Just shamelessly borrowed from this and other Smart Politics content for an upcoming presentation I'm doing about MAGA cult deprogramming to some local activist groups. Thanks for everything you do. You have one of the best resources out there on how to actually reach out to MAGA voters and bring them back to reality. We can never heal this nation by fighting them we must win them back. Everyone is persuadable if you're willing to do the work!
The problem here is that if it's a matter of dueling stories, why should the truthful amateur's story win over the professional liar's story? By definition, the professional liars are going to be much better at it, since it's what they do all the time. I'm aware this question may not have a good answer.
My personal answer to your question is that we're all, myself included, over saturated with the crappiest, most cynical, trolling, disingenuous (often financially incentivized) corners of influencer/attention social media. And in those environments (as in professional politics), yes, we're more likely to come across professional liars, and have to adjust expectations of veracity accordingly.
But I believe--as does Smart Politics--that among friends, family, and neighbors, most of the real-life folks we encounter in our daily lives are not professional liars, and are not actively trying to consciously deceive. We try to approach our conversations in that spirit of initial open trust and assumptions of best intentions and sincere beliefs. If we learn otherwise during the course of conversation, so be it.
Locke, I think you've misunderstood my question. If belief is just dueling stories, why should amateur-told stories win over professional-liar-told stories? By "professional liar" here, I mean e.g. _Fox News_, Donald Trump, the whole ecosystem of social-media "influencers". They might be very few in number as individuals, but they command enormous amounts of attention. I wasn't referring to "real-life folks" for the question, quite the opposite. It's fascinating that in some legal cases, it's on occasion possible to get internal documents where it's black-letter admitted they're deliberately making up lies. And I want to stress what I mean by "professional". It's their job. Every day, they literally, as a part of what they do, try to figure out how to tell the best and most engaging lies on a topic. It's not simple, as people sometimes mistakenly think. It's a skill to do it well. But by definition, these are the top practitioners, and they work at it.
Thus, which story wins, and why? Remember, per assumption, facts are irrelevant. Then it's all about who is a better rhetorician. But if that's so, why should amateurs be expected to triumph over professionals, instead of the reverse? It doesn't make sense to me from the assumptions in the first place. Note, it's not a good response to say this is about training to be better at it. If I have to fight a professional boxer, I am going to lose, no matter how much training I try to do. Because of who I am and who they are, they will simply be much better at boxing than me. It doesn't matter if I raise myself from completely untrained to knowing the basics of technique, that's still pathetic in a contest.
Yes, I believe, as does Smart Politics, in most of the "progressive platform/point of view." I may personally disagree with the tone and attitude and messaging around it, especially from the extreme Left, but when it comes down to policy points, I'm probably 90% in agreement with the overall goals.
And no, proportionately not many folks right now on the progressive side (or Left, or Democrat, or Liberal, whatever) are trying to have these sorts of persuasive and productive conversations with the Right, for a number of reasons. That's why Karin created Smart Politics and why I joined up and work with her. We're trying to show a better way. Doesn't mean everyone is DOING it, but we continue to work for that goal.
Yes, both sides need to think more about word choices and tone and our approach to communication -- we believe if EVERYONE on all sides worked to have better, more open, more listening-focused communication, we all and our country would be better off.
The over-arching, long-term project of Smart Politics is to help foster a more progressive or at least progressive-favorable (even progressive-tolerant) nation, but for right now, my focus is simply on BOTH sides seeing each other as fellow Americans and humans and lowering the temperature, the polarization, the negative partisanship, even the hatred and dehumanizing of each other. That's what I'm most personally focused on these days.
Just shamelessly borrowed from this and other Smart Politics content for an upcoming presentation I'm doing about MAGA cult deprogramming to some local activist groups. Thanks for everything you do. You have one of the best resources out there on how to actually reach out to MAGA voters and bring them back to reality. We can never heal this nation by fighting them we must win them back. Everyone is persuadable if you're willing to do the work!
Borrow away! We want this information to reach as wide an audience as possible. That’s why we make all our content free.
Typo - "core tenet", not "core tenant"
The problem here is that if it's a matter of dueling stories, why should the truthful amateur's story win over the professional liar's story? By definition, the professional liars are going to be much better at it, since it's what they do all the time. I'm aware this question may not have a good answer.
