22 ms·

Maybe this is a naive reaction, but it is genuinely horrifying to me that these basic tricks could influence professional diplomats, who are negotiating treatie

Maybe this is a naive reaction, but it is genuinely horrifying to me that these basic tricks could influence professional diplomats, who are negotiating treaties and policies influencing the lives of millions of people. Sure, I understand that a random person on the street might be more supportive of "I support the division of Jerusalem" over "I support dividing Jerusalem". But someone who's entire skillset, career, and purpose is to deal with this question? SURELY, even in this post-truth age of Trump, the facts have to matter for SOMETHING?

simonh 8y ago
I doubt it's as effective in diplomatic contexts. Dipolmats (in the broadest sense, including politicians) do not walk into a room, get faced with a single question and then vote yes or no. They work in teams, they discuss issues over many years, they engage in numerous debates and conduct studies and theoretical scenarios. No one phrase on a topic is going to decide their objectives, policies or strategy. What this sort of thing can do his promote trust or at least tolerance of individuals prepared to talk in this way. That's not necessarily a bad thing, someone who puts in the effort to use diplomatic language, is more likely to be someone who considers their words and actions more carefully, so this could be a useful and actually relevant social signal.
jmull 8y ago
Well, a diplomat perfectly well understands those are not equivalent statements. The later is a much stronger, balder statement while the former suggests building consensus before acting. Each signals a quite different posture.
pjc50 8y ago
Other way round, surely : facts are complicated, inaccessible and often resistant to summary. Whereas the most important thing in politics is how people feel about the outcome. (This is what Rumsfeld meant by contrasting himself with the "reality based community"; humans are really a subjectivity-based community unless they put a lot of effort into detaching.)

simonh 8y ago

I doubt it's as effective in diplomatic contexts. Dipolmats (in the broadest sense, including politicians) do not walk into a room, get faced with a single question and then vote yes or no. They work in teams, they discuss issues over many years, they engage in numerous debates and conduct studies and theoretical scenarios. No one phrase on a topic is going to decide their objectives, policies or strategy. What this sort of thing can do his promote trust or at least tolerance of individuals prepared to talk in this way. That's not necessarily a bad thing, someone who puts in the effort to use diplomatic language, is more likely to be someone who considers their words and actions more carefully, so this could be a useful and actually relevant social signal.

jmull 8y ago

Well, a diplomat perfectly well understands those are not equivalent statements. The later is a much stronger, balder statement while the former suggests building consensus before acting. Each signals a quite different posture.

pjc50 8y ago

Other way round, surely : facts are complicated, inaccessible and often resistant to summary. Whereas the most important thing in politics is how people feel about the outcome. (This is what Rumsfeld meant by contrasting himself with the "reality based community"; humans are really a subjectivity-based community unless they put a lot of effort into detaching.)