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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I am very sad about where my country is going.. and when I try to talk about politics everyone starts to fight because no one actually wants to hear others opinions
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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
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
*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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
How do you have better political conversations with people who are clinically delusional, cognitively impaired, and heavily compartmentalized mentally?
The true is that above specific level of intelligence you shouldn't talk like liberal or conservative. Instead you should use logic and the other side can't argue with logic, because everybody take logic as ultimate truth. The rest of the people, people that can't take the logical truths shouldn't be even allowed to vote.
This was the year I learned, much go my horror, EXACTLY how the Left felt about moderates, even left leaning ones (such as myself) who weren't "leftist enough". I learned what they truly thought of free speech. And I learned that the Left is FAR more violent and far less tolerant of dissenting viewpoints than the Right. This year, I woke up.
Darth Vader voice* Welcome to the dark side. Evil laugh* We have cookies and Pepe memes (fun), or you can join Shia Lebarf with their blank stares and mindless and meaningless mantra of "he will not divide us". No Shia, he won't divide us, but you and your ilk are doing a fine job of that already. May the light of kek shine into and through your thick skull.
I would like to think of myself as an independent as well, and my experience was different. Yes, I did have a person or two (generally considered on the left) who behaved as you describe. I also had (more than a few) experiences with those same things from those generally considered to be on the right. In other words, I get the conclusion you reached, but I didn't have the same experience, and so I don't have any common basis to understand what you are saying.
You didn't wake up, you just found out the left is as bad as the right. Trump's in power, so the right has no need to have violent protests, but across europe the right is fighting back quite literally. Just last week in the UK a man kicked a muslim woman in the stomach causing her to lose her twins she was carrying, and far right splinter groups like Britain first literally old rallies with an armoured land rover that they use for "christian patrols". You woke up in that you found out the left has an ugly side. It really does. But its pretty much the same on the right. they just arent violent because they're winning.
Thomas Richardson - I despair of there being any further civil, moderate, rational political discussions left in my lifetime. We are being polarized, for sure. It has just been such a shock to me how violent and contemptuous the Left is - en masse! I guess, in my naiveté, I always thought they were better and more tolerant of moderates than that. Actually, I'm thankful, bc it's broken down some of my bias against the Right, allowing me some fresh and challenging ideas. It's also not lost on me that the Right (even the far right) here in the US has remained mostly, if not entirely, peaceful even in the face of being physically and verbally attacked by the Left.
good video. if everyone could understand the hypocrisy in their own ideologies this would help. "don't judge a book by its cover" for liberals becomes an over compensation where they do still in fact judge everyone by their covers, but change the views so that they just judge white people poorly so as not to judge others. they say to be empathetic but then hold no empathy for dissenting opinions. a new centre should come from this polarisation.
Looking at the comments I thought this video was going to have some pretty extreme bias, but there really isn't anything you can't take away from this, liberal or conservative (or libertarian), you shouldn't feel attacked. It treats both sides equally. This is purely information, just use it.
This comment section is already proof that we need to talk about this...
and its a good thing we are
silentstorm
"Empathy and respect"
People in the comment section didn't even learn the message of the video though, they're just keep fighting
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
Totally caught that too. Sneaky guy, great examples of persuasive rhetoric we can use to connect to “opponents”
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.
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.
yay someone who knows a little of the Socratic method
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.
+Derek Moore
You may well be right about that.
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
Pretty sure I'll get to the libertarian parts of readings soon cos it's been kinda overlooked
+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.
Seems like most commenters kinda missed the point of the video.
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...
Yeah, those fucking idiots, when will they learn. Those fascist fucking cucks.
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".
It happened on Facebook too which is where I just saw this
Beliefs are some of the strongest human passions and emotions, it's hard to unit people who are already so divided
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
JohnnyBunning pretty much this
realy i thought it was the opposite
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.
JohnnyBunning well said
Step 0: convince both of them to enter the same room without threatening violence.
They should make the downvote button on TH-cam work again, so you can actually vote down the bullshit.
Ariana I know right?
