![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Understanding those with different political views -- ur doin it rong
An acquaintance recently mentioned on his own blog a productive political discussion he had with a Trump supporter at work. Both sides not trying to attack one another, not trying to convince one another, just understand one another and exchange information. Which sounds great to me: we need a lot more of that in this country.
Then he went on to describe the discussion in more detail, line by line, and it sounds like he was asking questions not to understand but to point out logical flaws in the other person's beliefs. Classic Socratic method -- grammatically it sounds like you're asking questions, but in fact you're instructing. It's a fine technique, which I've used thousands of times in the classroom, but using it with a co-worker to discuss politics and religion seems perilous. To make matters worse, the "other person" in question was female, 10-20 years younger and several levels lower in the employer's hierarchy (albeit not in direct chain of command) than the poster, which introduces a power imbalance into the whole thing. At several points the script says "Her: [quiet]" or "Her: I think I have some things to think about", which he interprets as showing that he had made a valid point to which she had no equally-valid rebuttal; under the circumstances, it seems equally likely that it represented her withdrawing more and more from an increasingly uncomfortable conversation.
I'm certainly not innocent of this kind of thing myself, but I at least try to distinguish between having a logical argument with the intent to persuade and having an exchange with the intent to understand.
And if anything is likely to confirm a Trump supporter's intention to vote for Trump, it's a well-off, well-educated intellectual lecturing hir on how stupid and gullible s/he is to support Trump.
Then he went on to describe the discussion in more detail, line by line, and it sounds like he was asking questions not to understand but to point out logical flaws in the other person's beliefs. Classic Socratic method -- grammatically it sounds like you're asking questions, but in fact you're instructing. It's a fine technique, which I've used thousands of times in the classroom, but using it with a co-worker to discuss politics and religion seems perilous. To make matters worse, the "other person" in question was female, 10-20 years younger and several levels lower in the employer's hierarchy (albeit not in direct chain of command) than the poster, which introduces a power imbalance into the whole thing. At several points the script says "Her: [quiet]" or "Her: I think I have some things to think about", which he interprets as showing that he had made a valid point to which she had no equally-valid rebuttal; under the circumstances, it seems equally likely that it represented her withdrawing more and more from an increasingly uncomfortable conversation.
I'm certainly not innocent of this kind of thing myself, but I at least try to distinguish between having a logical argument with the intent to persuade and having an exchange with the intent to understand.
And if anything is likely to confirm a Trump supporter's intention to vote for Trump, it's a well-off, well-educated intellectual lecturing hir on how stupid and gullible s/he is to support Trump.