Discussion and Persuasion

6. Civic Knowledge and Skills

This introductory article was written by ChatGPT at the direction of Heidi Burgess, who reviewed, edited, and approved the final content.
For more information

In many conflicts, people try to get others to change by pressuring, shaming, or overpowering them. Sometimes power has to be used, especially when urgent protection is needed. But when the goal is to change minds, build support, or solve a shared problem, coercion often produces resistance.

Respectful discussion works differently. It begins with the possibility that the other person has reasons for believing what they believe, even if those reasons seem wrong or incomplete. As BI’s communication materials emphasize, conflict strains communication and can turn ordinary disagreement into misunderstanding, rumor, and emotional argument. Discussion tries to reopen the space in which people can think together.

Persuasion is most effective when it is not treated as a one-way transmission of superior knowledge. In polarized conflicts, people often do not agree about which sources are credible or even which facts are facts. Telling people to “trust the science” may sound reasonable to those who already trust scientists, but it is unlikely to persuade those who believe scientific institutions have become politicized or unreliable. The National Academies has criticized the simple “deficit model” of communication, which assumes that public disagreement is mostly caused by a lack of information. People also interpret information through their values, identities, experiences, and judgments about who can be trusted.

This does not mean that facts do not matter. It means that facts usually need to be embedded in a relationship of enough trust to be heard. Research on deep canvassing, associated with David Broockman and Joshua Kalla, suggests that people are more open to reconsidering their views when they are asked sincere questions, listened to without contempt, and invited into an exchange of personal stories. A related study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that people often respect moral and political views more when those views are grounded in personal experience, rather than presented only as abstract facts. Stories help explain where a belief comes from. They can make a position intelligible, even before they make it persuasive.

Another important tool is moral reframing. People often try to persuade others by appealing to the values that matter most to themselves. But if the listener is moved by different moral concerns, that argument may miss the mark. Research on morally reframed arguments suggests that persuasion can be more effective when people explain their case in terms that connect with the listener’s own values. This should not mean manipulation or saying things one does not believe. It means taking the other person’s moral world seriously enough to speak to it. Someone concerned about climate change, for example, might talk not only about environmental protection, but also about stewardship, local resilience, or protecting children from avoidable harm.

Good discussion does not require people to hide their convictions. It does require humility about how much can be accomplished by lecturing. A persuasive conversation often begins with questions: What have you seen that leads you to that conclusion? What worries you most? What would count as a fair outcome? It also helps to acknowledge uncertainty, explain one’s own reasoning, and look for partial agreements that can become starting points for increased understanding, trust, and possibly joint action.

Discussion will not always produce agreement, and some conflicts involve real power struggles that cannot be talked away. But when people are willing to listen, tell the truth about their own experience, and search for interests beneath positions, persuasion becomes more than a contest over who wins the argument. It becomes a way of discovering whether there is a path forward that more people can live with.

—————————

This page was created by ChatGPT in response to this prompt. It was then reviewed, edited, supplemented and approved by Heidi Burgess. More information about how and why we are using AI in this way, and about the growing number of ways in which Beyond Intractability is using ChatGPT, Claude and other AI systems to generate content and build out the BI system, is available on our BI/AI Overview Page.