Over the years I have had political and ideological discussions with at least three groups of people and have concluded that these discussions are, almost entirely, futile in making people either see things differently, or acknowledge that others may see things differently, or -God forbid-- change their opinions however slightly. That of course opens the question how people come to hold certain political and ideological positions—since at some level they must be influenced by views of others: their parents, family, school, and even random interlocuters. I do not have a good explanation for that. I think that reading, watching, listening and thinking does lead people to form and then to change opinions but I am very sceptical that direct discussion does it. The former methods are indirect: one reads an author and finds him convincing; but if one has a discussion with somebody acknowledging that that person has produced valid arguments appears to diminish him compared to the other person, and one’s intellectual vanity does not wish to accept that. Hence, I think, discussions almost never lead toward some genuinely-felt greater similarity of opinions. They just leave the participants where they were before. Or worse, lead them further apart.
As Thomas C Schelling stated (in The strategy of conflict, 1968): You can never convince an opponent you are right, but you can convince him that you never will give up.
As humbly as possible I’d like to toss in the idea that you may not have been engaging in dialogue in the first place and it’s at this point that the fault is found... I’ve been revisiting and being humbled by Paulo Freire and his notion of dialogue as being essential to revolutionary thought and impossible to realize without a profound love and trust in place with the interlocutor... as someone living in the American south I have found it overwhelmingly tempting to simply approach people with superior information of how the world works (it’s a very low bar here) but if I want to get anywhere ideologically with them (and it is possibly) dialogue can get me there if I can avoid attempting to “deposit” my view... I only share my thoughts because I appreciate yours...
Nice post! I must admit I rarely change my own views because of a single discussion. But my views have certainly changed over the years. But it’s because of reading (including reading history), so I do think many or even most of us change our minds as we mature.
These days, if I do engage in discussions with someone about a view that I think is mistaken, I tend to present a way of thinking about the issues rather than directly take a position on the issue. For example, a lot of people can’t accept that China’s political system is a democracy. So I talk about what Athenian democracy was like, and the idea that Athenians wouldn’t regard Western style representative democracy as a democracy since it involves delegating decision making to elected representatives rather than direct participation in decision-making. And I point out the difference between democratic institutions vs democratic outcomes. And how we care about both outcomes and institutions, not just institutions.
It is important to distinguish real political opinions from sports team membership.
I suspect that a key distinction here is the ability to consider that something might not be a good idea even if it is good for the person. For example, an American doctor may or may not be able to decide that socialized medicine would be better for all, even if he made less money.
Mr. Milanovic, were you ever persuaded in a face-to-face discussion to change your views? :-)
This is of course a tricky question to answer, as various pieces of our mental models are dear to us to varying degrees, and we might be willing to yield in some areas, but not in most of the others. What I would be interested to know is, whether you can recall having changed your views _substantially_ (whatever that means to you) in a discussion.
If only people would adopt Keynes' attitude who, when once accused of changing his opinion, responded: "When facts change, I change my opinion. And what do you do sir"?
Speaking from the experience of university teaching, I found a combination of oral communication and reading assignments, with occasional exercises, to be effective persuasive mechanisms with people entering the "conversation" with divergent opinions. Granted, the asymmetry in "position" might be at work as well, but I found Dr. Milanovic's experience different from my own . . . and frankly rather depressing.
I don’t believe it’s that simple. What matters is how conversations are structured and how much passion or belief you bring. Put simply, passion and belief is usually a barrier to changing people’s minds although it can help reinforce existing views. To change minds I think you need to present information and ideas that would resemble an educational style and that doesn’t work in general conversation. It’s why politics and basic economics should be essential subjects at school.
I just wrote something very similar yesterday and decided not to post it. Being surrounded by liberals, my point was entirely concerned with them and the exact strategies you mentioned, though I didn't think of it as concerning a particular ideological group. My partial answer is like yours, that writing and putting coherent arguments together is worthwhile as those who are seeking understanding will be able to read it. I also think that what you really need to convince people and to be convinced is a good prior relationship where you can both be certain of the good intentions of the other. I also think you need to go into conversations with clearly stated intentions as that's the easiest way to stop the whataboutism or other cheap rhetorical strategies. I also don't think we can expect other people to change their minds if we aren't willing to change our own.
Basically, a discussion can have two positive outcomes, if and when they do:
- "Agree to disagree"; i.e. we still are at odds but the exact points of dissidence have become more clear to both;
- "Need to think about it"; i.e. one or both the participants make some apparently good points, the other side have to anknowledge this, and so they need to re-shift their view integrating such new knowledge. It's a fundamentally human need, and more reasonable to expect than wanting the other side to agree with you right on the spot.
When discussing politics, though, both these outcome become extreeeeemely unlikely. Better to give up.
I’m guilty as an intransigent discussion partner. My pride usually prevents me from admitting the merit of the other side’s arguments then and there. However, after a discussion, when I review what’s been said, I often realize that the other side’s arguments were better and change my views. Of course, that still leaves the other side frustrated and I feel sorry for that but discussions do change my mind.
I find that conversations in which one tries to convince someone of something harden their views.
If one goes into a conversation believing the other party to be wrong and trying to convince them that one is right, one starts with a closed mind, and all the other minds close as well.
The only way to get a possible transformation in views is to open yourself to having your own views be transformed. Then there is a general sense of safety in the space, and no one is being forced to defend a position.
I recommend Peter Hovmand's work on community based system dynamics for more on this.
Out of curiosity, where do you find Stalinists nowadays? I thought the last one was Enver Hoxha.
