Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument

Want to Win a Political Debate? Try Making a Weaker Argument


Gun control? Abortion? The new social science behind why you're never able to convince friends or foes to even consider things from your side.

If all of American politics could be epitomized by a single emotion, it would be the frustration of watching an ignorant politician maniacally disregard the proof that your own position is correct. Professional politicians are dogmatic in part so they can remain "pure" for re-election, but even average citizens talking policy with their friends are rarely swayed by each other's arguments.

Lately, there’s been a growing emphasis on psychological explanations for such intransigence. There could be an entire book of syndicated newspaper columns that discuss "motivated reasoning"—the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms your existing beliefs. But research on human motivation also hints at a simpler and somewhat startling reason for the lack of flip-flopping: Nobody makes the type of arguments that are likely to change minds.

And there's nothing illogical about it.

The arguments people make are those that appear the strongest to themselves and the people who already agree with them. But such arguments tend to be meaningless to people who disagree.

How does this happen?

It starts with the universal desire to protect against threats to your self-image or self-worth. People are driven to view themselves in a positive light, and they will interpret information and take action in ways that preserve that view. The need to maintain self-worth is one reason we attribute our failures to external factors (bad luck), but our success to internal factors (skill.)

The arguments that are most threatening to opponents are viewed as the strongest and cited most often. Liberals are baby-killers while conservatives won't let women control their own body.

Because political beliefs are connected to deeply held values, information about politics can be very threatening to your self-image. Imagine coming across information that contradicts everything you've ever believed about the efficacy of Medicare, for example. If you're wrong about such an important policy, what else might you be wrong about? And if you're wrong about a bunch of things, you're obviously not as smart or as good or as worthwhile a person as you previously believed. These are painful thoughts, and so we evaluate information in ways that will help us to avoid them.


It follows that our openness to information depends on how it affects self-worth, and a number of studies bear this out. One line of research has found that self-affirmation—a mental exercise that increases feelings of self-worth—makes people more willing to accept threatening information. The idea is that by raising or "affirming" your self-worth, you can then encounter things that lower your self-worth without a net decrease. The affirmation and the threat effectively cancel each other out, and a positive image is maintained.

Read more:

http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/why-even-your-best-arguments-never-work-64910

Rubbish..I'm correct, and you are all wrong...simples...

This is a good article, for me the question is -- why do we wrap up our opinions in our egos in the first place? It really makes no sense, and the really harmful part is that it keeps you from learning.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This is a good article, for me the question is -- why do we wrap up our opinions in our egos in the first place? It really makes no sense, and the really harmful part is that it keeps you from learning.

Well I can only speak for myself, but sone of my opinions are set in stone - rightly or wrongly - and others are changeable and not fixed.
I don't really see much in terms of black and white tbh, so I can't always make my mind up about how I feel or think about some things, and I also think truth is ever-changing sometimes...?