Essentially, if we want to convince people or explain our political ideals, we have to re-design our language to suit the listener based on their moral values.
Woah! At 11:00 he literally puts that research into action! He uses moral vocab to tap into BOTH liberal and conservative values. He uses all these loaded words, and it works: *hate *ugly *corrupt *fabric of our society *we owe our country *afford *we owe each other
Enjoy disagreement. If you are not confident in your argument, learn your place and concede your ignorance, then move on. Inconsequential debate can be viewed as a mental sparring match.
I don't get why libs stopped thinking like this. It seems like 5-10 years went by, and the left went from aggressively challenging the beliefs of the right, to smugly dismissing any differing opinion as racist, vulgar, irrelevant, or - best of all - stupid. I hate the right wing, but I see a greater tendency to engage in debate. They're mostly ignorant and wrong, but at least they have balls.
AsifIcarebear3 Ben Affleck on Real Time with Bill Maher was the moment I quit calling myself a liberal. He was the embodiment that night of everything you just said. And I realised after the media and most liberals sided with him against Bill and Sam that the majority of liberals have shifted away from reality into a weird overly sensitive pc place. That doesn't mean I became a conservative either, I'm just a man without a party I can identify with now.
4:21 There is a problem with this. I am strongly Libertarian. I actually find myself far more often aligned with conservatives than I do liberals with respect to policy. Yet those putatively 'conservative' values of patriotism, respect for authority, purity, etc., I find almost abhorrant. I am very much motivated by equality and fairness, care and protection. I differ from liberals because I find them combining those values with absolute ignorance of economics and ultimately thereby supporting policies that I KNOW do FAR more harm to the poor than would a free society. The vast majority of human beings support political positions for emotional reasons, as alluded to here. They are motivated by virtue signalling and tribal identity. Very few people spend time actually studying and thinking about issues. Those who do spend time reading almost invariably spend their time engaged in confirmation bias, reading material they agree with. When was the last time any of us actually read a book that we disagreed with? All those conservatives out there need to go read a book by Noam Chomsky. All the liberals need to read a book by Ann Coulter. I am not saying you need to read these people's writing so as to agree with them. I am saying that without doing so, you probably lack the perspective to have a rational opinion.
Peter Cohen I think both conservatives and liberals should start by reading Sam Harris. Both liberals and conservatives like him on some issues (enough to keep reading) but they both hate him on other issues. And Sam is a rational guy who seems to be a middle ground in between the 2 extremes.
As a libertarian you certainly are caught in the middle a bit. I've read both and I find Ann Coulter pretty rough to be honest. I can't stand her views on illegal immigration. I think probably this video was an oversimplification, but I think it sounds useful for discussing things with people who I would otherwise write off thinking, "eh, they don't think about this enough, I can't persuade them." Because I'm probably using the wrong persuasive techniques for those people. For someone who is Libertarian, I would probably discuss things in terms of personal liberty or spending concerns. What you're missing when you see yourself aligned more with conservatives on policy is that you're still not aligned with republicans. A lot of republicans are not conservative in their policy. Remember there's a difference between someone saying they are conservative, and actually thinking conservatively
+Josh Uddin You have missed my point entirely. For the purposes of the point I was making, I would be hard pressed to suggest anyone better. Indeed, you cement my point. Likely you more than most need to read one of her books.
Daimon Smith ikr. I'm trying my best to educate them on how both sides are the problem, but also both sides are needed for the solution, but its tough...
Ugh... really? You're the top comment and I haven't scrolled down further but the whole video I was thinking to myself "I bet someone is going to comment the other side lacks these things".
