Not long ago a study, which I posted on my FaceBook page, informed us that discussion can take place when folks are asked to explain their opinions. The study pointed out the need for us to begin to communicate instead of argue and offered a path to wider agreement—one of patiently hearing out a full and complete explanation. The idea behind this approach is referred to as an “Illusion of Understanding.” 1 Why does this work?
Informed?
The reason we find people are willing to begin talking instead of arguing comes down to their own discovery of how little they know about a subject. One of my favorite examples of how sound bytes become thought processes, comes from the old debate over school vouchers. I flesh all of this out entirely in my book, “Gotcha! The Subordination of Free Will,” but for our purposes here, we can use just one simple example.
The liberal side of school vouchers was phrased in a survey this way, “Should poor taxpayers be forced to pay for rich kids to go to private schools?” The conservative side of this issue was phrased this way, “Should poor taxpayers be forced to work two jobs in order to pay for their children’s private education since our public schools are failing so badly.”
Talking Points
Now with these two positions, voters argued over school vouchers. (You should note that very few people heard both versions of the same question, and that alone would have prompted more questioning.) Not many actually fleshed the issue out with questions like, “Who uses school vouchers? How do they impact public education? Where will the money come from? Are they used anywhere and if so, how do they work?” etc.
Recently I read an article that drives this point home. Chris Enloe, writing for the Blaze, reported a conversation between PJ Media’s Roger Simon and Bernie Sanders supporters who had just attended a Sanders rally. He first gained confirmation that the supporters opposed the involvement of billionaires in politics. He easily obtained comments such as these two:
“I think that it’s about time someone stood up to the billionaires, and I think that it’s time that they start paying their fair share of taxes so we can get free public college and everything Bernie is standing for,” one supporter said.
“Big money in politics distorts what legislators do,” another added. 2
What do you think of money in politics?
Compromised
Now, after obtaining the agreement from Sanders’ followers, Simon asked about MoveOn.org. The Sanders supporters were all familiar with MoveOn and they endorsed them, expressing gratitude for MoveOn’s support of Sanders. 3
Here’s the punch line, and the point of this commentary. MoveOn.org is funded by several billionaires including George Soros, a man many times richer than Trump.
I have written before about what typically follows this sort of personal discovery. Once we recognize that our positions are mutually exclusive, we find a rationalization. In this instance, the rationalization went this way, “Well at least they’re using their money for a good cause.”
Dissonance
The next time you have a conversation with someone about any issue where you might disagree, encourage them to fully explain their position. They may well find that, as with the school vouchers, they really don’t possess a full understanding, and just as the study I mentioned earlier points out, this softens their view and makes conversation possible. The next time you want to converse with someone about a contentious issue, watch for the dissonance and expect a rationalization—but a word of caution, don’t call them out on it, just continue your conversation politely and hope that the seeds you planted will grow later.
Thanks for the read,
Eldon Taylor
Provocative Enlightenment
NY Time Bestselling Author of Choices and Illusions
www.eldontaylor.com
Sources:
1 https://news.bitofnews.com/the-scientific-way-to-win-an-argument/
2 https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/01/you-got-egg-on-my-face-after-bernie-sanders-supporters-excoriate-billionaires-they-get-hit-with-an-uncomfortable-truth/
3 Ibid