4 ms·

This reminds me of a story I heard from a professor while I was studying public relations. In her early career, my professor was a lobbyist faced with a seemin

This reminds me of a story I heard from a professor while I was studying public relations. In her early career, my professor was a lobbyist faced with a seemingly impossible task: getting Republicans and Democrats to agree on a healthcare initiative. The nonprofit foundation that employed her wanted Congress to help provide care to more Americans who couldn't afford it. (This is unrelated to the more recent Affordable Care Act.) Here's the interesting part: my professor didn't just start speaking with politicians. She interviewed and distributed a survey to congresspeople and their aids. The goal was to better understand what phrases attracted or turned off Democrats and Republicans, respectively. She learned that, when it came to bridging gaps between people, both parties wanted similar things — but they discussed the issues in dramatically different ways. Democrats frequently used the word "inequality" and phrases like "leveling the playing field." Meanwhile, Republicans preferred phrases like "raising the bottom," the notion being that natural economic disparities exist among different groups. Researching the parties' preferences and crafting different messages, my professor succeeded in passing the initiative. The takeaway is that if you're trying mobilize people around this topic, be very cautious about the language you choose, especially the word "inequality." Liberals and conservatives both want to help disenfranchised people, but, at least among those with political power, language can be the dividing line.

lsc 13y ago
>at least among those with political power, language can be the dividing line. Yup, the emotional connotations of a word matters to people who are sensitive to that sort of thing. "Job Creator" vs. "exploiter of the proletariat" - Now, to me? my assumption is that both phrases refer to the same entity. They say a lot about the speaker, of course, but not a lot about what the speaker is speaking about. My observation, though, is that the sort of people who are most conscious about choosing the emotional content of their words are also the most easily manipulated by others choosing words of different connotations. it seems very weird to me that someone who manipulates others using a certain technique would also be more vulnerable than average to that same technique being used on them.
pdkl95 13y ago
> they discussed the issues in dramatically different ways. http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... While this article is about creationism (it was written as part of the "intelligent design" drama), it is still the best discussion of the key difference between (USA-style) left/right politics. The key insight, summarized: while many people respond to logic and reasoning, others respond primarily to the phatic language of the speaker. This means that trying to convince someone who is strongly "conservative" of something, the usual approach of arguing facts and logic doesn't work. You have to break the language barrier first.

lsc 13y ago

>at least among those with political power, language can be the dividing line. Yup, the emotional connotations of a word matters to people who are sensitive to that sort of thing. "Job Creator" vs. "exploiter of the proletariat" - Now, to me? my assumption is that both phrases refer to the same entity. They say a lot about the speaker, of course, but not a lot about what the speaker is speaking about. My observation, though, is that the sort of people who are most conscious about choosing the emotional content of their words are also the most easily manipulated by others choosing words of different connotations. it seems very weird to me that someone who manipulates others using a certain technique would also be more vulnerable than average to that same technique being used on them.

pdkl95 13y ago

> they discussed the issues in dramatically different ways. http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-of-s/ http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resi... While this article is about creationism (it was written as part of the "intelligent design" drama), it is still the best discussion of the key difference between (USA-style) left/right politics. The key insight, summarized: while many people respond to logic and reasoning, others respond primarily to the phatic language of the speaker. This means that trying to convince someone who is strongly "conservative" of something, the usual approach of arguing facts and logic doesn't work. You have to break the language barrier first.