4 ms·

To have a political discussion without getting people too self-defensive, it's good to pose opinions in the third person: "I support Trump because he's tough o

To have a political discussion without getting people too self-defensive, it's good to pose opinions in the third person: "I support Trump because he's tough on immigration." vs. "People support Trump because he's tough on immigration." Others are less likely to get combative when it seems like you are making an observation about a third party rather than planting a flag on a core belief.

germinalphrase 8y ago
I work in an environment that requires me to have political/social conversations while also retaining my personal neutrality (I am not allowed to acknowledge personal beliefs). I can second the usefulness of this approach. It goes a long a way toward keeping the discussion on the issue at hand and avoiding personal defensiveness.
awb 8y ago
That's always annoyed me with US politics. In the US politicians have a habit of saying "The American people..." Which immediately triggers my thought: "I'm an American person and I don't think that way". The speaker seems immediately out of touch with me when they use the third person. However, when they use the first person and take responsibility for their own unique views, I can understand them better even if I don't agree.
- haZard_OS 8y ago
  I agree with your point but I suspect the problem with statements like the one you identified is that they claim too much. In other words, if I say "The American people want X", there are surely some Americans who don't want X and I just alienated them. If, however, I say "many Americans want X", I'm making a weaker claim that is easier to defend. In general, I prefer that people err on the side of making a weaker claim. It's less frustrating to communicate with people willing to do so (for me, at least). The one downside of criticizing "weasel words" is that more people start making overly broad claims that you and I do not care for.
  - kthejoker2 8y ago
    My favorite hedge is "The American people have spoken" whenever 350 or so adults with landlines answer a loaded question by saying they "somewhat agree."
musage 8y ago
May work for some, has the opposite effect on me. I usually say "speak for yourself, and respond directly to the people whose spectres you're conjuring". I have a lot more respect for someone with an opinion I disagree (or agree with, come to think of it) with who is honest about it being their opinion, than someone who talks about what "most people" or "the average person" supposedly thinks, does or wants, or who hides their personal opinion behind supposed objectivity (also comes in the form of dismissing an opinion for being "biased"). I like to "quip" (to myself) that if all those people whose supposed opinions are referenced also can't stand behind it as their opinion, but in turn point to the fact that many people have that opinion, and that that means it must have merit, then there isn't really an opinion there... just pointers going in a cycle that should be garbage collected as a whole. "Does this belong to anyone? I mean, does anyone actually lay personal claim to it, rather than saying they dreamed that they heard about someone wondering if it might belong to some or even most people? Otherwise, out it goes." I don't know how one would learn to think, but I know several ways to unlearn it, and have the feeling that referring to and parroting others is one of the more efficient ones. There are times and situations where crutches are needed (it's a lot of data, after all, and we start out as 100% dependent newborns and develop from there), but try to fling them as far as you can whenever you can.

germinalphrase 8y ago

I work in an environment that requires me to have political/social conversations while also retaining my personal neutrality (I am not allowed to acknowledge personal beliefs). I can second the usefulness of this approach. It goes a long a way toward keeping the discussion on the issue at hand and avoiding personal defensiveness.

awb 8y ago

That's always annoyed me with US politics. In the US politicians have a habit of saying "The American people..." Which immediately triggers my thought: "I'm an American person and I don't think that way". The speaker seems immediately out of touch with me when they use the third person. However, when they use the first person and take responsibility for their own unique views, I can understand them better even if I don't agree.

haZard_OS 8y ago
I agree with your point but I suspect the problem with statements like the one you identified is that they claim too much. In other words, if I say "The American people want X", there are surely some Americans who don't want X and I just alienated them. If, however, I say "many Americans want X", I'm making a weaker claim that is easier to defend. In general, I prefer that people err on the side of making a weaker claim. It's less frustrating to communicate with people willing to do so (for me, at least). The one downside of criticizing "weasel words" is that more people start making overly broad claims that you and I do not care for.
- kthejoker2 8y ago
  My favorite hedge is "The American people have spoken" whenever 350 or so adults with landlines answer a loaded question by saying they "somewhat agree."

musage 8y ago

May work for some, has the opposite effect on me. I usually say "speak for yourself, and respond directly to the people whose spectres you're conjuring". I have a lot more respect for someone with an opinion I disagree (or agree with, come to think of it) with who is honest about it being their opinion, than someone who talks about what "most people" or "the average person" supposedly thinks, does or wants, or who hides their personal opinion behind supposed objectivity (also comes in the form of dismissing an opinion for being "biased"). I like to "quip" (to myself) that if all those people whose supposed opinions are referenced also can't stand behind it as their opinion, but in turn point to the fact that many people have that opinion, and that that means it must have merit, then there isn't really an opinion there... just pointers going in a cycle that should be garbage collected as a whole. "Does this belong to anyone? I mean, does anyone actually lay personal claim to it, rather than saying they dreamed that they heard about someone wondering if it might belong to some or even most people? Otherwise, out it goes." I don't know how one would learn to think, but I know several ways to unlearn it, and have the feeling that referring to and parroting others is one of the more efficient ones. There are times and situations where crutches are needed (it's a lot of data, after all, and we start out as 100% dependent newborns and develop from there), but try to fling them as far as you can whenever you can.