I just read this article: http://theaimn.com/is-it-a-fact-that-all-you-need-is-the-facts/
It makes a good – and interesting – point that in order to change minds, we need to be able to think similarly to those we’re talking with. Not in an “on their level” sort of way, but an “in their terms” sort of way.
Basically, while a rant on here about politics and such may feel therapeutic for me, it will only preach to the converted. Facts don’t help; we humans are creatures that thrive on believing in our own bulls***. There’s even been a suggestion this is wired into us in our brains – I would assume by our early-life experiences.
Quoted from the article: “According to research, there are identifiable differences in the brains of conservatives and progressives. Apparently conservatives have demonstrably ‘a more threat-oriented and reactionary mindset than liberals’ (i.e. progressives in the US.) ….
Cognitive linguist George Lakoff has written extensively on the way in which voters interpret the political messages they hear. He postulates that we all have two competing frames in our heads, though one is usually more dominant than the other. One is the ‘authoritarian father’ frame. Lakoff argues that for some voters, the metaphor of the nation as family and government as parent evokes the strict parent, who provides discipline, and values responsibility, morality and self-sufficiency. Such voters favour independence from government, patriotism and aggressive foreign policy, and abhor welfare and public spending on things like health and education. The other is the ‘nurturing parent’ model, where parents – ie the state – work to keep citizens away from ‘corrupting influences’ such as pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc. He’s not suggesting that these frames are completely inflexible, but he is saying that the concept of ‘welfare’, for example, will be seen quite differently according the frame of reference of the voter.”
So next time you’re having a conversation with someone of a different ‘ideology’, remember this. It might save a bit of frustration.
Facts are useful, for this. But they need, perhaps to be delivered correctly. Or it’ll just become another big argument. And I don’t know about you, but I’m getting sick of those.
We need to reshape the debate somehow. Anyone got any ideas?