I thought this video was pretty condescending towards conservatives. Saying they are easily manipulated by the particular language used in articles, and liberals aren't. Saying liberals are concerned with equality while conservatives are concerned with patriotism (Murica!), respect authority (Moar Military!) and purity/sanctity (religious idiots and their pro-life). When in reality conservatives care about debt and government spending. They care about freedom of the individual and individual rights. Saying Liberals believe in equality and fairness is absurd because of course conservatives care about those things, they just think that obsessing over identity politics creates more of a divide and ironically creates less equality and fairness as a result. Wasn't a huge fan of this talk, came off as a guide for liberals on how to talk with conservatives, that was given by a liberal. That's like an article on how to please a man, written by a woman. If you want to bridge the gap, get two smart people on either side, who respect each other, hash it out
When the speaker talked about the moral divide they studied, he did say those people "endorsed" those values, which I took to mean that those are the values they'll *say* they stand by and hold most important. That, of course, means they could hold those other values important as well, but just not their Number One Concern. This would've been a good point for the speaker to clear up. It would've been a good idea to give as thorough an example of wording affecting liberals equally, I agree. I don't think his "the same thing happens for liberals, too" said in passing was meant to showcase conservatives in particular: maybe he thought making two similar cases would have been overly repetitive. Despite some flaws, I thought the talk was good overall. To use your analogy, it had examples of how to please a man for women, but the point was more about how to make up with your partner: considering how the other side sees a topic and showing how their values line up with it.
JohnnyBunning The guy said that liberals show a greater belief in equality and fairness than conservatives, not that conservatives don't believe in those things at all.
*The core of the problem is being on a team.* You root for your team, make excuses for them, confirmation bias from fellow teammates. The solution is to be an individual and look at everyone individual issue separate from other issues. Then when you feel like you made up your mind on an issue, re-visit it from time to time because 5 years ago is vastly different from today. 10 years from now will be extremely different.
And libertarians, and every other party in every democratic nation. Team Edward and Team Jacob, Steelers and Ravens, Democrats and Republicans, all of these rivalries act the same. Confirmation bias for their own side, and a lack of empathy for the opposing side.
There is no such thing as confirmation bias when the only thing being confirmed are facts. You wouldn’t debate a flat earther now and revisit it later just to make sure the earth is still round.
So basically, in the pursuit to enhance communication, you developed a weapon, that plays on peoples morality. This isnt a solution. Not just will we, if this way of framing debates catches on, see it dulled down pretty quick, due to overuse, we will go into debates with the expectation to be manipulated. The solution for this divide we are in is not to create better weapons, but to become better people, that are willing to compromise, but also willing to recognize facts that we do not like, or agree on approaches that we might not like. This also means accepting defeat or failure. Its either that, or blood in the streets in my opinion.
Galgenvogel How is communicating in a way that is understood by the other side a bad "weapon"? The purpose is to actually allow the other side to understand the importance of a topic by putting it in terms that they understand. How the heck is that a bad thing?
The argument here is that in many debate, the only way to approach it is not only from the "right side" (your side) with only your moral attached to it. In general, you can argument for something taking different approach and you can reach the other where he might care more, in a way he didn't think about it before. The thing is the debate is less and less nuanced and people just use their moral code and their view of life, then try to not really argument and persuade others but more to assimilate. There are some very patriotic argument in protecting the environment that I would not necessarily use since I don't value them as much but can be effective to connect with other point of view. Same with an argument for drilling oil. If it is nuanced correctly and you argue it will bring jobs in a poorer part of the country, giving more chances for those people for the future, I'll be way more inclined to listen to you than if you said it is just good for the economy
I understand your concern, simply using this as a tactic to advance your ideas with people on an emotional level without any other argument would be misguided. But SO much political discussion is emotion appeal anyway. People respond to it much quicker than a nuanced argument with well researched evidence I'm afraid. Human beings aren't creatures of logic... However, this whole video is about having better conversations. Talking to people in real life, not on a debate stage. Understanding peoples values, so that they are initially more receptive to an new idea, is a great thing. It means they are less likely to disregard factual evidence, because of their emotions, later on. Or at least that's what I hope is the case...
I think you've missed the point: it's not about winning, its about showing the other side that you poisiton is more in line with their values than they might think
If we lived in the Star Trek universe, the current state of America is like it's a ship half full of Klingons and half full of Romulans, and every 4 to 8 years we vote for a crappy Klingon captain or a crappy Romulan captain and the ship is a mess because of the differences. What we need is a captain Picard to make sense of things and get this ship back on course. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was onto something when he said that when you go to vote there should be an option for None of the Above, and then you toss out the crappy candidates and start the process all over until you get someone qualified that every one can respect, like captain Picard.
