What political attitudes depend on and how you can influence them
Sometimes it is very difficult to understand other people's views: they seem wrong and illogical.
This generates conflicts both in families and in society as a whole. But in order to successfully communicate your point of view, it is important to reduce the heat of passion, as well as to consider their own blind spots.
In this article, we will discuss how political views are formed, why people interpret the same facts so differently, and how to talk to those with whom they disagree.
What political attitudes depend on
For a long time scientists believed that political attitudes were determined solely by social circles. But now there are increasing indications that some political leanings are shaped at the level of biology.
One of the largest studies on the topic examined the beliefs of 12,000 people: twins - who have an identical set of genes - and just twins. The participants were from five different countries and had been raised with a sibling. According to the researchers' conclusion, 40 percent of a person's political stance depends on qualities that are genetically transmitted.
Of course, there is no separate liberal or conservative gene. The differences are primarily related to the way people process information and respond to a threat. For example, people with conservative attitudes are characterized by increased fearfulness, a tendency to order and structure, while people with liberal attitudes are characterized by openness to the new, decreased squeamishness, and attention to detail.
These differences can be traced at the brain level: MRI scans show that liberals have a more developed anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain responsible for finding logical errors, showing empathy and controlling impulsive behavior, while conservatives have a more active amygdala, which evaluates threats. The more active it is, the less likely a person is to engage in any protests. In the study, scientists used MRI scans of the brain to determine a person's political orientation with 83% accuracy.
To what extent these brain characteristics are due to innate characteristics and to what extent they are due to acquired experience, scientists do not yet know. The human brain is malleable, which means that it is capable of reorganizing its work according to its environment. According to scientists who studied the views of twins and twins, the political position in any case by 60% depends on the experience - in the first place, the views of the environment.
The basis of political preferences, along with other moral guidelines, a child receives from his or her parents. If adults take an active stance: supporting a particular party, participating in elections as observers, distributing campaign materials, the child is likely to adopt this pattern of behavior as well. And vice versa: the child of a person who is not too interested in politics will also not be interested in it.
To what extent these features of the brain are due to innate characteristics and to what extent they are due to acquired experience, scientists do not know yet. The human brain is malleable, which means that it can reorganize its work according to its environment. According to scientists who studied the views of twins and twins, the political position in any case by 60% depends on the experience - in the first place, the views of the environment.
The basis of political preferences, along with other moral guidelines, a child receives from his or her parents. If adults take an active stance: supporting a particular party, participating in elections as observers, distributing campaign materials, the child is likely to adopt this pattern of behavior as well. And vice versa: the child of a person who is not too interested in politics will also not be interested in it.
Nevertheless, fake news, politically biased information, has a tangible effect on people. Especially the elderly. According to American data, people over 50 are most likely to become "superdistributors" of fake news in social networks - they share them especially often and with a large number of users. Scientists attribute this to information illiteracy, general cognitive decline and an age-related increase in gullibility.
Surveys show that as people age, they begin to trust others more and it brings many benefits to personal relationships, but on the other hand, it increases the risks of being deceived. In several experiments, the elderly were asked to rate the truthfulness of a person's statements in a video, and they were significantly less likely to recognize a lie than younger people.
Why people interpret the same facts so differently
Sometimes people look at the same fact in diametrically opposite ways, and both sides of the conflict see it as proof that they are right. The reason for this subjectivity is cognitive distortions, errors of thought. They occur because the human brain is selective and lazy. It takes effort to see a fuller picture of what is happening, and by default only information that reinforces an already established picture of the world is taken into account. Sometimes this information is greatly simplified, just to reinforce existing beliefs.
To demonstrate how limited our perceptions are, psychologists often use the drawing "My Wife and Mother-in-Law" by the American cartoonist William Ely Hill. On it you can see an image of a young woman and the profile of an elderly woman at the same time. For a moment one can concentrate and see both images, but soon the brain loses concentration and sees one.
A tendency toward bias. People trust more information that supports their views and believe less information that contradicts them.
The most famous experiment confirming the existence of this cognitive distortion was conducted at Stanford in 1979. Researchers recruited a group of students with different views on the death penalty and gave them two studies. One presented evidence in defense of the fact that the death penalty does deter crime. The other presented arguments questioning this. Both papers were fictional, but the data looked equally solid.
The students were asked to rate which study they found more convincing. And each group favored the study that supported their views. Moreover, after reading both papers, both proponents and opponents of the death penalty were even more convinced of their beliefs.
Other studies show that often people don't even care about the strength of the evidence or how good the idea is, it's more important who the author is. One study examined the attitudes of Jews and Arabs living in Israel toward proposals to end hostilities. The same idea was perceived differently by the groups, depending on whether it was coming from the Israeli or the Palestinian government.
From an evolutionary point of view, the human tendency toward bias is understandable: after all, the task of the brain is not to solve logical problems and draw the right conclusions. It is to help survive within the collective.
Choice blindness. Any cognitive process requires a lot of strength and energy. To save them, the brain tries not to revise its decisions on issues it thinks it has already figured out.
In one experiment, volunteers were asked to choose from several pictures of strangers the most attractive. The organizer then asked several questions about the choice - why he fell for that particular photo - and discreetly replaced it with another. Most participants did not notice the switch and continued to defend the choice they had not made.
The same mechanism works when evaluating politicians' programs. Even responsible voters often vote without thinking deeply into their content. But simply because they once decided to support their author.
Preservation of the status quo. People by nature strive for stability. Which means they support, defend and justify the status quo. In practice, political psychologist John Yost argues, this leads people sometimes to vehemently support politicians whose ideas or actions run counter to their own interests.
