You're trying to appeal to conservatives' desire to help others stop being afraid. That's not what this experiment was about. You need to make the conservatives themselves feel safe and secure if...
You're trying to appeal to conservatives' desire to help others stop being afraid. That's not what this experiment was about. You need to make the conservatives themselves feel safe and secure if you want them to come to the table on progressive issues.
Or, make the progressives afraid so they agree with the conservatives.
I feel like it's especially hard because being direct will get you preconceived responses. People will realize what you're saying ("universal health care is good", "our gun laws aren't working")...
I feel like it's especially hard because being direct will get you preconceived responses. People will realize what you're saying ("universal health care is good", "our gun laws aren't working") and match it up with their existing ideas.
That's not what they observed in this experiment. (Doesn't anyone read these articles?) When the Republicans answered obvious questions about social issues, their opinions lined up with Democrats'...
That's not what they observed in this experiment.
I asked 300 U.S. residents in an online survey their opinions on several contemporary issues such as gay rights, abortion, feminism and immigration, as well as social change in general.
before they answered the survey questions, we had them engage in an intense imagination exercise.
if they had instead just imagined being completely physically safe, the Republicans became significantly more liberal — their positions on social attitudes were much more like the Democratic respondents. And on the issue of social change in general, the Republicans’ attitudes were now indistinguishable from the Democrats.
(Doesn't anyone read these articles?)
When the Republicans answered obvious questions about social issues, their opinions lined up with Democrats' opinions if they had just imagined being safe.
Maybe not instantly. But imagine there was some way to make conservatives feel safe about a situation and the consequences of their decisions. They'd be more likely to respond differently.
Maybe not instantly. But imagine there was some way to make conservatives feel safe about a situation and the consequences of their decisions. They'd be more likely to respond differently.
Is it really a matter of just changing the phrasing? We already know that people are easily swayed by the language used to describe various political talking points: ObamaCare versus ACA,...
Is it really a matter of just changing the phrasing? We already know that people are easily swayed by the language used to describe various political talking points: ObamaCare versus ACA, assistance versus entitlement, illegal versus undocumented.
I wonder if this doesn't explain the recent fuss about transgender people. As transgender people become more visible and more prevalent, this makes conservative people more fearful about the...
I wonder if this doesn't explain the recent fuss about transgender people.
As transgender people become more visible and more prevalent, this makes conservative people more fearful about the consequences of having transgender people around. That fear pushes them more towards hardcore conservative anti-transgender opinions.
If there was some way to reassure them, maybe they wouldn't react so badly.
I'm sure the gay rights movement and the slow acceptance of homosexuals in society over the last 30-40 years could serve as a blue print for bringing about that change (but you're a smart guy and...
I'm sure the gay rights movement and the slow acceptance of homosexuals in society over the last 30-40 years could serve as a blue print for bringing about that change (but you're a smart guy and probably know that already, but I thought I'd say it just in case).
Of course. I don't think that this study necessarily finds anything we didn't already know. Conservatives value safety and the status quo above all else. Everyone knows this, and conservatives...
Of course. I don't think that this study necessarily finds anything we didn't already know. Conservatives value safety and the status quo above all else. Everyone knows this, and conservatives themselves will admit it. The reason conservatives don't support transgender people, or gay people, or immigration, or socialized healthcare is because they don't like change. That's why they're conservative after all.
This study goes a little further than just telling us that conservatives value safety. It demonstrates that, if you make conservative people feel safe, they change their opinions about certain...
This study goes a little further than just telling us that conservatives value safety. It demonstrates that, if you make conservative people feel safe, they change their opinions about certain social issues. That's new information. That's different.
That right there, the potential to change, is what I found most intriguing about this article. I’m a college instructor. I also know that the more education one receives, the more progressive one...
That right there, the potential to change, is what I found most intriguing about this article.
I’m a college instructor. I also know that the more education one receives, the more progressive one generally becomes. I’m always absolutely fascinated by watching my students navigate this process. I’ve made some personal observations about what seems to “unlock” students enough to truly consider alternative views and I don’t think I ever really put the word “safety” on my list. As I think on it a bit though, it makes perfect sense.
I purposefully create an environment in my classes where students understand that I absolutely expect them to bring their worldviews to the table. I don’t shy from any subject and I teach them how to conduct civilized discourse. I live in a conservative state so a lot of the general discourse leans that way... at first.
As the students begin to trust me and understand that they are safe in our space regardless of their opinions or how awkwardly they express them, they just mentally... unfurl? Once that happens, I get to step back and just watch. It’s like someone introduced a patch and they’re rebooting.
Anyway, this article was a wonderful read and has given me a lot to think about.
Hasn't priming been one of the main culprits during the replication crisis? As a result, I find myself being quite dubious of any study of the form "I reminded participants of X and then amazing...
Hasn't priming been one of the main culprits during the replication crisis? As a result, I find myself being quite dubious of any study of the form "I reminded participants of X and then amazing thing Y happened!"
Even if the study replicates, I still feel like the main thrust of the article is hyperbolic: they turned conservatives into liberals? Really? Or was it just that they could get people to answer an online survey slightly differently?
