IT may seem contrary to writing this in an opinion article. But she needs to say: The arguments alone have no meaningful effect on people’s beliefs. The implicit societal acceptance that they do is to hinder other forms more effective than political thinking and do them.
I am a researcher studying the intersection of psychology and politics, and my work has increasingly led me to believe that understanding our culture of how political persuasion is wrong. In the era of Donald Trump, Eileon Musk and the ups of the extreme right, commentators saw without the end of the problems of fake news, polarization and more. But they are often looking in wrong places – and focused a lot on the words.
Take “discussions”. It is an essential part of most electoral campaigns around the world, which is so consumed that they are often governed by strict rules about media coverage and balance. However, evidence indicates that watching discussions has no effect on opinions at all. In 2019 Researchers analysis 56 TV debates in 22 elections in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Europe from 1952 to 2016. The study followed nearly 100,000 respondents to see if the discussions have helped the decision or decided to compensate for or change their opinion. They found no evidence that they did so. In 2012, a correspondent conducted another analysis on whether the discussions affected the election results. As he put it: “The effects of discussions on the final sounds are likely to be light, and in most cases, nothing effectively.”
There are many reasons why the discussion (and in fact, providing information and argument in general) tends to be ineffective in changing the political beliefs of people. Cognitive inconsistency, a phenomenon that she studied as part of doctoral research is one. This is the unconscious psychological discomfort that we feel when we face contradictions in our beliefs or actions, and they have been well documented. We can see cognitive dissonance and its effects at work when “people quickly cause” ways are attempts to alleviate their uncomfortable information about strong beliefs. For example, before Trump I owe different charges In 2024, only 17 % of Republican voters believe that criminals should be president; Immediately after his conviction, This number rose to 58 %. To reconcile two contradictory beliefs (that presidents should not do x, and that Trump should be president), it has changed a huge number of Republican voters simply their opinion on the previous. In fact, Republican voters changed their opinions about all the things that Trump was convicted of: Less ethics was that having sex with a porn star, or pushed someone to upgrade a romantic relationship, or forge a work record. This influence is not limited to Trump’s voters: Research indicates that we are all justified in this way, in order to adhere to the beliefs that allow us to continue to work as we were. Or from paradoxes, changing some of our beliefs in response to new information, but often do not have to sacrifice other beliefs.
But not only psychological phenomena such as cognitive dissonance that make discussions and arguments relatively ineffective. As I am Lie in my bookPerhaps the most important reason for not changing words is that other factors have a much greater impact: our social relationships; Our actions and experiences.
One of the evidences shows that our friends have the ability to change our beliefs and behavior – not through the debate with us, but simply by being around us or showing new ways of living. Studies on Social communication theory He showed that when people are prepared in conditions, they become friends and cooperate, they become less biased against the identity groups to which their new friends belong. This phenomenon may explain many developments in gay rights over the past few decades: with the emergence of people, their friends changed their views on homosexuality, which led to one of the fastest transformations ever recorded in public opinion. Similarly, Research shows People are likely to participate in a climate friendly movement (such as installing a heat pump), if their friends do-more likely than if they are given cash rewards or other types of incentives. Our friends Expand our anxiety field; They share us in the world, and build confidence that people seem to be open to new ideas. Their indirect effect is more than arguments, especially from strangers, at all. In other words: When it comes to persuasion, it is not the conversation, it is the relationship.
Our actions and experiences also have a deep effect, albeit often in intuitive ways. For example, research shows that in similar circumstances, women have moved on The presence of miscarriage It becomes somewhat less in favor of abortion rights, while women have given abortion become more in favor. We may expect those who deny more passionate about reaching, but apparently no – perhaps, because, partly because of cognitive dissonance, people tend to bring their beliefs towards their actions, even if these measures are forced. The effect of verbs and experiences on belief systems is also It is clear when it comes to the climate crisisThose who suffer from intense climate weather events are more likely to believe in climate change and processing.
Compared to these effects, the arguments alone have a relatively small force. However, our institutions are still formed as if the words were sufficient. We are infrastructure, collectively trapped in the liberal belief that politics revolves around the conversation, then voting intermittently. What is required By anyone who hopes to enhance progressive ideas is not arguments, but rather the infrastructure that enhances new relationships and experiences. This may seem to be anything from the parents ’waiting area for mixing before the school comes out, to the workplace union, to a public park. These forms allow people’s infrastructure to link and act in new ways, build friendships and trust, and encourage procedures that ultimately Allow people to change their political views.
All this indicates that we also need to think differently about what it means to be a good politician thinker. Thinking well about politics is not related to “independent” thinking in the sense of thinking alone. Instead, to think well is to choose our friends wisely, in terms of diversity and thinking, so that we can learn and with them. Thinking well in politics also means being active in the world – a new way of living, and existence is a wide range of experiences. Unfortunately, in a large part of it due to income inequality, this is more difficult than it was. Social research shows that people in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are More isolated and Lesser From ever. The social fabric that we necessarily rely on to reveal our biases is anomalous. This is part of the reason for winning the extreme right: it is a good thing to fill people’s relationships and actions in this shrinking world, taking advantage of the deteriorating physical conditions of people. To fix this, progressors need to restore wealth and power, so that everyone is supported in expanding their lives.
I can’t just convince you of saying that, of course. Instead, I dare you to discover this in a more feasible way: He was associated with a different person, and perhaps someone was deeply affected by a political issue. Or try a new way to live, something small to start with. Knowing if it does not change your political views, at least a little. Or maybe your understanding of the policy itself will change.
