Three Sides to Any Debate
I’ve been in a few controversial online debates recently, and something became apparent to me. For any debate topic, there are really three sides, or three groups of people, in the debate. Failure to recognize this fact results in a dysfunctional debate. I think the best way to explain this is to use an example.
Some people love peas. They could happily eat peas morning noon and night. They think peas are good. Others hate peas. They find the vegetable slimy, smelly and disgusting. When they go to the supermarket, they have to avert their eyes from the canned peas in the vegetable aisle. As unlikely as it sounds, these two groups have two points in common.
First, they have both made up their minds. Show a pea-lover a blue-ribbon scientific study proving that eating peas causes bad breath, acne and shortens one’s lifespan and they’ll either ignore it or try to poke holes in the study. If you show a study to a pea-hater proving that eating peas in any form once a week will add ten years to their life and a date with the attractive celebrity of their choice, it will be equally unpersuasive.
Second, both groups tend to distrust the motives of the other. If a pea-lover comes up to a pea-hater and says, “you should eat peas - they’re good for you” the pea-hater assumes that the pea-lover is an idiot and/or a stooge for the Pea Growers’ Association. The reverse is also true.
However, neither pea-lovers nor pea-haters consist of an absolute majority of the general population. There is a third group of people whose minds aren’t set on the issue. Call them “swingers.”(edit "swingers" is an attempt at humor.) These folks may lean one way or the other, from “peas are OK if you bury them in a stew” (my personal position) to “peas are good, just not every day.” Since we live in a democracy, getting public policy passed requires building a majority. That means convincing some of the swingers to move one way or the other.
Here’s where the dysfunction comes up. Statements that one side finds self-evident (“Peas are good”) are unpersuasive to the swingers, and viewed as violently wrong by the other side. Even worse, if the opposite side responds as they want to (by shouting, “you’re a dupe for the Pea Grower’s Association”) the swingers automatically leave the debate. Either that or get some popcorn and settle in to watch the show. But they don’t get persuaded to change their minds.
If you want to change the minds of somebody who’s on the fence, you need to use the tools of rational debate, facts and figures. Equally important is the need to understand that, once you go over to the emotional side, those facts and figures become automatically suspect.
I understand some issues are emotional. It feels good to yell, “you’re an idiot!” to people who disagree with you. But giving into that emotion is self-destructive. If your opponent has already made up their mind, nothing you can say will help. Nobody likes being called an idiot, even if (especially if) they are one. Those with an open mind won’t think that the name-caller is particularly bright either.
Some people love peas. They could happily eat peas morning noon and night. They think peas are good. Others hate peas. They find the vegetable slimy, smelly and disgusting. When they go to the supermarket, they have to avert their eyes from the canned peas in the vegetable aisle. As unlikely as it sounds, these two groups have two points in common.
First, they have both made up their minds. Show a pea-lover a blue-ribbon scientific study proving that eating peas causes bad breath, acne and shortens one’s lifespan and they’ll either ignore it or try to poke holes in the study. If you show a study to a pea-hater proving that eating peas in any form once a week will add ten years to their life and a date with the attractive celebrity of their choice, it will be equally unpersuasive.
Second, both groups tend to distrust the motives of the other. If a pea-lover comes up to a pea-hater and says, “you should eat peas - they’re good for you” the pea-hater assumes that the pea-lover is an idiot and/or a stooge for the Pea Growers’ Association. The reverse is also true.
However, neither pea-lovers nor pea-haters consist of an absolute majority of the general population. There is a third group of people whose minds aren’t set on the issue. Call them “swingers.”(edit "swingers" is an attempt at humor.) These folks may lean one way or the other, from “peas are OK if you bury them in a stew” (my personal position) to “peas are good, just not every day.” Since we live in a democracy, getting public policy passed requires building a majority. That means convincing some of the swingers to move one way or the other.
Here’s where the dysfunction comes up. Statements that one side finds self-evident (“Peas are good”) are unpersuasive to the swingers, and viewed as violently wrong by the other side. Even worse, if the opposite side responds as they want to (by shouting, “you’re a dupe for the Pea Grower’s Association”) the swingers automatically leave the debate. Either that or get some popcorn and settle in to watch the show. But they don’t get persuaded to change their minds.
If you want to change the minds of somebody who’s on the fence, you need to use the tools of rational debate, facts and figures. Equally important is the need to understand that, once you go over to the emotional side, those facts and figures become automatically suspect.
I understand some issues are emotional. It feels good to yell, “you’re an idiot!” to people who disagree with you. But giving into that emotion is self-destructive. If your opponent has already made up their mind, nothing you can say will help. Nobody likes being called an idiot, even if (especially if) they are one. Those with an open mind won’t think that the name-caller is particularly bright either.