"If you want to persuade someone on some policy, it's helpful to connect that policy to their underlying moral values."
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.
"Let's put this country back together." 👏🏼
It miiiiiiight.... create Hope and Make America Great.
Amen sister!
Wasn’t together in the first place. We’re getting there though, emancipatory movements always see themselves though
If you are watching this in 2021 like me, you know you have reached that burnout phase and just need resolve.
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
he didnt say that not realy he said we should sympathise with others
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
1:36 This part would go very differently had the talk been held after the Civil War movie
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.
I am very sad about where my country is going.. and when I try to talk about politics everyone starts to fight because no one actually wants to hear others opinions
Yeah we have freedom of speech but we need to respect other people’s freedom of speech as well
That's the case in most major countries I'm afraid. We live in a highly polarized world.
Try listening before trying to assert your opinion.
@@markuschelios6891 excuse me?
We all need this
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.
Thank You Dr. Roblyer for inspiring me to watch this.
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.
They took down his Social Psychology lectures from TH-cam, what a shame! They were my favourite...
lol I see what you did there with that conclusion. Appeal to both sides. Definitely made me interested in giving this a try.
This was amazing.
Good insight; I hope the public follows suit.
*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.
Agreed this both applies to liberals and conservatives.
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.
Scott Exactly
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.
If you become a free-thinking individual, you stand on the right. There is no free thought allowed on the left.
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?
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.
Hahaha, clever closing argument, ticked those boxes very well!
Literally everyone in America should be required to watch this video
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
Excellent talk....
good talk, learned the most imp lessons in life
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
Essential viewing for all of us today
*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.
So true!
If we all start twisting the argument to persuade the other side, we still won't come to a consensus.
political talk aside, can we talk about that lady's forehead at 3:03? DAMN!
Who else noticed what he was doing in his end speech?
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.
I didn't notice. What was he doing?
He was appealing to both Liberals and Conservatives by appealing to both empathy (liberal value) and respect (conservative value).
hes a psychologist hes trying to get people to talk what else is he supposed to do
I thought that it was such a cool and smart way to end it
great topic, but he didnt actually give the 'how' on how to have a better conversations with eachother
What? You mean twisting their moral values to fit your positions and tricking them to side with you doesn't accomplish better conversations? :D /S
He literally said it starts with us . . . You need to be empathic and have respect for one another so that proper discussions can happen
yooo at 2:01 I fukin died
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
josh mcgee I don't think he was shaming anyone. Just making an observation on how politics actually effect our love life.
REEE ARE THE CURE!
We live in a time that makes it quite a moot point.
The real problem is that 'Merica loves to label people... Stop that.
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.
Care to clarify on those values, Starsky?
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)
This is kinda late lol
for real
Texas Winter Better late than never. Still relevant.
2022 and I find this incredibly insightful. It’s Never too late to be better.
PREACH
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.
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.
Isn't this a repost?
pretty good
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
Michael Hart
universal healthcare*
FTFY
Israel Rosales what's ftfy?
Michael Hart Fixed that for you
Israel Rosales ah okay. Thanks
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?
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"
Why don't we base policy on empirical reality instead of ideology.
most vital "how to politics" video ever
Only if it's implemented. 2021 - still in Act 2.
Its simple resource based economic or nuclear war. But In our case it will be talking ot tv shows.
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?
How to have better political conversations: Don't.
Lol
I always wanted to be in a buddy cop movie.
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.
Value change, and therefore are not a part of biology
Values come from the way you were raised, where you have lived, etc. Not really biology
This is a lot like the Rogerian argument style
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.
I like how he talks about turning conservatives into liberals but not the other way. He showed his hand.
I would love to move to a conservative area. I am so done dating liberal women. But I'm stuck in NYC because I have kids here.
let's flood trumps twitter with tweets about this video ... 😅😅😅
Don't engage with Trumpets. A) They are wrong B) They will do everything they can to insult you and your candidate/position C) They are wrong.
3:36 starts
there's no translation to Arabic
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.
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.
