target the lenses
Honestly I’m not super happy with how this note turned out… I feel like any well written note would really just be a rewrite of The Righteous Mind, so if you are interested in this topic, I suggest reading that.
Oftentimes you simply cannot have an intellectual conversation with someone until you understand the way they think on a deep level. According to The Righteous Mind, people have core beliefs that the book calls moral matrices and that I call lenses. The book continues to talk about how these matrices are so fundamental that large swaths of arguments will simply fail because they don’t fit into someone’s moral matrix.
As an example, let’s create a strawman:
Mr. S. Trawman believes there is a natural hierarchy to the world, that the deserving naturally rise to the top, and that the impoverished could improve their stature if they just worked harder. Furthermore, Mr. Trawman believes that a good economy benefits all and that welfare policies harm the economy causing long term problems for the people that the welfare is ostensibly supposed to help.
There are a lot of arguments for the minimum wage I’ve seen thrown around. A lot of my news feed talks about how nobody deserves to starve while working full time, how rising healthcare and rent costs squeeze vulnerable populations, and how poverty can be deleterious to one’s mental health.
Many of these pieces are written to spur left wingers into action, and that’s fine. I just can’t help but feel that none of these arguments would work on Mr. Trawman. He’d probably just talk about how these effects are fine, because they encourage people to find better paying jobs, perhaps with an unstated belief that “these people deserve it”.
Let’s say you really did want to change Mr. Trawman’s mind. Perhaps they’re a relative of yours, or a politician whose beliefs affect how they write policy.
I think the first thing to do is simply to understand Mr. Trawman, and this is a step a lot of people skip. Why does he believe the things he does? What positions is he steadfast on, and what’s he willing to compromise on? What is his education on certain topics?
Instead of using arguments about what humans deserve, maybe point out that the minimum wage doesn’t actually affect employment numbers. Point out that the U.S. ranks lower on social mobility than many “socialist countries”. That educating onesself to attain a high paying job is near impossible if you have to work multiple jobs to feed your family.
Or, go even further and try to break down his lenses themselves. Make him question why certain people are less deserving of life than others, whether money is actually an indicator of someone’s contribution to society, and whether hierarchies are beneficial to human flourishing.
Everything I wrote above I went through rather quickly because this isn’t a note about the minimum wage. This is a note about how to talk to people who have different lenses than you. I think it’s a very odd feeling to make arguments you don’t necessarily believe in, but are effective for your audience. I think it takes a lot of empathy and perspective.
More examples because why not:
- Many arguments about abortion fall on deaf ears for pro-lifers because of their fundamental belief that abortion is murder and should be treated with that level of severity. This is why the dying violinist is one of the few viable pro-choice arguments (when talking to pro-lifers at least).