If I may, I would like to indulge in an act of self-promotion and link to a recent article about J. Posadas, an Argentinian Trotskyist (so anti-Stalinist by definition) who believed that UFOs, if existed, would be evidence that communism had triumphed in other planets. Bizarre, but fascinating.
Socrates was a master manipulator.
As Thomas C Schelling stated (in The strategy of conflict, 1968): You can never convince an opponent you are right, but you can convince him that you never will give up.
That's what political discussion is about.
As humbly as possible I’d like to toss in the idea that you may not have been engaging in dialogue in the first place and it’s at this point that the fault is found... I’ve been revisiting and being humbled by Paulo Freire and his notion of dialogue as being essential to revolutionary thought and impossible to realize without a profound love and trust in place with the interlocutor... as someone living in the American south I have found it overwhelmingly tempting to simply approach people with superior information of how the world works (it’s a very low bar here) but if I want to get anywhere ideologically with them (and it is possibly) dialogue can get me there if I can avoid attempting to “deposit” my view... I only share my thoughts because I appreciate yours...
Nice post! I must admit I rarely change my own views because of a single discussion. But my views have certainly changed over the years. But it’s because of reading (including reading history), so I do think many or even most of us change our minds as we mature.
These days, if I do engage in discussions with someone about a view that I think is mistaken, I tend to present a way of thinking about the issues rather than directly take a position on the issue. For example, a lot of people can’t accept that China’s political system is a democracy. So I talk about what Athenian democracy was like, and the idea that Athenians wouldn’t regard Western style representative democracy as a democracy since it involves delegating decision making to elected representatives rather than direct participation in decision-making. And I point out the difference between democratic institutions vs democratic outcomes. And how we care about both outcomes and institutions, not just institutions.
It is important to distinguish real political opinions from sports team membership.
I suspect that a key distinction here is the ability to consider that something might not be a good idea even if it is good for the person. For example, an American doctor may or may not be able to decide that socialized medicine would be better for all, even if he made less money.
Mr. Milanovic, were you ever persuaded in a face-to-face discussion to change your views? :-)
This is of course a tricky question to answer, as various pieces of our mental models are dear to us to varying degrees, and we might be willing to yield in some areas, but not in most of the others. What I would be interested to know is, whether you can recall having changed your views _substantially_ (whatever that means to you) in a discussion.
Maybe you can’t convince people who disagree with you because you’re wrong
If only people would adopt Keynes' attitude who, when once accused of changing his opinion, responded: "When facts change, I change my opinion. And what do you do sir"?
I find such discussions much less frustrating when I think about what I can learn from them, rather than whether I can change someone else’s mind.
Speaking from the experience of university teaching, I found a combination of oral communication and reading assignments, with occasional exercises, to be effective persuasive mechanisms with people entering the "conversation" with divergent opinions. Granted, the asymmetry in "position" might be at work as well, but I found Dr. Milanovic's experience different from my own . . . and frankly rather depressing.
I don’t believe it’s that simple. What matters is how conversations are structured and how much passion or belief you bring. Put simply, passion and belief is usually a barrier to changing people’s minds although it can help reinforce existing views. To change minds I think you need to present information and ideas that would resemble an educational style and that doesn’t work in general conversation. It’s why politics and basic economics should be essential subjects at school.
I just wrote something very similar yesterday and decided not to post it. Being surrounded by liberals, my point was entirely concerned with them and the exact strategies you mentioned, though I didn't think of it as concerning a particular ideological group. My partial answer is like yours, that writing and putting coherent arguments together is worthwhile as those who are seeking understanding will be able to read it. I also think that what you really need to convince people and to be convinced is a good prior relationship where you can both be certain of the good intentions of the other. I also think you need to go into conversations with clearly stated intentions as that's the easiest way to stop the whataboutism or other cheap rhetorical strategies. I also don't think we can expect other people to change their minds if we aren't willing to change our own.
Basically, a discussion can have two positive outcomes, if and when they do:
- "Agree to disagree"; i.e. we still are at odds but the exact points of dissidence have become more clear to both;
- "Need to think about it"; i.e. one or both the participants make some apparently good points, the other side have to anknowledge this, and so they need to re-shift their view integrating such new knowledge. It's a fundamentally human need, and more reasonable to expect than wanting the other side to agree with you right on the spot.
When discussing politics, though, both these outcome become extreeeeemely unlikely. Better to give up.
I’m guilty as an intransigent discussion partner. My pride usually prevents me from admitting the merit of the other side’s arguments then and there. However, after a discussion, when I review what’s been said, I often realize that the other side’s arguments were better and change my views. Of course, that still leaves the other side frustrated and I feel sorry for that but discussions do change my mind.
I find that conversations in which one tries to convince someone of something harden their views.
If one goes into a conversation believing the other party to be wrong and trying to convince them that one is right, one starts with a closed mind, and all the other minds close as well.
The only way to get a possible transformation in views is to open yourself to having your own views be transformed. Then there is a general sense of safety in the space, and no one is being forced to defend a position.
I recommend Peter Hovmand's work on community based system dynamics for more on this.
Out of curiosity, where do you find Stalinists nowadays? I thought the last one was Enver Hoxha.
If I may, I would like to indulge in an act of self-promotion and link to a recent article about J. Posadas, an Argentinian Trotskyist (so anti-Stalinist by definition) who believed that UFOs, if existed, would be evidence that communism had triumphed in other planets. Bizarre, but fascinating.
https://lucabaptista.substack.com/p/trotsky-aliens-dolphins-nukes