There is a pandemic raging in the United States. No, not that one. I’m talking about a pandemic of pointless political argument – argument that does not lead to resolution or action, but only divides people, and thereby makes effective action to deal with problems less likely. When those arguments occur within families or among friends, we risk alienating the people we care about the most. Sometimes we don’t seem to be able to help ourselves, even though winning the argument might mean losing the relationship.
What can be done about that pandemic? Well, we might start where doctors do – primum non nocere, first do no harm. Or as my daddy used to sing: “Honey, if you can’t say anything real nice, it’s better not to talk at all, that’s my advice.” We might call that the Prime Directive of political discussions with people we love.
Implementing the Prime Directive
I would urge you, before starting or continuing the conversation, to follow Simon Sinek and start with why. Why are you having this discussion? There are several potential reasons people might rush in where angels fear to tread.
- Settling old family scores:
- Your brother has always been an obnoxious moron who needs to be put in his place.
- Your big sister was mean to you when you were 13, and you have still not gotten over it.
- Mom liked your little brother more.
- , etc., etc.
- They started it.
- You are right, and they are wrong.
Category 1 is not really worth talking about. You can’t change the past, and you won’t heal old wounds by creating new ones. Follow the Prime Directive, and if that doesn’t work, get some therapy.
Ditto for Category 2. If the argument is not worth having, or not necessary, what difference does it make who started it? It doesn’t pose any real threat to you. So why can’t you ignore it? If you follow this question to its ultimate conclusion, I suspect you end up in either Category 1 or Category 3.
Category 3 sounds good, but needs to be unpacked. If your goal is to humiliate the other person by proving them wrong, you are actually in Category 1. If engaging in the conversation is about your need to humiliate, you should figure out why your ego needs to be supported, and go get that support in a less destructive way.
On the other hand, you might feel that you have important insights into why our country is heading in the wrong direction, but no one is listening — maybe to the point where you feel you have to express yourself, or you will burst. There is an authoritarian takeover (or a socialist apocalypse) on the horizon, and no one seems to be taking it seriously!! There is a natural tendency to start your exercise in self-expression with those nearest and dearest to you, but remember the Prime Directive. Is there a way to scratch your itch without dragging unwilling family members and friends into it? Maybe a journal, or a blog? Something that is only available to people who want to see it?
But what if the fact that you are right and they are wrong makes you genuinely want to change their minds? That is certainly more admirable. But it would be more admirable still if you acknowledged that they might be right and you might be wrong, at least in part. And if you really want to persuade them, you should use methods proven to be effective. Those methods do not include shouting someone down, calling them names, or otherwise showing disrespect or contempt for their cherished views. So, if you need to engage with family and friends despite the Prime Directive, you might try the following approach.
A Modest Proposal for Rules of Friendly Engagement
Rule #1. Be humble. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others. In fact, what is obvious to you may simply be wrong. Amos Twersky and Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel prize for pointing out how our brains are hard-wired to reach bad conclusions, and how we will continue to reach the same bad conclusions even after someone points out the error.
Start with the assumption that the other side might have something to teach you. You only short-change yourself if you don’t allow for that possibility. If you want to make progress, be persuadable. And even if your primary goal is to win the argument, you want to win against the best form of the argument, not some watered-down straw man.
Rule # 2. Listen. In her revolutionary book, Time to Think, Nancy Kline shows how the right kind of listening can help people do their best thinking. Why not help the people you care about think more clearly?
In The Undoing Project, Michael Lewis quotes Daniel Kahneman. “Reforms always create winners and losers, and the losers always fight harder than the winners.” Based on his own experience Kahneman concluded that you cannot get people to change by bullying them, you have to identify the reasons for their resistance and address those. He found that you can help people change just by hearing them out.
One of Steven Covey’s habits of highly effective people is: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” You may have noticed how hard it is to understand someone else when you are the one doing the talking, or when, instead of really listening to what they say, you are busy rehearsing your devastating response. If you want truly to understand, and if you want to bring out whatever is valid and valuable in their argument, stop and listen. Rather than immediately challenging each assertion, ask questions to clarify their thinking rather than going on the offensive.
You might ask: “What is the principle behind your assertion? Would you apply it in other situations?” If they are stuck, don’t pounce. Keep listening patiently while they work it out. You may be pleasantly surprised by what they say. Or you might ask what Nancy Kline calls an “incisive question” to get them unstuck, while remaining open to being persuaded.
