Beta
Must Read on Pocket

This is one of the most-saved, read, and shared stories on Pocket.

Recommendations from Pocket Users

Rand Fishkin

Shared December 21, 2016

While it's frustrating to read how illogical and biased we all are about politics, it's also valuable to know for the next time you find yourself wanting to convince someone.

Ittay Flescher

Shared January 17, 2017

I would prefer the title of this article be, "How to listen with Empathy." Aside from that flaw, it has some important suggestions for how to engage with those who challenge us.

Guilherme Silva

Shared February 9, 2017

forget facts

Alan Johnson

Shared December 29, 2016

Great piece on effective argument

Gábor Gyebnár

Shared January 3, 2017

Some very useful tricks and a better mindset to engage in a political debate.

Julien Schléret

Shared December 30, 2016

Some people in my family could learn from this article..

Andras Baneth

Shared December 25, 2016

"Here’s where you can earn your black belt in political argument. One of the most prominent current theories through which psychologists explain differences in political beliefs is called Moral Foundations Theory, or MFT. MFT posits that there are five foundations to moral beliefs: care/harm (whether other beings are being hurt); fairness/cheating (whether people are treating others fairly); loyalty/betrayal (whether people are exhibiting loyalty to their group); authority/subversion (whether people are playing by the rules); and sanctity/degradation (whether people are sullying physical or spiritual things that are sacred). According to the theory, liberals and conservatives view these concerns differently. For liberals, care/harm and fairness/cheating are the most important of the five, while conservatives are more into loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.

This is pretty powerful knowledge, because it can help you know your opponent’s “weak points,” in a sense — which aspects of morality will resonate for them, and which won’t.

During a debate, you’re more likely to make progress “if you can appeal to the moral concerns of the people that you’re talking with,” said Jesse Graham, a USC professor who helped develop MFT. All too often, though, “there are ways in which liberals and conservatives can talk past one another in these debates.”

The idea that changing the moral framing can help convince people to rethink their views has been borne out in some as-yet-unpublished work by Feinberg and his collaborator Robb Willer, also at Stanford, in which they got conservatives to say they approved of gay marriage at a higher rate by describing gay Americans as proud, patriotic Americans with the same hopes and dreams as everyone else (invoking the loyalty/subversion foundation), and liberals to support expanded military spending by arguing that doing so would provide valuable career opportunities to low-income young people (invoking the fairness/cheating foundation). And in another study that has been published, they “largely eliminated the difference between liberals’ and conservatives’ environmental attitudes,” as they put it in the abstract, by describing environmental degradation as a threat to the planet’s purity (invoking the sanctity/degradation foundation)."

Joe Christy

Shared December 26, 2016

So:'I agree with you that black money is a problem,can you help me understand how demonetization has helped?'

Zach Mainen

Shared March 3, 2017

Its not all about facts, indeed.

Rishabh Bhargava

Shared December 30, 2016

Will be useful again 4 years from now

Trishna Menon

Shared December 26, 2016

There’s a right way to argue, and a wrong way. And too many of us, having spent countless hours watching jerks on TV scream at each other, have developed bad argumentative habits.

Jasmine Wynona

Shared January 26, 2017

👀

Ferdi Zebua

Shared April 22, 2017

Don't be a lit jerk is an important one in this list...

Raisa Roo

Shared December 24, 2016

I definitely have some bad arguing habits. I like facts too much.

Patrick T Hoffman

Shared December 25, 2016

During a debate, you’re more likely to make progress “if you can appeal to the moral concerns of the people that you’re talking with,” said Jesse Graham, a USC professor who helped develop MFT.

Bran Dolicki

Shared December 22, 2016

there are five foundations to moral beliefs: care/harm (whether other beings are being hurt); fairness/cheating (whether people are treating others fairly); loyalty/betrayal (whether people are exhibiting loyalty to their group); authority/subversion (whether people are playing by the rules); and sanctity/degradation (whether people are sullying physical or spiritual things that are sacred). According to the theory, liberals and conservatives view these concerns differently. For liberals, care/harm and fairness/cheating are the most important of the five, while conservatives are more into loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.

