As the nation enters the primary season, particularly in the
Democratic Party, one might find oneself wanting to convince someone of a
policy position or the benefits of one candidate over another. Common experience readily indicates that
attempting to do so can be touchy and lead to disagreeable exchanges with
others. A lot of what causes that is how
people think. A pair of this blog’s prior
postings addresses this topic.
The reader is
invited to click on the postings entitled “Seeing or Reasoning” (February 19,
2019) and “Automatic Cognitive Process” (February 22, 2019). There, this writer reviewed the work of
Jonathan Haidt.[1] Further, the postings described what has
become a somewhat famous analogy that Haidt uses to describe the relative
strengths of intuitive thinking and reasoning.
That analogy pictures a rider (representing reason) aboard an unruly elephant
(representing intuitive/emotional thinking).
Summarily, as
a person approaches a new situation or setting, with its stimuli, he/she reacts
– usually unconsciously – from an intuitive and/or emotional base of cognition
(loosely defined). Most of those stimuli
do not trigger a conscious reaction; they are not judged as important
enough. If the reader is asked, what is
the color of something on a table within eyesight, but across the room, chances
are the reader would need to look.
Initially, the item did not catch his/her attention although its image
did cross his/her vision.
But then there
are those stimuli that are important enough to draw one’s attention. Again, the mind settles on an intuitive/emotional
response – from strong antagonism to neutrality to strong acceptance or
attraction. To this degree of considered
importance, attention was drawn, and some initial reaction came forth, but
again, no or very little reflection is extended to the stimulus.
To graduate from reflexiveness to
reflection, the item not only needs to be important enough, but one’s reaction
needs to be questioned by some practicality or some reaction by another person. Using Haidt’s analogy, those initial
reactions demonstrates the elephant doing its thing. And the vast number of reactions do not usually
engage the rider. That rider needs to be
convinced to get involved. And if
involved, the reaction usually is post hoc; that is, the rider
rationalizes some acceptable – by some social norm or value – reason for what
has already been said or done.
Given this state of affairs, one can
readily see why trying to convince some people of something they do not already
agree with can be a hazardous or, at least, daunting challenge. Haidt addresses this challenge directly. He gives advice of how one can go about the
effort. But before recounting his
overall advice, it is useful to remind the reader of his reference of Dale
Carnegie’s advice:
1.
convey warmth, respect, and a
willingness to listen before uttering opinions or beliefs;
2.
develop the ability to see things from
the point of view of the other person; and
3.
with a deep seated – intuitive –
ability, respect the other’s position by which one can engender true empathy.
And now here is Haidt’s summary
advice:
1.
Be
cognizant that he/herself has a two-part mind – a controlled process part and an
automatic process part – and that goes for everyone else.
2.
Understand
that the automatic part (the elephant) is the much stronger part and the controlled
part (the rider) is much weaker and serves the stronger part.
3.
The
aim to change someone else’s mind should begin by imparting or instilling some doubt
in the automatic induced thinking of that other person and that should be at
some emotional level. That can and
usually takes the form of highlighting some harbored moral feeling or belief
the target has and can solicit from him/her a question or two. Of main importance is to understand a
reasoned argument does not survive on its own merits but must be linked to some
already held position with its emotional rationale.
This does not guarantee success, but this approach gives one a
chance at changing someone else’s mind.
To quote
Haidt,
Therefore, if you want to change
someone’s mind about a moral or political issue, talk to the elephant
first. If you ask people to believe something
that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an
escape hatch – a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion. They will almost always succeed.[2]
And with that, this former civics teacher wishes luck to
present civics teachers as the nation enters the politicking season of the
upcoming months.
No comments:
Post a Comment