During crises, this tendency is only exacerbated by intense anxiety. One way to reduce it is to align oneself with the strongest and thus secure oneself. As a result, one begins to support the point of view of the side that seems to be winning in the conflict. And vehemently rejects all others.
How to talk to someone you disagree with
Disputes about politics are particularly emotional. They touch on fundamental components of people's identities: who they are and their core values in life. All of these things people try to defend in every way they can. But it is this emotionality that turns arguments into conflicts that seem intractable.
Psychologist and professional negotiator Daniel Shapiro uses the term "vertigo" to describe the emotional whirlwind state of a person who is in conflict.
At this point, his attention becomes tunnel-visioned: it becomes impossible to convey any thought, he concentrates on one thing and does not notice bystanders looking back at the quarrel or the reasonable suggestions of the other party. The arguments are simplified and become very generalized: "You never understand me!" And also the perception of time changes: emotional quarrels often seem fleeting, but in fact the bickering can last quite a long time - and the person has time to say the most awful things.
The first rule of conflict resolution is to get out of the vertigo, or better yet, avoid it. A simple breath in and out or a one-minute pause can be very effective. It is also important to simply monitor your state: if the conflict has gripped you entirely and the other side is causing hostile feelings, it is unlikely that you will be able to change someone's mind.
In order to avoid an emotional storm, you need to define your purpose before the conversation. If you want to tell the unfamiliar person how much he is wrong about something and how stupid his views are, it is better to give up this idea. Chances are you're not part of the group of people he identifies with, which means your opinion won't matter and will only make him angry. You'll waste a lot of energy and emotion and ruin your mood. Another thing - if it's a person close to you, who does not accept your position and whose support you need.
There are a lot of tactics to change their minds. Here are a few that can help you discuss controversial issues.
TACTIC #1.
Confidential conversation
Increase your level of security. Tell the person that they are very important to you, this conversation will not affect your opinion of them and will not affect the relationship. This will reduce emotional tension.Don't provoke or attack. Don't accuse your conversation partner of not understanding something or being wrong about something. And don't insist that your point of view is the only correct one. Studies show that this is the surest way to turn people against themselves and make them go on the defensive.
Hear him. To do this, listen to the words of the interlocutor and sincerely try to get into the nuances of his thinking. This will provoke a reciprocal desire to pay the same attention to what you say.
Try to put yourself in the position of the other. Take into account everything that may have influenced the person's views: life experiences, social circles and interests. This will help to understand him.
Do not insult or be angry. Refrain from making judgments about your interlocutor's intelligence or personal characteristics. Try to control irritation. If you can't - stop the conversation before it turns into a quarrel.
In most cases it will not be possible to change the person's mind. Professional negotiators rarely expect to be able to significantly change someone's beliefs in one conversation. A good result of a conversation is considered a one-step change in a person's position. Perhaps the path to progress in the relationship will be an agreement that both your and his viewpoints have a right to exist. The very fact that the person recognizes the other's right to have an opinion will, at the very least, improve your relationship. At most, it will make it less radical and make you wonder if his point of view is so right.
TACTICS #2.
Motivational Interviewing
This psychological method was invented to help people struggling with addiction and eating disorders. But it has proven effective in other areas. With the help of motivational interviewing psychologists and doctors managed to convince students to sleep 8 hours a day, opponents of vaccination to more actively vaccinate children, divorcing spouses to come to an amicable agreement, voters to overcome political bias.
The tactic is based on the principle of nonviolent change of opinion, which cannot be done by force in any case. But it is possible to help him find an internal reason that will motivate him to change his views and behavior.
Technically, a motivational interview is a specially structured conversation. The person is asked open-ended questions, such that they can answer anything they want in free form. And then - they retell and clarify his answers - as if mirroring them. And this helps the person to look at his opinions, attitudes and beliefs from the outside. This opens up space for their rethinking.
The famous American psychologist Adam Grant gives the following example of motivational interview.
Let's say you are a young wizard and you study at Hogwarts. And you have a conservative uncle who strongly supports Voldemort. You want to help him change his views. The motivational interview in this case can be structured like this:
You: I want to better understand your attitude toward the One-Who-I-can't-name.
Uncle: Well, he's the most powerful wizard alive today. Also, his people have promised me a title in the future.
You: Interesting. Is there anything you don't like about him?
Minimalism vs. Minimal Art [What’s the Difference?] >>
Uncle: Hmm. Well, I'm not crazy about all the killing.
You: Well, what's stopping you from supporting him?
Uncle: I'm afraid he'll kill me too.
You: Yes, there's a lot to be afraid of - in fact, I'm terribly afraid, too. But tell me, do you have any principles that are so important to you that you're willing to take the risk of defending them?
TACTIC #3.
Struggling with the illusion of depth of explanation
Because of this cognitive distortion, people often do not realize how little they know about the world around them.
Yale students were asked to describe in detail how things that they used on a daily basis worked. For example, a toilet bowl. They enthusiastically embraced what seemed like a simple task. But when the students were asked to compare their answers with the plumber's comments, they were surprised to discover they had no idea how the cistern fills the water, how the flusher works, or many other important details. This discovery was so startling that some participants in the experiment even lowered their self-esteem.
The illusion of depth of explanation lurks at every step: most people are not aware of how little they know. And while this can still be detected in the field of plumbing, it is extremely difficult to recognize gaps in political knowledge.
Many people are not even aware of the consequences of the decisions of politicians they confidently support. And yet they are not aware of their ignorance.
But there is an antidote. To dispel the illusion of depth of explanation in the interlocutor, you need to ask him to explain in detail how in practice what he stands for will work. Trying to answer this question will make the person realize how poorly he knows what he is talking about. There is a chance that this will lead to a reconsideration of the views.