Loading ...
Bridging the divide between global warming’s denizens and deniers.
The debate over global warming and whether to do anything about it is far from over. Despite a global consensus on the subject and a hit movie, there is still sufficient resistance to derail a relatively toothless climate change bill. It’s downright frightening to realize the magnitude of the challenge on the one hand and deal with such resistance on the other. If we’re going to solve global warming, it’s going to require effort from everyone. We can’t afford to have 10% or 20% of the population working against it. So not only do we have to convince non-believers to change their minds, we have to rally their support.
Given the confrontation, it’s certainly temping to think, “Screw them. If they want to deny global warming, we’ll gather enough people and political support to shove it down their throats.” Unfortunately, that would be a mistake. Because all of that shoving and being shoved is effort that could be used to address the problem. How then do you convert a non-believer into a supporter? There are a number of ways, and we’ll explore each of them in this series of posts. But first we need to get tactical.
The social web is a conversation, and that dialog often turns into debate. Whether in the form of blog posts, comments, Twitter, IM, Digg, or YouTube, we often end up taking sides and arguing our positions, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like the politics and economics of climate change. We also take these debates into the real world, of course. The hope is that our web conversations better prepare us for those face-to-face interactions. In either case, there are some basic tools and tips for successful persuasion.
The purpose of this first post is to highlight a few principles or rules. Unlike a simple debate, persuasive arguments are not about winning per se. There are no judges or trophies. The objective is not to beat your opponent but to convert them…to win them over. Think of it in these terms: there is a huge mountain to climb. You want to summit in order to save the world, and your opponent wants to block your way. You need to not only get past them but to enlist their support in order to be successful. It’s no easy task and requires tremendous tact.
1. Be respectful: The vast majority of people believe in their positions and aren’t simply there to make trouble and waste everyone’s time. Those that are should simply be ignored. Otherwise, people are entitled to their opinions. If they happen to be misguided, berating them will only entrench those beliefs. Further, ad hominem attacks add nothing to the substance of the debate. The point at which you call someone stupid is the point at which you’ve lost the argument and failed in your objective. Any possibly of persuading them is gone.
2. Focus on the facts: The web is full of them, and Google is quite adept at locating them. A single link to a reputable source can make your entire case and hasten your response. And while you can’t attack your opponent personally, you can discredit the sources to which they refer. This is supremely important in this era of truthiness. Choose your sources carefully.
3. Know where the both of you stand: Few issues are black and white, which means there’s plenty of gray area in between. It’s important to know where you and your opponent stand, because even the best arguments won’t move someone very far. You’re not going to convert a Christian to atheism or vice versa. But you might be able to convert agnostic to atheist or fundamentalist to moderate. These are the physical limits of persuasive argument. It’s also advisable not to appear to take an extreme position from the get-go, as that can further polarize an opponent. If they feel you’re open to their position, it’s more likely they’ll be open to yours.
4. Find common ground: If you’re able to agree on something, be the first to point it out. For example, “I agree with you that X, and for these reason, Y is a better way to go.” Notice that instead of using “but” we chose “and”. It accomplishes the same objective (disagreement) without appearing to negate what you’ve just acknowledged. It may also be necessary to negotiate and give ground in order to get it. The net can still be positive for the planet.
5. Never say, “You’re wrong”: Besides insults involving one’s mother, these are probably the worst two words you can use. Anyone who’s ever been told they’re wrong knows what we’re talking about. It triggers an immediate defensive position, and the discussion might as well end right there. The more tactful approach is to simply acknowledge their position by demonstrating an understanding of where they’re coming from, stating that you disagree, and proceeding to make your counter argument. One of the key human needs is to understand and be understood. Demonstrating empathy for their position scores persuasive points in your favor.
In subsequent posts, we’ll explore some of the specific challenges and opportunities in converting global warming skeptics into believers, as well as a few roundabout ways to gain allies.
Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
3 responses so far ↓
1 How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics: Part 2 | Max Gladwell // Jul 1, 2008 at 11:28 am
[...] introduced this series with a post about debating etiquette and tactics. It’s not about winning the debate or proving your opponent wrong. With global warming, [...]
2 How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics, Part 3 | Max Gladwell // Jul 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm
[...] Part 1, we made a key distinction about the how and why of debating climate change. We argued [...]
3 How to Debate Climate Change : Ameel’s Career & MBA Exposition (ACME) // Jul 21, 2008 at 8:12 am
[...] ‘How to Debate Climate Change with Conservative Skeptics’ and he’s written parts one, two, and three so far. They’re aimed at an American audience and use mostly US examples but [...]
Leave a Comment