How to have better political conversations Robb Willer

Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Joanna Pietrulewicz

So you probably have the sense,
as most people do,

that polarization
is getting worse in our country,

that the divide
between the left and the right

is as bad as it’s been
in really any of our lifetimes.

But you might also reasonably wonder
if research backs up your intuition.

And in a nutshell,
the answer is sadly yes.

In study after study, we find

that liberals and conservatives
have grown further apart.

They increasingly wall themselves off
in these ideological silos,

consuming different news,
talking only to like-minded others

and more and more choosing
to live in different parts of the country.

And I think that
most alarming of all of it

is seeing this rising
animosity on both sides.

Liberals and conservatives,

Democrats and Republicans,

more and more they just
don’t like one another.

You see it in many different ways.

They don’t want to befriend one another.
They don’t want to date one another.

If they do, if they find out,
they find each other less attractive,

and they more and more don’t want
their children to marry someone

who supports the other party,

a particularly shocking statistic.

You know, in my lab,
the students that I work with,

we’re talking about
some sort of social pattern –

I’m a movie buff, and so I’m often like,

what kind of movie are we in here
with this pattern?

So what kind of movie are we in
with political polarization?

Well, it could be a disaster movie.

It certainly seems like a disaster.

Could be a war movie.

Also fits.

But what I keep thinking is that
we’re in a zombie apocalypse movie.

(Laughter)

Right? You know the kind.

There’s people wandering around in packs,

not thinking for themselves,

seized by this mob mentality

trying to spread their disease
and destroy society.

And you probably think, as I do,

that you’re the good guy
in the zombie apocalypse movie,

and all this hate and polarization,
it’s being propagated by the other people,

because we’re Brad Pitt, right?

Free-thinking, righteous,

just trying to hold on
to what we hold dear,

you know, not foot soldiers
in the army of the undead.

Not that.

Never that.

But here’s the thing:

what movie do you suppose
they think they’re in?

Right?

Well, they absolutely think
that they’re the good guys

in the zombie apocalypse movie. Right?

And you’d better believe
that they think that they’re Brad Pitt

and that we, we are the zombies.

And who’s to say that they’re wrong?

I think that the truth is
that we’re all a part of this.

And the good side of that
is that we can be a part of the solution.

So what are we going to do?

What can we do to chip away
at polarization in everyday life?

What could we do to connect with
and communicate with

our political counterparts?

Well, these were exactly the questions
that I and my colleague, Matt Feinberg,

became fascinated with a few years ago,

and we started
doing research on this topic.

And one of the first things
that we discovered

that I think is really helpful
for understanding polarization

is to understand

that the political divide in our country
is undergirded by a deeper moral divide.

So one of the most robust findings
in the history of political psychology

is this pattern identified
by Jon Haidt and Jesse Graham,

psychologists,

that liberals and conservatives
tend to endorse different values

to different degrees.

So for example, we find that liberals
tend to endorse values like equality

and fairness and care
and protection from harm

more than conservatives do.

And conservatives tend to endorse
values like loyalty, patriotism,

respect for authority and moral purity

more than liberals do.

And Matt and I were thinking
that maybe this moral divide

might be helpful
for understanding how it is

that liberals and conservatives
talk to one another

and why they so often
seem to talk past one another

when they do.

So we conducted a study

where we recruited liberals to a study

where they were supposed
to write a persuasive essay

that would be compelling to a conservative
in support of same-sex marriage.

And what we found was that liberals
tended to make arguments

in terms of the liberal moral values
of equality and fairness.

So they said things like,

“Everyone should have the right
to love whoever they choose,”

and, “They” – they being gay Americans –

“deserve the same equal rights
as other Americans.”

Overall, we found
that 69 percent of liberals

invoked one of the more liberal
moral values in constructing their essay,

and only nine percent invoked
one of the more conservative moral values,

even though they were supposed
to be trying to persuade conservatives.

And when we studied conservatives
and had them make persuasive arguments

in support of making English
the official language of the US,

a classically conservative
political position,

we found that they weren’t
much better at this.

59 percent of them made arguments

in terms of one of the more
conservative moral values,

and just eight percent
invoked a liberal moral value,

even though they were supposed
to be targeting liberals for persuasion.

Now, you can see right away
why we’re in trouble here. Right?

People’s moral values,
they’re their most deeply held beliefs.

People are willing
to fight and die for their values.

Why are they going to give that up
just to agree with you

on something that they don’t particularly
want to agree with you on anyway?

If that persuasive appeal that
you’re making to your Republican uncle

means that he doesn’t
just have to change his view,

he’s got to change
his underlying values, too,

that’s not going to go very far.

So what would work better?

