade and a person might change their mind even on religion because of rational reasons. I'm just saying that on the issue of politics or religion you are more likely to positively persuade by making sure the person has a positive experience with you and that is best accomplished not by making sure you understand their argument but by laying your *emotional* motivations on the table in a way they can find sympathetic.
--
Basically I think political argument is alot like marital argument. My wife and I are both academics and love to argue -- often for it's own sake -- but while we can convince on philosophy or whatnot on issues that are emotionally charged the reasons tend to obstruct understanding to a significant degree and it is more important to explain your emotions in a way that reassures them your not their enemy than to formulate and respond to reasons. If that's not on the table simply saying something like "I think we disagree about whether these grants are really being wasted" is best so they can choose to advance a view or not rather than feeling they must say something smart or be shamed.
Not that I ever manage to do this when I fight with my wife ;-). Hell I don't do it online either in most cases because I too am motivated by an emotional need to play the clever argument game even though I realize it's a bit selfish.
> they have the view because it's what the kind of people they see as good people in their community say
There's a couple of concrete changes I've made given this:
(1) If I want to change someone's mind about topic X, it HAS to be reframed so that agreeing with it doesn't make you leave your tribe. Like, on AA, I can do this by telling someone that hey, I'm on your side, I want a fair playing field etc, but what if there was a more effective way to do it? We want to win/solve this problem, we're the good guys here after all, so here's a study that they did to show why this works better... etc
(this is already what political parties do, every new position has to come with a narrative about why it fits this tribe's story)
(2) Give up on trying to change people's minds if they are not in my tribe. They won't listen to me, no matter how rational or logical the arguments are. THIS IS A GOOD THING for society. People trust people that are in their tribe, they don't trust outsiders. Because you can use reason & logic to mislead people. So it makes sense to NOT trust people even if they are convincing, from outside your tribe.
Instead, I focus on criticizing/improving/changing the minds of my own tribe. You focus on yours. We all do what's best for ourselves, which in the long term tends to be cooperation and not war.
thank you for being here!!! there's so many more of these I have, and friends are starting to try it & we're giving each other feedback and we're all learning and I'm so excited to document all this
That's great! I've been trying to do similar things in my own world (first try to understand, then try to communicate what I believe) - it's hard, but damn when it works, it feels magical! Also: I don't know if you are aware of it, but the techniques you use is somewhat similar to what psychologist Marshall Bertram Rosenberg set out in the 1960s.
yessss we need so more of this. "If you wanted to say this in a way that could reach the right". You need to translate. We need more people who know how to translate and can point it out in public. It's a critical public service we're doing here
I think you're totally correct about the way to have polite respectful interactions in more formal or less charged contexts and and you do a good job diagnosing what goes wrong but I have to admit to a bit of a different understanding of the underlying dynamics in most internet discussions of politics. I think the focus on reasons and what they are trying to say is often misguided and the very thing that -- in seemingly being patient and listening -- actually makes things worse and responding to reasons is usually less important here to give reasons than make them feel good about interacting with you by not asking for them to explain what they are saying.
I mean it's good to adopt that pose as a matter of politeness but if you take it seriously it doesn't lead to good things because most people don't have a fully developed theory behind their claim and they tend to find it more upsetting to be asked to tie themselves down to a particular claim than to be disagreed with even if that person misunderstands them (and I don't think there was any way to save that interaction above).
Just to give an example, if someone is claiming that affirmative action is a vital policy a serious attempt to understand their position before engaging would ask them to explain what is it they think AA accomplishes that is worth the downsides and why. And that's obviously what you do in a philosophy classroom or formal debate.
Problem is (not to pick on AA this is true of almost every political view people express just more salient here) that most people don't really hold views on politics/religion/morals for the kind of reasons they think they are supposed to have. Rather, they have the view because it's what the kind of people they see as good people in their community say and what the people they see as bad/misguided reject (kinda obvious in religion that beliefs are more social than rational same in politics).
And plausibly that's a perfectly fine reason to believe something but we don't see it as such so people feel embarrassed and ashamed -- more so the more earnestly you ask for them to explain -- why they believe what they do. This is more obvious in AA because people are reluctant to just fabricate principles about race to defend themselves (prob good) but while on most issues a smart person can produce a perfectly cogent thing that sounds like a reason for their view it still feels like being put on the spot and and it's rarely the real emotional cause of their beliefs which tends to be more primal and embarrassing (I don't trust ppl like..., that seems low class, I'm scared and want reassurance).
I don't mean reasons never matter or can't convince someone ever -- on issues that are less identity tied they can persuade and a person might change their mind even on religion because of rational reasons. I'm just saying that on the issue of politics or religion you are more likely to positively persuade by making sure the person has a positive experience with you and that is best accomplished not by making sure you understand their argument but by laying your *emotional* motivations on the table in a way they can find sympathetic.
--
Basically I think political argument is alot like marital argument. My wife and I are both academics and love to argue -- often for it's own sake -- but while we can convince on philosophy or whatnot on issues that are emotionally charged the reasons tend to obstruct understanding to a significant degree and it is more important to explain your emotions in a way that reassures them your not their enemy than to formulate and respond to reasons. If that's not on the table simply saying something like "I think we disagree about whether these grants are really being wasted" is best so they can choose to advance a view or not rather than feeling they must say something smart or be shamed.
Not that I ever manage to do this when I fight with my wife ;-). Hell I don't do it online either in most cases because I too am motivated by an emotional need to play the clever argument game even though I realize it's a bit selfish.
I agree!! This is the key part for me:
> they have the view because it's what the kind of people they see as good people in their community say
There's a couple of concrete changes I've made given this:
(1) If I want to change someone's mind about topic X, it HAS to be reframed so that agreeing with it doesn't make you leave your tribe. Like, on AA, I can do this by telling someone that hey, I'm on your side, I want a fair playing field etc, but what if there was a more effective way to do it? We want to win/solve this problem, we're the good guys here after all, so here's a study that they did to show why this works better... etc
(this is already what political parties do, every new position has to come with a narrative about why it fits this tribe's story)
(2) Give up on trying to change people's minds if they are not in my tribe. They won't listen to me, no matter how rational or logical the arguments are. THIS IS A GOOD THING for society. People trust people that are in their tribe, they don't trust outsiders. Because you can use reason & logic to mislead people. So it makes sense to NOT trust people even if they are convincing, from outside your tribe.
Instead, I focus on criticizing/improving/changing the minds of my own tribe. You focus on yours. We all do what's best for ourselves, which in the long term tends to be cooperation and not war.
Thank you for this. Made my day!
thank you for being here!!! there's so many more of these I have, and friends are starting to try it & we're giving each other feedback and we're all learning and I'm so excited to document all this
That's great! I've been trying to do similar things in my own world (first try to understand, then try to communicate what I believe) - it's hard, but damn when it works, it feels magical! Also: I don't know if you are aware of it, but the techniques you use is somewhat similar to what psychologist Marshall Bertram Rosenberg set out in the 1960s.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
Plugging this post as a more specific elucidation of your general point:
https://peteri394q.substack.com/p/why-the-left-feels-so-threatening
yessss we need so more of this. "If you wanted to say this in a way that could reach the right". You need to translate. We need more people who know how to translate and can point it out in public. It's a critical public service we're doing here
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724881