Rule # 3. Frame the discussion as an argument in a debate. An argument has a flow, starting with agreed principles and using facts and logic to move to a call for action. A genuine debate doesn’t make people more argumentative; it creates a structure where argument can be effective, and not degenerate to shouting talking points past each other. It avoids random incendiary observations that set people off without moving the discussion forward. Asserting that the world is controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who kill children and drink their blood is not an argument. It only becomes an argument when you add the critical fact that only Donald Trump can save us from this cabal, and that therefore everyone should vote for him. Once there is an argument on the table, you can start to address the issues.
Before responding to an initial assertion, ask the other person to sketch out the entire argument. If they don’t really have an argument, and just want to sound off about something, you may feel you have a better use of your time. Apply the Prime Directive; argument avoided. Asking for an argument outline can also help them to stay on track, and help you recognize when they are getting off track.
One other point in favor of debates and formal argument: our human brains naturally engage in something the social scientists call “illusory pattern perception.” The same ability that lets us see the lion hiding in the tall grass also makes us susceptible to conspiracy theories. The best weapon in the fight against illusory pattern perception, in ourselves or others, is rigorous adherence to principles of good argument.
Rule 4. Stick to the argument that the other person has framed. One major advantage of knowing the other person’s overall argument at the beginning is that it can help you avoid bringing up irrelevant points. Typically, this leads them to bring up stuff irrelevant to your comment, as well as to their original issue, and before you know it, you are exchanging volleys of talking points. For example, if someone is arguing that Donald Trump is a vampire, you could point out that Joe Biden is a senile zombie controlled by Kamala Harris and AOC, but that would not help the two of you agree on where Donald Trump sleeps or what he drinks. To avoid that sinkhole, if you want introduce a new topic, submit your own post, or start a new discussion later, to make your point.
Rule 5. Seek agreement: Not just on the ultimate resolution, but on things large and small. While the other person is talking, tease out statements that you can agree with, and state your agreement. Agreement on small points can improve tone, and even the relationship, and pave the way for better listening and big agreements later. Our country is on the verge of being ripped apart no matter who wins in November. It is going to be critical that in the aftermath we find ways to agree with each other. We might as well start now.
Sometimes you don’t hear anything you can agree with. When you disagree, do so without being disagreeable. State your own views in a straightforward non-argumentative way, leaving yourself open to correction and persuasion. For example, you might say: “While I agree that Joe Biden is senile and zombie-like sometimes, I strongly disagree that Kamala Harris is in control. In fact, his strings are being pulled by Hilary Clinton and a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles.” See how much nicer that sounds?
Rule 6. Avoid known bad arguments. This does not require a full application of BZL principles, or taking out your notes from Thinking, Fast and Slow. It does mean being aware of some of the basic logic traps:
- Bias. The fact that someone is biased does not mean they are wrong. As they say, even a blind pig, etc. So don’t just claim bias, but show why the argument is wrong, using facts and logic.
- Name-calling. Colorful adjectives may spice up your argument, but they do nothing to advance the argument, even if they don’t derail it. They also suggest you may be papering over weaknesses by asking someone to assume things that are at issue, e.g. whether Donald Trump is a vampire or a reptilian. (For the record, most people think Trump is the larval stage of Jabba the Hut, so I guess that counts as reptilian, though strictly speaking he should be classified as an amphibian.)
- Hypocrisy. Saying that someone took the opposite view in the past does not mean they are wrong now. Maybe they came to their senses. Consider this: if you accuse the other side of hypocrisy, and your side engages in hypocrisy too, what does that make you?
- Binary thinking. Proving the other side wrong does not prove that you are right. You could both be wrong, and, in all likelihood, probably both are to some extent. This also applies when arguing about authorities. The fact that the other guy’s expert sources are wrong does not prove that your expert sources are right. For example, showing that the hockey stick graph for global warming is inaccurate does not prove that global warming is not a threat. That requires a separate analysis explaining observed phenomena in a scientific way.
Last, but certainly not least:
Rule 7. Don’t be a jerk. Don’t impugn the other side’s motives or intelligence. Don’t be dismissive or smug. Don’t spike the football – you probably haven’t crossed the goal line yet, and where I come from, we call that a fumble. When you feel the urge to spike the ball, consider whether you really belong in Category 1 instead of Category 3, and apply the Prime Directive.
I don’t know for sure that my modest proposal will help avoid destructive arguments between people who love one another, but I am applying these principles myself, starting tomorrow. I would be interested in hearing how they work out for you.