Well, we believe it’s a technique
that we call moral reframing,

and we’ve studied it
in a series of experiments.

In one of these experiments,

we recruited liberals
and conservatives to a study

where they read one of three essays

before having their environmental
attitudes surveyed.

And the first of these essays

was a relatively conventional
pro-environmental essay

that invoked the liberal values
of care and protection from harm.

It said things like,
“In many important ways

we are causing real harm
to the places we live in,”

and, “It is essential
that we take steps now

to prevent further destruction
from being done to our Earth.”

Another group of participants

were assigned to read
a really different essay

that was designed to tap into
the conservative value of moral purity.

It was a pro-environmental essay as well,

and it said things like,

“Keeping our forests, drinking water,
and skies pure is of vital importance.”

“We should regard the pollution

of the places we live in
to be disgusting.”

And, “Reducing pollution
can help us preserve

what is pure and beautiful
about the places we live.”

And then we had a third group

that were assigned
to read just a nonpolitical essay.

It was just a comparison group
so we could get a baseline.

And what we found when we surveyed people

about their environmental
attitudes afterwards,

we found that liberals,
it didn’t matter what essay they read.

They tended to have highly
pro-environmental attitudes regardless.

Liberals are on board
for environmental protection.

Conservatives, however,

were significantly more supportive
of progressive environmental policies

and environmental protection

if they had read the moral purity essay

than if they read
one of the other two essays.

We even found that conservatives
who read the moral purity essay

were significantly more likely to say
that they believed in global warming

and were concerned about global warming,

even though this essay
didn’t even mention global warming.

That’s just a related environmental issue.

But that’s how robust
this moral reframing effect was.

And we’ve studied this on a whole slew
of different political issues.

So if you want to move conservatives

on issues like same-sex marriage
or national health insurance,

it helps to tie these liberal
political issues to conservative values

like patriotism and moral purity.

And we studied it the other way, too.

If you want to move liberals
to the right on conservative policy issues

like military spending and making English
the official language of the US,

you’re going to be more persuasive

if you tie those conservative
policy issues to liberal moral values

like equality and fairness.

All these studies
have the same clear message:

if you want to persuade
someone on some policy,

it’s helpful to connect that policy
to their underlying moral values.

And when you say it like that

it seems really obvious. Right?

Like, why did we come here tonight?

Why –

(Laughter)

It’s incredibly intuitive.

And even though it is,
it’s something we really struggle to do.

You know, it turns out that when we go
to persuade somebody on a political issue,

we talk like we’re speaking into a mirror.

We don’t persuade so much
as we rehearse our own reasons

for why we believe
some sort of political position.

We kept saying when we were designing
these reframed moral arguments,

“Empathy and respect,
empathy and respect.”

If you can tap into that,

you can connect

and you might be able to persuade
somebody in this country.

So thinking again

about what movie we’re in,

maybe I got carried away before.

Maybe it’s not a zombie apocalypse movie.

Maybe instead it’s a buddy cop movie.

(Laughter)

Just roll with it, just go with it please.

(Laughter)

You know the kind:
there’s a white cop and a black cop,

or maybe a messy cop and an organized cop.

Whatever it is, they don’t get along

because of this difference.

But in the end, when they have
to come together and they cooperate,

the solidarity that they feel,

it’s greater because of that gulf
that they had to cross. Right?

And remember that in these movies,

it’s usually worst in the second act

when our leads are further apart
than ever before.

And so maybe that’s
where we are in this country,

late in the second act
of a buddy cop movie –

(Laughter)

torn apart but about
to come back together.

It sounds good,

but if we want it to happen,

I think the responsibility
is going to start with us.

So this is my call to you:

let’s put this country back together.

Let’s do it despite the politicians

and the media and Facebook and Twitter

and Congressional redistricting

and all of it,
all the things that divide us.

Let’s do it because it’s right.

And let’s do it
because this hate and contempt

that flows through all of us every day

makes us ugly and it corrupts us,

and it threatens
the very fabric of our society.

We owe it to one another and our country

to reach out and try to connect.

We can’t afford to hate them any longer,

and we can’t afford
to let them hate us either.

Empathy and respect.

Empathy and respect.

If you think about it, it’s the very least
that we owe our fellow citizens.

Thank you.

(Applause)

译者:Joseph
Geni 审稿人:Joanna Pietrulewicz

所以你可能有这样的感觉,
就像大多数人一样,

我们国家的两极分化正在恶化,

左派和右派之间的分歧

与我们有生之年一样严重 .

