Brief Summary
This video explores why some arguments change people's minds while others backfire, highlighting the importance of understanding the audience's beliefs, trusted sources, and values. It uses examples like a logical brainteaser, attitudes towards the Iraq War, and political values to illustrate how tailoring arguments to align with these elements can increase persuasiveness. The video concludes by emphasizing the need for open discussion to understand differing perspectives and construct more convincing arguments.
- Arguments are more convincing when they align with the audience's beliefs, trusted sources, and values.
- Logical arguments work when based on shared beliefs.
- Trusted sources can sway opinions on factual matters.
- Appealing to values can be effective in settling disagreements.
- Open discussion is crucial for understanding different perspectives and constructing convincing arguments.
The Dinner Party Brainteaser
The video starts with a brainteaser about a dinner party where Paul, who is married, is looking at Linda, and Linda is looking at John, who is not married. The question is whether someone who is married is looking at someone who is not married. Most people initially say there is not enough information to tell, but the correct answer is yes. Linda is either married or not married, so in either case, someone married is looking at someone who is not married. This example illustrates how logical arguments based on shared beliefs can be convincing.
The Iraq War Study
The video references a 2005 study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler that examined American attitudes regarding the justifications for the Iraq War. Participants were presented with a news article showing that no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) had been found. However, many participants not only continued to believe that WMDs had been found but became even more convinced of their original views. This example shows how arguments can backfire when they contradict deeply held beliefs.
Elements of Convincing Arguments
Arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value. Mathematical and logical arguments work because people start from the same set of shared beliefs. Kurt Gödel's proof that a logically complete system of mathematics was impossible was accepted because it relied on axioms that everyone in the field already agreed on.
The Climate Change Statistics
When disagreements involve different beliefs, the issue often comes down to what sources and authorities people trust. A study asked people to estimate statistics related to climate change and then presented them with data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Being provided with reliable statistics from a trusted official source made people more likely to accept the reality that the earth is warming.
The Political Values
For disagreements that can’t be definitively settled with statistics or evidence, making a convincing argument may depend on engaging the audience’s values. Researchers have found that liberals tend to rank fairness above loyalty. Arguments for military spending based on fairness, such as the military providing employment and education to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, were more convincing to liberals than arguments based on loyalty, such as the military unifying a nation.
The Importance of Open Discussion
The video concludes by noting that while beliefs, trusted sources, and values may seem like a simple formula for finding agreement, our initial inclination is to think of arguments that rely on our own beliefs, trusted sources, and values. It can be challenging to correctly identify what’s held dear by people who don’t already agree with us. The best way to find out is simply to talk to them. In the course of discussion, you’ll be exposed to counter-arguments and rebuttals, which can help you make your own arguments and reasoning more convincing, and sometimes, you may even end up being the one changing your mind.