Pro tip: you cant
You didn't even have the time to watch the video and you've already disagreed....
yes and whats wrong with that
silentstorm joke
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 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.
#GaryJohnson2020
Simply put, if you've EVER taken politics seriously, the joke is on you. You'll figure it out eventually.
US needs to be 2 nationa, like many other nations
sup
They go against everything I believe. 🤔🤔
Step 1: Food and Drink
WOW HELLO GUYS
Meanwhile, in the Philippines:
Does anyone actually think that they're on one side of a zombie apocolypse movie? Is America genuinely this polarised?! I'm calling bullshit.
he didnt mention the BIGGEST difference between liberal and conservative.... big government vs small government
i wonder what would happen if he was on cnn or fox...
How do you have better political conversations with people who are clinically delusional, cognitively impaired, and heavily compartmentalized mentally?
The underlying assumption is that it is a problem that the people are torn apart.
I don't think that's a problem at all. Just yell away.
Best way to settle it. Split the country in 2, and see which version of the country thrives, and with one implodes. ;)
The true is that above specific level of intelligence you shouldn't talk like liberal or conservative. Instead you should use logic and the other side can't argue with logic, because everybody take logic as ultimate truth. The rest of the people, people that can't take the logical truths shouldn't be even allowed to vote.
Quetzalcoatlv3 Well, there goes 75% of America's voting population.
This was the year I learned, much go my horror, EXACTLY how the Left felt about moderates, even left leaning ones (such as myself) who weren't "leftist enough". I learned what they truly thought of free speech. And I learned that the Left is FAR more violent and far less tolerant of dissenting viewpoints than the Right. This year, I woke up.
how far left is left
Darth Vader voice* Welcome to the dark side. Evil laugh*
We have cookies and Pepe memes (fun), or you can join Shia Lebarf with their blank stares and mindless and meaningless mantra of "he will not divide us".
No Shia, he won't divide us, but you and your ilk are doing a fine job of that already. May the light of kek shine into and through your thick skull.
I would like to think of myself as an independent as well, and my experience was different. Yes, I did have a person or two (generally considered on the left) who behaved as you describe. I also had (more than a few) experiences with those same things from those generally considered to be on the right.
In other words, I get the conclusion you reached, but I didn't have the same experience, and so I don't have any common basis to understand what you are saying.
You didn't wake up, you just found out the left is as bad as the right. Trump's in power, so the right has no need to have violent protests, but across europe the right is fighting back quite literally. Just last week in the UK a man kicked a muslim woman in the stomach causing her to lose her twins she was carrying, and far right splinter groups like Britain first literally old rallies with an armoured land rover that they use for "christian patrols".
You woke up in that you found out the left has an ugly side. It really does. But its pretty much the same on the right. they just arent violent because they're winning.
Thomas Richardson - I despair of there being any further civil, moderate, rational political discussions left in my lifetime. We are being polarized, for sure. It has just been such a shock to me how violent and contemptuous the Left is - en masse! I guess, in my naiveté, I always thought they were better and more tolerant of moderates than that. Actually, I'm thankful, bc it's broken down some of my bias against the Right, allowing me some fresh and challenging ideas. It's also not lost on me that the Right (even the far right) here in the US has remained mostly, if not entirely, peaceful even in the face of being physically and verbally attacked by the Left.
good video. if everyone could understand the hypocrisy in their own ideologies this would help. "don't judge a book by its cover" for liberals becomes an over compensation where they do still in fact judge everyone by their covers, but change the views so that they just judge white people poorly so as not to judge others. they say to be empathetic but then hold no empathy for dissenting opinions. a new centre should come from this polarisation.
Looking at the comments I thought this video was going to have some pretty extreme bias, but there really isn't anything you can't take away from this, liberal or conservative (or libertarian), you shouldn't feel attacked. It treats both sides equally. This is purely information, just use it.
people want that emotional kick of "owning" someone. politics is just the backwards rationalization to accomplish it lol
Conservatives nowadays seem more liberal than liberals.
That makes sense! I've been wasting my breath all this time! Oh the irony!
Did not learn anything useful at all
When in Rome?