但你也可能有理由
怀疑研究是否支持你的直觉。

简而言之
,可悲的是,答案是肯定的。

在一次又一次的研究中,我们

发现自由派和保守派
之间的差距越来越大。

他们越来越多地将自己
封闭在这些意识形态孤岛中,

阅读不同的新闻,
只与志同道合的人交谈

,越来越多的人
选择住在该国的不同地区。

而且我认为
最令人震惊的

是双方都看到了这种日益增长的
敌意。

自由派和保守派,

民主党人和共和党人,

他们越来越
不喜欢彼此了。

你会以许多不同的方式看到它。

他们不想成为彼此的朋友。
他们不想彼此约会。

如果他们这样做了,如果他们发现了,
他们就会发现对方的吸引力降低了,

而且他们越来越不希望
自己的孩子嫁给

支持对方的人,

这是一个特别令人震惊的数据。

你知道,在我的实验室里,
和我一起工作的学生,

我们在谈论
某种社会模式——

我是一个电影迷,所以我经常想,

我们在这里和什么样的电影
在一起 这种模式?

那么我们处于政治两极分化的什么样的电影中
呢?

好吧,这可能是一部灾难片。

这当然看起来像是一场灾难。

可能是战争片。

也适合。

但我一直在想,
我们是在一部僵尸启示录电影中。

(笑声)

对吧? 你知道那种。

有些人成群结队地四处游荡,

不为自己考虑,

被这种

试图传播疾病
和破坏社会的暴民心态所控制。

你可能和我一样认为,

你是
僵尸启示录电影中的好人

,所有这些仇恨和两极分化
,正在被其他人传播,

因为我们是布拉德皮特,对吧?

思想自由,正义,

只是试图
抓住我们所珍视的东西,

你知道,而不是
亡灵军队中的步兵。

不是那个。

从来没有。

但事情

是这样的:你认为
他们认为他们在哪部电影中?

对?

好吧,他们绝对
认为自己是

僵尸启示录电影中的好人。 对?

你最好
相信他们认为他们是布拉德皮特

,而我们,我们是僵尸。

谁说他们错了?

我认为事实
是我们都是其中的一部分。

好的一面
是我们可以成为解决方案的一部分。

那么我们要做什么呢?

我们能做些什么来消除
日常生活中的两极分化?

我们可以做些什么来与

我们的政治对手建立联系和沟通?

嗯,这些
正是我和我的同事 Matt Feinberg

几年前开始着迷的问题

,我们开始
研究这个主题。

我们

发现我认为对理解两极分化非常有帮助的第一件事

就是了解

我们国家的政治
分歧是由更深层次的道德分歧所支撑的。

因此,政治心理学史上最有力的发现
之一是心理学家

Jon Haidt 和 Jesse Graham 确定的这种模式

即自由派和保守派
倾向于在不同程度上支持不同的价值观

例如,我们发现自由主义者比保守主义者
更倾向于支持平等

、公平、关心
和保护免受伤害等价值观

保守派比自由派更倾向于支持
忠诚、爱国、

尊重权威和道德纯洁等价值观

马特和我在想
,也许这种道德分歧

可能有助于

理解自由派和保守派是
如何相互交谈的,

以及为什么他们
在交谈时似乎经常相互交谈

因此,我们进行了一项研究

,招募自由主义者参加一项研究

,他们
应该写一篇有说服力的文章

,这对支持同性婚姻的保守派来说是有吸引力的

我们发现,自由主义者
倾向于

根据平等和公平的自由道德价值观进行论证

所以他们说,

“每个人都应该
有权爱他们选择的任何人”

,“他们”——他们是同性恋美国人——

“应该和其他美国人一样享有平等的权利
。”

总体而言,我们
发现 69% 的自由主义者在撰写论文时

援引了一种较为自由的
道德价值观

,只有 9% 的人援引了
一种较为保守的道德价值观,

尽管他们
本应试图说服保守派。

当我们研究保守派
并让他们提出有说服力的论点

以支持将英语
作为美国的官方语言,这

是一个典型的保守
政治立场时,

我们发现他们
在这方面并没有好多少。

他们中的 59%

就其中一种较为
保守的道德价值观提出论点

,只有 8% 的人
援引了自由主义的道德价值观,

尽管他们
本应以自由主义者为目标进行说服。

现在,您可以立即看到
为什么我们在这里遇到麻烦。 对?

人们的道德价值观,
是他们最根深蒂固的信念。

人们
愿意为自己的价值观而奋斗和牺牲。

为什么他们要放弃它
只是为了同意你

在他们
不想同意你的事情上?

如果你向你的共和党叔叔发出有说服力的呼吁,

意味着他
不仅要改变自己的观点,

他还必须改变
他的基本价值观,

那不会走得太远。

那么什么会更好呢?