Priming causes problems in studies when it's unintentional and/or not properly considered as a factor. In this case, the study is deliberately priming the subjects and assessing the results. It's...
Priming causes problems in studies when it's unintentional and/or not properly considered as a factor. In this case, the study is deliberately priming the subjects and assessing the results. It's the primary point of the study rather than a factor that needs to be controlled for.
They obviously didn't really "convert" anybody, but showed that fear-based opinions are more malleable when the subject feels safe.
Yeah the way they describe it is pretty exaggerated. They're showing a short term change of opinion when expressed in a low stakes situation. That's cool, I dig it. But how long does the effect...
Yeah the way they describe it is pretty exaggerated. They're showing a short term change of opinion when expressed in a low stakes situation. That's cool, I dig it. But how long does the effect last and how firmly will they hold to these changed opinions for that duration, if for instance the survey questions are asked by family or friends instead of a stranger or a questionnaire? Perhaps these questions are examined in the study itself but from this article I'm not seeing the headline justified. This is good preliminary research for beginning to examine how to make a conservative liberal or vice versa though.
You're trying to appeal to conservatives' desire to help others stop being afraid. That's not what this experiment was about. You need to make the conservatives themselves feel safe and secure if you want them to come to the table on progressive issues.
Or, make the progressives afraid so they agree with the conservatives.
I feel like it's especially hard because being direct will get you preconceived responses. People will realize what you're saying ("universal health care is good", "our gun laws aren't working") and match it up with their existing ideas.
That's not what they observed in this experiment.
(Doesn't anyone read these articles?)
When the Republicans answered obvious questions about social issues, their opinions lined up with Democrats' opinions if they had just imagined being safe.
I did. I don't think it would go the same way in a face-to-face conversation.
Maybe not instantly. But imagine there was some way to make conservatives feel safe about a situation and the consequences of their decisions. They'd be more likely to respond differently.
Is it really a matter of just changing the phrasing? We already know that people are easily swayed by the language used to describe various political talking points: ObamaCare versus ACA, assistance versus entitlement, illegal versus undocumented.
I wonder if this doesn't explain the recent fuss about transgender people.
As transgender people become more visible and more prevalent, this makes conservative people more fearful about the consequences of having transgender people around. That fear pushes them more towards hardcore conservative anti-transgender opinions.
If there was some way to reassure them, maybe they wouldn't react so badly.
I'm sure the gay rights movement and the slow acceptance of homosexuals in society over the last 30-40 years could serve as a blue print for bringing about that change (but you're a smart guy and probably know that already, but I thought I'd say it just in case).
It actually went through my mind as I was writing my comment, so thanks for saving me the effort of writing it out! :)
Of course. I don't think that this study necessarily finds anything we didn't already know. Conservatives value safety and the status quo above all else. Everyone knows this, and conservatives themselves will admit it. The reason conservatives don't support transgender people, or gay people, or immigration, or socialized healthcare is because they don't like change. That's why they're conservative after all.
This study goes a little further than just telling us that conservatives value safety. It demonstrates that, if you make conservative people feel safe, they change their opinions about certain social issues. That's new information. That's different.
That right there, the potential to change, is what I found most intriguing about this article.
I’m a college instructor. I also know that the more education one receives, the more progressive one generally becomes. I’m always absolutely fascinated by watching my students navigate this process. I’ve made some personal observations about what seems to “unlock” students enough to truly consider alternative views and I don’t think I ever really put the word “safety” on my list. As I think on it a bit though, it makes perfect sense.
I purposefully create an environment in my classes where students understand that I absolutely expect them to bring their worldviews to the table. I don’t shy from any subject and I teach them how to conduct civilized discourse. I live in a conservative state so a lot of the general discourse leans that way... at first.
As the students begin to trust me and understand that they are safe in our space regardless of their opinions or how awkwardly they express them, they just mentally... unfurl? Once that happens, I get to step back and just watch. It’s like someone introduced a patch and they’re rebooting.
Anyway, this article was a wonderful read and has given me a lot to think about.
Hasn't priming been one of the main culprits during the replication crisis? As a result, I find myself being quite dubious of any study of the form "I reminded participants of X and then amazing thing Y happened!"
Even if the study replicates, I still feel like the main thrust of the article is hyperbolic: they turned conservatives into liberals? Really? Or was it just that they could get people to answer an online survey slightly differently?
Priming causes problems in studies when it's unintentional and/or not properly considered as a factor. In this case, the study is deliberately priming the subjects and assessing the results. It's the primary point of the study rather than a factor that needs to be controlled for.
They obviously didn't really "convert" anybody, but showed that fear-based opinions are more malleable when the subject feels safe.
Yeah the way they describe it is pretty exaggerated. They're showing a short term change of opinion when expressed in a low stakes situation. That's cool, I dig it. But how long does the effect last and how firmly will they hold to these changed opinions for that duration, if for instance the survey questions are asked by family or friends instead of a stranger or a questionnaire? Perhaps these questions are examined in the study itself but from this article I'm not seeing the headline justified. This is good preliminary research for beginning to examine how to make a conservative liberal or vice versa though.