Agnes

Shared April 18, 2017

when people are asked to explain their beliefs about how a given thing works, they’ll actually become less confident in those beliefs.

John Calia

Shared December 22, 2016

The way to win is to construct a win-win. #politics #ROC

Paula Akugizibwe

Shared March 1, 2017

God grant me the patience...

Morgan Prince

Shared May 6, 2017

Interesting, not really sure if I want to forget facts but this is still definitely something to take into consideration.

Gareth Trufitt

Shared January 17, 2017

How to win your next political argument. Actually good advice for how to deal with any confrontational discussion.

RJ Valmadrid

Shared December 18, 2016

[This phenomenon is known as the “illusion of explanatory depth.” If you ask the average person to explain why they hold a given opinion, “They will come to realize the limitations of their own understanding,” said Frank C. Keil, a Yale University psychologist who studies intuitive beliefs and explanatory understanding. Keil cautions that this won’t necessarily lead to a change in point of view, but said that if you ask them gently and non-aggressively to walk you through their point of view, they’ll likely see the holes more.”]

Nicolas Rivard

Shared January 5, 2017

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), framing, forget facts, defuse disgust, don't be such a dick, let your opponent hang themselves - all useful strategies!

Amirreza H.

Shared January 18, 2017

When it comes to winning arguments, truthfulness and details simply don’t matter as much as we think they do.

Amirreza H.

Shared January 29, 2017

One paper by Feinberg and some colleagues suggests simply asking your adversary not to be disgusted could be a surprisingly successful strategy.

Amirreza H.

Shared January 29, 2017

liberals and conservatives view these concerns differently. For liberals, care/harm and fairness/cheating are the most important of the five, while conservatives are more into loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.

This is pretty powerful knowledge, because it can help you know your opponent’s “weak points,” in a sense — which aspects of morality will resonate for them, and which won’t.

Kyle Geib

Shared February 28, 2017

Yuuuup.

Josh Berkowitz

Shared December 22, 2016

You’ve probably gotten in a political argument in the recent past, whether with your nutso cousin at Thanksgiving or your militantly ignorant co-worker at a happy hour.

And you’ll probably get in another political argument sometime in the near future. Hard as it may be to believe, you can actually win these arguments. Here’s how.

Rupen Seoni

Shared December 23, 2016

Useful!

Vivien Kwok

Shared December 22, 2016

When it comes to winning arguments, truthfulness and details simply don’t matter as much as we think they do.

“People think emotionally, and they very often will have these gut moral intuitions that certain things are right or wrong,”

Lily Elmore

Shared December 25, 2016

Great tips for more effective political arguments with my grandpa.

Paul Peinado

Shared January 12, 2017

Useful!

Osman Baskaya

Shared February 15, 2017

I don't agree some of the arguments that the article suggests. Especially the one that you suppose to avoid pointing out facts (#1). It's still useful in some context to provide facts. I think sharing facts requires more advanced conversation skills. (1) It may create new discussions recursively. (2) If the source is disliked by your opponent, it erodes the trust and emerges "ad hominem" attacks.

Changing the dynamic according to the person and his/her moral priorities (Moral Foundations Theory) seems really logical.

Practical? Yes. That said, it's unfortunate that how we say is more important than what we say.

Osman Baskaya

Shared February 15, 2017

I don't agree some of the arguments that the article suggests. Especially the one that you suppose to avoid pointing out facts (#1). It's still useful in some context to provide facts. I think sharing facts requires more advanced conversation skills. (1) It may create new discussions recursively. (2) If the source is disliked by your opponent, it erodes the trust and emerges "ad hominem" attacks.

Changing the dynamic according to the person and his/her moral priorities (Moral Foundations Theory) seems really logical.

Practical? Yes. That said, it's unfortunate that how we say is more important than what we say.

Michael St. Germain

Shared April 8, 2017

Don't be a dick.