好吧,我们相信这是
一种我们称之为道德重构的技术,

并且我们已经
在一系列实验中对其进行了研究。

在其中一个实验中,

我们招募了自由派
和保守派参加一项研究

,他们在调查他们的环境态度之前阅读了三篇文章中的一篇

这些文章中的第一篇

是一篇相对传统的
亲环境文章

,它援引
了关心和保护免受伤害的自由价值观。

它说,
“在许多重要的方面,

我们正在
对我们居住的地方造成真正的伤害”,

以及“我们现在必须
采取措施


防止对我们的地球造成进一步的破坏。”

另一组参与者

被分配阅读
一篇完全不同的文章

,旨在挖掘
道德纯洁的保守价值。

这也是一篇支持环境的文章

,上面

写着“保持我们的森林、饮用水
和天空纯净至关重要”。

“我们应该认为

我们居住
的地方的污染令人作呕。”

而且,“减少污染
可以帮助我们保护

我们居住的地方的纯净和美丽。”

然后我们有第三

组被
分配阅读一篇非政治文章。

这只是一个比较组,
所以我们可以得到一个基线。

当我们后来对

人们的环境
态度进行调查时,

我们发现,我们发现自由主义者,
他们读什么文章并不重要。 无论如何,

他们往往具有高度
亲环境的态度。

自由主义者
支持环境保护。

然而,如果保守派阅读了道德纯洁性文章,

他们明显更
支持进步的环境政策

和环境保护,而

不是
阅读其他两篇文章中的一篇。

我们甚至发现,
阅读道德纯洁文章的保守派

更有可能
说他们相信全球变暖

并担心全球变暖,

尽管这篇文章
甚至没有提到全球变暖。

这只是一个相关的环境问题。

但这就是
这种道德重构效应的强大程度。

我们已经在一系列不同的政治问题上对此进行了研究

因此,如果你

想在同性婚姻
或国民健康保险等问题上推动保守派

,将这些自由
政治问题

与爱国主义和道德纯洁等保守价值观联系起来会有所帮助。

我们也以另一种方式研究它。

如果你想

军费开支和让英语
成为美国官方语言等保守政策问题上让自由主义者右倾,

如果你将这些保守
政策问题

与平等和公平等自由道德价值观联系起来,你会更有说服力。

所有这些研究
都传达了一个明确的信息:

如果你想说服某人接受某项
政策,

那么将这项政策
与他们潜在的道德价值观联系起来会很有帮助。

当你这样说时,

它似乎真的很明显。 对?

比如,我们今晚为什么来这里?

为什么——

(笑声)

它非常直观。

即使是这样,
这也是我们真正难以做到的事情。

你知道,事实证明,当我们
在政治问题上说服某人时,

我们说话就像是在对着镜子说话。

我们不会说服太多,
因为我们会排练自己的理由

来解释为什么我们相信
某种政治立场。

当我们设计
这些重新构建的道德论点时,我们一直在说,

“同理心和尊重,
同理心和尊重”。

如果你能利用这一点,

你就可以建立联系

,你也许可以说服
这个国家的某个人。

所以再

想想我们在看什么电影,

也许我之前被带走了。

也许这不是一部僵尸启示录电影。

也许相反,它是一部伙伴警察电影。

(笑声)

随它去吧,随它去吧。

(笑声)

你知道那种:
有一个白人警察和一个黑人警察,

或者可能是一个凌乱的警察和一个有组织的警察。

无论是什么,他们都

因为这种差异而无法相处。

但最终,当他们必须
走到一起并合作时,

他们感受到的团结,

因为他们必须跨越的鸿沟而变得更大。 对?

请记住,在这些电影中,

当我们的主角之间的距离
比以往任何时候都大时,第二幕通常是最糟糕的。

所以也许这
就是我们在这个国家所处的位置,


一部警匪片的第二幕后期——

(笑声)

被撕裂了,但
即将重聚。

听起来不错,

但如果我们希望它发生,

我认为
责任将从我们开始。

所以这是我对你的呼吁:

让我们让这个国家重新团结起来。

尽管政客

、媒体、脸书、推特

和国会重新划分选区,

以及所有这些,
所有分裂我们的事情,让我们这样做。

让我们这样做,因为它是正确的。

让我们这样做,
因为

每天流经我们所有人的仇恨和蔑视

让我们变得丑陋,腐蚀我们,

并威胁
到我们社会的结构。

我们应该为彼此和我们的

国家伸出援手并尝试建立联系。

我们不能再恨他们,

我们也不
能让他们恨我们。

同情和尊重。

同情和尊重。

如果你仔细想想,这
是我们欠同胞的最起码的事情。

谢谢你。

(掌声)