That is the Ranked Choice Voting system. It allows you to rank your options sincerely, even if you have a "no chance" first option. Because you rank your choices, if your first pick doesn't win, the vote goes to the second option, and so on, so strategic voting is not such an issue, third parties can appear, everyone's preferences are maximally in line with the elected options. It's really keeping things clean in terms of voting and allows everyone's option to be heard.
Nowadays, it seems everybody already knows everybody’s political position. When I debate those who have differing opinions to my own, I find it more helpful to point out flaws in their logic rather than asserting my position over theirs. Really liking the way he is framing language here though, I never thought about it in this way. Definitely will be tying in some patriotic and purist language when speaking to the most patriotic of our country from now on.
And I'm sitting here, as a non-USA-inhabitant, in a country where there are many political parties, and votes for non-major parties are not considered wasted, asking myself, why it is that they do not even want to try and vote for other parties. Better "wasting" your vote in a democratic way, than supporting the wrong with not voting. Why choose between Evil 1 and Evil 2 if you can grap that gold piece right next to them. And on top of that is your electoral college, that makes the "best and greatest" democracy, the most flawed one, as votes are not worth the same.
You answered your own question. We don't want to try to vote for other parties because our electoral college makes a vote for a third party candidate a waste. Also because it is very rarely a vote between evil 1 and evil 2. Last year was a vote between candidate 1 who is mediocre and candidate 2 who is a disaster. We picked candidate 2. Anyone who says the choices were equally bad is being disingenuous.
It seems that US-citizens also recieve a severe social pressure, because then you are "undemocratic and it won't change anything". But even with an electoral college multiple parties should be possible. A third party can work if you give it enough power. You should get rid of the thinking "If I don't vote for the democrats, the republikans will take over." You should vote for want you want and not against what you don't want.
To be fair the problem is the huge amounts of money that is required to run a campaign in the US. It's not like anyone can just take part in the spotlight. And tbh from what I've seen from the other candidates (libertarian party for example) I would not try to equal anyone of them to a piece of gold. Only reason they seem like viable options is because of the low standard of this years candidates. I think the only one that could've been equaled to the piece of gold might be Bernie, but he is part of a political party (the Dems) and endorsed their candidate so that wasn't an option either reaally.
I didn't hear much from this election's canditates of the other parties, but my analogy was not pointed at them specifically, but more to emphasize, as I already said, that you should vote for what you want and not against what you don't want.
Courtney Lauren: It's not specifically the electoral college that makes voting for third party candidates a waste. The EC is bad, but not for that reason. It's the fact that we can only vote for one candidate, that makes voting for a third party candidate a waste (See CGP Grey's video on the problems with First Past the Post voting, and his subsequent videos). Other countries have better systems, where you can rank your choices, or assign percentages to choices, or in some other way make it so that you can have a first choice, a second choice, a third choice, and so on. There's a push to have that here as well. fairvote.org. The Presidential election is the only one that requires an amendment; in all the local and state-level elections (including voting for your Congresspeople and Senators), the state determines the rules, so you can lobby your Assemblyperson.
well I live in Washington and I'm conservative and I have political conversations with my friends who are mostly liberal. polite ones too. pretty much let each other talk and be respectful.
I always say that trying to understand the other side's perspective is beneficial for a lot of reasons - even if your goal is not to be civil or respectful, but just to convince them of something, understanding their framework of beliefs gives you a huge advantage in your ability to communicate with them. I agree, I think this is pretty obvious, but I see a lot of people arguing against it anyway.
Facebook, Twitter, etc. can only be part of the problem because of the content people post. If positivity would be louder, they would instead can be part of the solution
90% of viewers probably missed Rob Willer's conclusion where he tied Conservative & Liberal P.O.V.s (patriotism, purity, equality ,etc.) previously mentioned to persuade either of the political parties in favor of changing the nation.
Interesting talk. My main issue is that there were no examples from a conservative point of view reframed as to convince liberals, only the other way around. No stats about doing the environmental study the other way around. I'm really interested in how you could reframe issues like gay marriage, environmental protection or abortion in a way to convince liberal people. If one set of people rely heavily on statistics and studies and the other side relies on the way they feel about things, one side might be easier to convince by reframing than the other. Just my two cents, happy that people are at least trying to bring actual discussions to the table.
