The 1 thing to avoid in online political arguments
IF your goal is to persuade people, that is.
- A recent study examined the role that incivility plays in how people perceive online political arguments.
- The results showed that incivility led to more negative perceptions of political arguments — even when the argument was logical.
- The researchers suggested that name-calling, mockery and other forms of incivility should be avoided if you want to persuade people along political lines.
What's a great way not to persuade people in online political discussions? Toss in a bit of incivility. That's the takeaway from a new study published in Computers in Human Behavior that examined the role incivility plays in online discussions between different political groups.
"Conflict between political groups is interesting to me because it presents an intergroup situation where individuals often assert their views with a great deal of certainty and a great deal of enmity, yet discussions and contact between people with different political perspectives and identities is important to democratic society," study author Dr. Jason Popan, an associate professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, told PsyPost.
In a series of experiments, the researchers asked liberal and conservative participants to read fabricated online political arguments, and to evaluate the rationality of arguments proposed by people of the opposite political persuasion. The participants evaluated whether the arguments were strong or weak, civil or uncivil.
The results showed that participants were more likely to rate uncivil arguments as irrational — even if the argument was strong. What's more, strong incivility seemed to negatively affect participants' perceptions of the opposing political group.
It's discouraging, Popan suggested, because having tough conversations between ideologically opposed groups is how we reach compromise as a society, but it's incredibly difficult to do when incivility is ubiquitous online.
"Opportunities to learn about an opposition group's political rationales may be overshadowed by the salience of incivility," the researchers wrote. "Supporting this view, the results of an experiment where the civility of blog posts was manipulated suggested that incivility leads to a greater tendency to rely on heuristics rather than argument content to reach decisions."
So, how do you have less toxic political arguments? Popan offered some advice.
"If you want to persuade others that disagree with you by the content of the argument you are making, it is generally best to avoid belittling their views," Popan told PsyPost. "Name calling and mockery will cause your arguments to appear to be less rational, even in circumstances where you are making good points.
Interestingly, it remains unclear how exactly incivility affects the perceptions of in-group arguments. That's a question future research will hopefully examine.
"Incivility in U.S politics has been a growing concern, but the latest (2016) presidential demonstrated that incivility, name calling, and mockery can be a central part of a winning political campaign," Popan told PsyPost. "How such behaviors impact the potential for political deliberation between opposition political groups to lead to progress through compromise remains to be seen, but it seems unlikely that compromise and progress can coexist with behavior consistent with a wrestling entertainment match."
Research in plant neurobiology shows that plants have senses, intelligence and emotions.
- The field of plant neurobiology studies the complex behavior of plants.
- Plants were found to have 15-20 senses, including many like humans.
- Some argue that plants may have awareness and intelligence, while detractors persist.
Most people think human extinction would be bad. These people aren't philosophers.
- A new opinion piece in The New York Times argues that humanity is so horrible to other forms of life that our extinction wouldn't be all that bad, morally speaking.
- The author, Dr. Todd May, is a philosopher who is known for advising the writers of The Good Place.
- The idea of human extinction is a big one, with lots of disagreement on its moral value.
Since the idea of locality is dead, space itself may not be an aloof vacuum: Something welds things together, even at great distances.
- Realists believe that there is an exactly understandable way the world is — one that describes processes independent of our intervention. Anti-realists, however, believe realism is too ambitious — too hard. They believe we pragmatically describe our interactions with nature — not truths that are independent of us.
- In nature, properties of Particle B may depend on what we choose to measure or manipulate with Particle A, even at great distances.
- In quantum mechanics, there is no explanation for this. "It just comes out that way," says Smolin. Realists struggle with this because it would imply certain things can travel faster than light, which still seems improbable.