Иван Ветошкин

Shared April 10, 2017

“People think emotionally, and they very often will have these gut moral intuitions that certain things are right or wrong,” said Matthew Feinberg, a psychologist at Stanford. The process of belief formation runs in the opposite direction than we’d hope: People “come to the conclusion first, and then the reasons they kind of pull out just to support their beliefs.”

Eric Sweet

Shared December 23, 2016

This might come in handy over the next, oh I don't know, say 4 years or so.

Eric Olson

Shared December 31, 2016

Reshape your approach

Stewart Morris

Shared January 10, 2017

Worth remembering!

Adrey Low

Shared December 30, 2016

runs

Adrian Nadim

Shared January 15, 2017

a bit to high of vocabulary for me, but very helpful nevertheless. recommend for those who likes to be in the middle of a heated argument or Just be more accepted in a small discussion, Political ones nor non-political ones

Eric Woon

Shared January 18, 2017

you’re being calm and respectfu

Xaver Maltese

Shared February 21, 2017

Great read

Corey Moore

Shared February 23, 2017

Food for thought.

Joseph Rockoo

Shared March 9, 2017

but said that if you ask them gently and non-aggressively to walk you through their point of view, they’ll likely see the holes more.”

reza shahmoradi

Shared March 15, 2017

"According to the theory, liberals and conservatives view these concerns differently. For liberals, care/harm and fairness/cheating are the most important of the five, while conservatives are more into loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation."

Tyrone Whittenburg

Shared April 10, 2017

Both sides of the aisle could take something from this.

Stephanie Bell

Shared April 17, 2017

Interesting

Josh Javier

Shared April 18, 2017

Ah, the power of subtlety.

Anthony Sclafani

Shared April 27, 2017

Ready, set, debate!

Kristian Grönberg

Shared May 16, 2017

“When people have their self-worth validated in some way, they tend to be more receptive to information that challenges their beliefs,” said Peter Ditto, #social

“When people have their self-worth validated in some way, they tend to be more receptive to information that challenges their beliefs,” said Peter Ditto,

Grupo Persona

Shared May 27, 2017

Essencial.

Michael Croxford

Shared December 22, 2016

Thought provoking psychology

Randy Dykhuis

Shared December 23, 2016

Hey, DG. Here are some tips for the next time you're arguing with your relatives.

Craig Bovis

Shared February 20, 2017

The idea that changing the moral framing can help convince people to rethink their views has been borne out in some as-yet-unpublished work by Feinberg and his collaborator Robb Willer, also at Stanford, in which they got conservatives to say they approved of gay marriage at a higher rate by describing gay Americans as proud, patriotic Americans with the same hopes and dreams as everyone else (invoking the loyalty/subversion foundation), and liberals to support expanded military spending by arguing that doing so would provide valuable career opportunities to low-income young people (invoking the fairness/cheating foundation). And in another study that has been published, they “largely eliminated the difference between liberals’ and conservatives’ environmental attitudes,” as they put it in the abstract, by describing environmental degradation as a threat to the planet’s purity (invoking the sanctity/degradation foundation).

Craig Bovis

Shared February 20, 2017

The idea that changing the moral framing can help convince people to rethink their views has been borne out in some as-yet-unpublished work by Feinberg and his collaborator Robb Willer, also at Stanford, in which they got conservatives to say they approved of gay marriage at a higher rate by describing gay Americans as proud, patriotic Americans with the same hopes and dreams as everyone else (invoking the loyalty/subversion foundation), and liberals to support expanded military spending by arguing that doing so would provide valuable career opportunities to low-income young people (invoking the fairness/cheating foundation).

Elizabeth Wawrzyniak

Shared March 27, 2017

MFT posits that there are five foundations to moral beliefs: care/harm (whether other beings are being hurt); fairness/cheating (whether people are treating others fairly); loyalty/betrayal (whether people are exhibiting loyalty to their group); authority/subversion (whether people are playing by the rules); and sanctity/degradation (whether people are sullying physical or spiritual things that are sacred). According to the theory, liberals and conservatives view these concerns differently. For liberals, care/harm and fairness/cheating are the most important of the five, while conservatives are more into loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.