Maybe if we start with the assumption that liberals are looking at different stats than conservatives and conservatives are reacting emotionally in different ways. Get a Republican talking about their family, faith, or technical trade, you see their soft side... and that's a good thing. Ever talk to a vegan about why they're a vegan? They'll drive you insane with a slew of studies about how much more healthy a plant-based diet is. Everyone is emotional and everyone believes they're analytical. Maybe we need to start the conversation around puppies. How often does that conversation end in bi-lateral hate?
I consider myself a conservative with most issues, and I'm convinced the speaker missed the boat when it comes to how to define this philosophy. The central principle is to take personal responsibility for one's actions rather than lean on the government to do things for us. The value about respect for authority makes us sound like people who would walk in lockstep with any authority. This is not a conservative value. My guess is he's a liberal who still doesn't get what half the population is about. I have no anger about that. We do need to treat each other with empathy and respect. It's just that it almost completely misses the mark pertaining to the values.
The only time I have any problem with someone on the right is when they actively try and stand in the way of LGBT rights, label anyone from a different ethnicity as a terrorist, and things of that nature which are objectively awful.
there was a similar type of "plea for political peace" article generated by a GA Tech newsletter. they interviewed a professor who discussed the topic of political correctness, which seemed pretty unbiased, but the newsletter editor sprinkled in his own biased commentary like "conservatives blame the left of being PC simply whenever they disagree". there's your problem right there, it's that "do as I say, not as I do" mentality
Step 1: Open the platform for discussion (which you claim to stand for) instead of disabling comments and bullying any content creators that disagree with you.
kind of weird that he shames people for wanting to pick a partner who has a similar ideology to them... it's almost like we want to spend our lives with people who aren't fighting against our beliefs
Is there a link to specific examples of making these arguments along the other side's moral values, such as those you offered for global climate change? I find this topic really fascinating and would like to know more.
The world is split into two economic camps Industrial capitalism and financial capitalism! The divisions you talk about are deliberate to stop people looking at the real game!
As an independent, I find it much easier to talk and debate with a conservative. I don't bother trying to reason with liberals anymore.. I'm tired of being called a racist every time I ask a question they don't know how to answer... They are the reason I moved away from California.
andrew gallant with so much of a divide between the left and right how do you find yourself an independent? not judging just curious, I really find it difficult to see how you can't have a strong preference?
well.. its just hard for me to agree on all topics of a single party. for example; i support the second amendment, yet i am pro choice and support stem cell research. i'm an atheist, but still support peoples right to worship which ever god they believe. i refuse to put all my eggs in one basket, just because the people around me are.
No. The divide isn't just patriotism, respect for authority and on the left equality and care. It's much deeper than that. Conservatives are high is conscientiousness but low in openness (which makes sense, we argue that you should work hard to achieve what you want and we don't think meddling with stuff like an economy is a good idea when you have insufficient knowledge) On the other hand a left winger is low in conscientiousness but high in openness which again makes sense because leftists believe you deserve free healthcare, education etc without having earnt it. In my opinion that's a much better distinction between left and right than the surface level differences he initially suggests
Do you really think what you wrote illustrates the differences between liberals and conversatives well? Can't you find more positive things that might come from liberals tendency for more openness than free stuff without having earnt it?
Had to listen to it a second time to notice it, because my brain shuts off automatically when the data input ends and the rethoric starts. This is a problem I see in this approach. If this catches on, people will become dull to it.
While a good idea for those not involved with media, I will say that it would not work on people desensitized by media (where there is always someone to send you back into your hole via cognitive dissonance)
My question is, what if their moral viewpoint is abhorrant to you? Making an argument on policy by appealing to their moral code would be encouraging that moral code, would it not?
Political debate today is like trying to play soccer vs someone playing American football. It doesn't matter how logical your arguments are, you will still be slapped in the face by personal attacks and name calling. The best way to win is to not play.
And the crux of 'moral' is religion. Liberals believe science is on their side and see religion as a non-flexible polariser at loggerheads with the things they fight for.The religious conservatives believe god is on their side, family values and positivity from steadfast beliefs is the only way forward. I think Both sides have decent ideas. The extremes need to pull closer to center and have a more of a peaceful forgiving, classy attitude. Both sides want what is best.