Hi Seth,
My personal answer to your question is that we're all, myself included, over saturated with the crappiest, most cynical, trolling, disingenuous (often financially incentivized) corners of influencer/attention social media. And in those environments (as in professional politics), yes, we're more likely to come across professional liars, and have to adjust expectations of veracity accordingly.
But I believe--as does Smart Politics--that among friends, family, and neighbors, most of the real-life folks we encounter in our daily lives are not professional liars, and are not actively trying to consciously deceive. We try to approach our conversations in that spirit of initial open trust and assumptions of best intentions and sincere beliefs. If we learn otherwise during the course of conversation, so be it.
Locke, I think you've misunderstood my question. If belief is just dueling stories, why should amateur-told stories win over professional-liar-told stories? By "professional liar" here, I mean e.g. _Fox News_, Donald Trump, the whole ecosystem of social-media "influencers". They might be very few in number as individuals, but they command enormous amounts of attention. I wasn't referring to "real-life folks" for the question, quite the opposite. It's fascinating that in some legal cases, it's on occasion possible to get internal documents where it's black-letter admitted they're deliberately making up lies. And I want to stress what I mean by "professional". It's their job. Every day, they literally, as a part of what they do, try to figure out how to tell the best and most engaging lies on a topic. It's not simple, as people sometimes mistakenly think. It's a skill to do it well. But by definition, these are the top practitioners, and they work at it.
Thus, which story wins, and why? Remember, per assumption, facts are irrelevant. Then it's all about who is a better rhetorician. But if that's so, why should amateurs be expected to triumph over professionals, instead of the reverse? It doesn't make sense to me from the assumptions in the first place. Note, it's not a good response to say this is about training to be better at it. If I have to fight a professional boxer, I am going to lose, no matter how much training I try to do. Because of who I am and who they are, they will simply be much better at boxing than me. It doesn't matter if I raise myself from completely untrained to knowing the basics of technique, that's still pathetic in a contest.
Oops, thanks for the typo catch!
I understand your point, the progressive point of view has lost a lot of influence and even more so haslost credibility.
Yout answer seems to be to change your words and approach to communication.
I really don't see many following your advice. Is there any statistics you are collecting to gauge the impact?
It would seem that there are many data points available that point to a disconnect between the popularity of progressive positions and public opinion.
Your method seems to focus on changing public opinion and not to instead change the progressive platform. Is that right?
Hi Gary!
Yes, I believe, as does Smart Politics, in most of the "progressive platform/point of view." I may personally disagree with the tone and attitude and messaging around it, especially from the extreme Left, but when it comes down to policy points, I'm probably 90% in agreement with the overall goals.
And no, proportionately not many folks right now on the progressive side (or Left, or Democrat, or Liberal, whatever) are trying to have these sorts of persuasive and productive conversations with the Right, for a number of reasons. That's why Karin created Smart Politics and why I joined up and work with her. We're trying to show a better way. Doesn't mean everyone is DOING it, but we continue to work for that goal.
Yes, both sides need to think more about word choices and tone and our approach to communication -- we believe if EVERYONE on all sides worked to have better, more open, more listening-focused communication, we all and our country would be better off.
The over-arching, long-term project of Smart Politics is to help foster a more progressive or at least progressive-favorable (even progressive-tolerant) nation, but for right now, my focus is simply on BOTH sides seeing each other as fellow Americans and humans and lowering the temperature, the polarization, the negative partisanship, even the hatred and dehumanizing of each other. That's what I'm most personally focused on these days.
Laudable goal, not sure there is much impact yet seen ... yet. Good luck.
I wonder who is collecting data on polarization to see what the results are to be.
Not much use speaking into a void tho, so if it's not working, you might spend your time on something more productive.
I'm a disenfranchised independent. My personal viewpoint has some of both progressive and not positions.
I just wish some movement would represent the 80%. But that would take compromise and there is little of that around.
It's sad to see the democrats nowadays not realize that their credibility and the credibility of the institutions they tout has been destroyed.
That broken record needs to be taken off the turntable. In NFL terms, it's time for a rebuild.