*We need to take a step back and discuss values. When values are sorted out, we can talk about solutions.* It is dishonest to start with a conclusion and try to connect unrelated values to it. By starting at conservative values, you will naturally arrive at a conservative conclusions and not liberal ones, and vice versa.
I think these moral values come from a deeper place. They come from personality traits and temperament that has biological roots. Biology shape our brains and their connections so it is not a value it is a particular intelligence, perception and conception of viewing the world.
its not about better discussions but about how to hack the others mind by using their own lingo but not by real arguments its how to do better mind control the other that is not a discussion its about mind control how to do that "better"
I think we first need to stop putting each other in boxes! For example I never once called *myself* a Liberal,Conservative,Democrat,or a republican. However I've had *other people* assume I was a few of those based on one,or two little things I said. It's just plain selfish & ignorant to throw people in boxes that quick! Actual conversation's definitely needed,but if someone already has their selfish mind made up about you (no matter what you say) it's kind of a waste of time & energy.
So this idea of empathy and respect is something I wholeheartedly agree with. But what motivates those who refuse to give people with extreme views the light of day? For example, if you are under the assumption that a Trump follower is racist, how can you give a Trump follower respect and encourage their ideologies of inequality? Is there a way to achieve a better society if you refuse to listen to a group with certain ideologies? How can you achieve a better society by not listening to or even oppressing a group of people you don't like (even if they want to oppress others)?
Saying thing in a manner that the recipient is more open too does nothing to change the problems in reality. Once one ideology creates a real problem because of its implementation (Migrant crisis.) then discussion is moot. Only action matters.
I feel your study had a major flaw. You said that with the purity essay more people both agreed with conservation, and believed in global warming. You assume the essay which said nothing about global warming was the cause, instead of determining if the fact that group already believed in global warming was the variable itself. I do not believe I have met a fellow conservative that has changed their opinion on global warming without being given good evidence about it. I strongly believe that your study was more heavily affected by the people reading the purity essay than the essay itself affected them.
4:20 The list of values he attributes to conservatives is actually poisoned to the point of fantasy, and that which he attributes to liberals sweetened to the same degree. Liberals may value equality, fairness, care and protection, but they most value inclusiveness, which is usually taken to the point of loss of individual identity. It is not the conservatives who insist on "solidarity"; that is the classic cry of the left. It is not conservatives who require purity; ideological purity, in the form of political correctness, is the distinguishing mark of the liberal. As for respect for authority, libertarians - part of the conservative backlash, for sure - have no use for it at all, but listening to a doctrinaire socialist insisting on Marx is to hear the views of an authoritarian. And why does he imagine conservatives endorse a strong military if it is not that they value protection, too? The question is, what exactly are we protecting against? Fortunately, the point he makes at 9.00 is good. If you want to move someone towards approval of some policy, you should connect that policy to their underlying moral values. But if you apply that strategy, you had better have a sound understanding of what those underlying moral values actually are. This speaker doesn't.
I agree with you, especially with your last statement. I don't know if this speaker is correct about the underlying moral values of liberals or not, but I do know he's way off base about the underlying morals of conservatives. Conservatives DO care about fairness and equality and DO care about protection and care; to say otherwise is to call them heartless. It's not that they don't have those 'morals'; it's that they disagree about what actions need to be taken by 'government' to address those moral values. And actually, I feel there are more than just two groups 'liberals and conservatives'. I don't know how many but do know that there are a lot of 'liberals' who are disenfranchised with other 'liberals' -- their side has been hijacked by radical Leftists. I've had some productive conversations with 'liberals' but the radical Leftists are another matter -- they just shut down the conversation in whatever way they can -- shouting or hurling insults. The liberals I talk with share the same moral values -- again, it's the execution of those values where we differ. It's always been the execution. I have not encountered a liberal who was not patriotic; who didn't love America. But I HAVE encountered radical Leftists that hate America.
I am a socialist, can confirm, we are the runner zombies, but we mostly eat yogurt. We found its best to talk to liberals in enclosed spaces like basements and subway cars. We can also communicate our ideas in these spaces through coughing.
