How to have better political conversations | Robb Willer

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Joanna Pietrulewicz

Translator: Katharina Bille Reviewer: Jette Thrane

So you probably have the sense, as most people do,

Du fornemmer måske, som så mange andre,

that polarization is getting worse in our country,

at polariseringen øges,

that the divide between the left and the right

at skellet mellem venstre og højre

is as bad as it's been in really any of our lifetimes.

er værre end nogensinde før.

But you might also reasonably wonder if research backs up your intuition.

Men bakkes din fornemmelse mon op af forskning.

And in a nutshell, the answer is sadly yes.

I det store hele er svaret desværre ja.

In study after study, we find

Forskning viser,

that liberals and conservatives have grown further apart.

at venstre- og højrefløjen er længere fra hinanden.

They increasingly wall themselves off in these ideological silos,

De forskanser sig i højere grad i ideologiske siloer,

consuming different news, talking only to like-minded others

konsumerer forskellige nyheder, taler kun med ligesindede

and more and more choosing to live in different parts of the country.

og vælger i højere grad at bo i forskellige dele af landet.

And I think that most alarming of all of it

Og jeg tror, at det mest alarmerende af det hele

is seeing this rising animosity on both sides.

er, at se denne stigning af fjendskab på begge sider.

Liberals and conservatives,

Liberale og konservative,

Democrats and Republicans,

demokrater og republikanere,

more and more they just don't like one another.

de kan i højere grad bare ikke lide hinanden.

You see it in many different ways.

Det ses på mange forskellige måder.

They don't want to befriend one another. They don't want to date one another.

De undgår venskaber og arrangementer med hinanden.

If they do, if they find out, they find each other less attractive,

Sker det alligevel, finde de hinanden mindre tiltrækkende,

and they more and more don't want their children to marry someone

og de vil i mindre grad have at deres børn gifter sig med nogen,

who supports the other party,

som støtter det andet parti,

a particularly shocking statistic.

en særligt chokerende statistik.

You know, in my lab, the students that I work with,

jeg og de studerende, jeg arbejder med

we're talking about some sort of social pattern --

taler om et socialt mønster --

I'm a movie buff, and so I'm often like,

Jeg er en filmnørd, og jeg tænker ofte,

what kind of movie are we in here with this pattern?

hvad for en film er vi i dette mønster?

So what kind of movie are we in with political polarization?

Hvilken film er vi i denne politiske polarisering?

Well, it could be a disaster movie.

Det kunne være en katastrofefilm.

It certainly seems like a disaster.

Det virker som en katastrofe.

Could be a war movie.

Det kunne være en krigsfilm.

Also fits.

Det passer også.

But what I keep thinking is that we're in a zombie apocalypse movie.

Men jeg tænker at vi er i en zombie-apokalypse-film.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Right? You know the kind.

I kender dem...

There's people wandering around in packs,

Der er folk der bevæger sig rundt i flokke,

not thinking for themselves,

tænker ikke selvstændigt,

seized by this mob mentality

er grebet af denne flokmentalitet,

trying to spread their disease and destroy society.

prøver at sprede sygdommen og ødelægge samfundet.

And you probably think, as I do,

Og du tænker sikkert, som jeg gør,

that you're the good guy in the zombie apocalypse movie,

at du er den gode i denne zombie-apokalypse-film,

and all this hate and polarization, it's being propagated by the other people,

og alt det her had og polarisering skyldes andre mennesker,

because we're Brad Pitt, right?

for vi er Brad Pitt, ikke?

Free-thinking, righteous,

Fritænkende, retfærdige,

just trying to hold on to what we hold dear,

prøver bare at holde fast i det, vi har kært,

you know, not foot soldiers in the army of the undead.

ikke soldater i zombie-hæren.

Not that.

Ikke det.

Never that.

Aldrig det.

But here's the thing:

Men her er pointen:

what movie do you suppose they think they're in?

hvilken film tror I, at de tænker, de er med i?

Right?

Ikke sandt?

Well, they absolutely think that they're the good guys

De mener helt sikkert, at de er heltene

in the zombie apocalypse movie. Right?

i zombie-apokalypse-filmen. Ikke sandt?

And you'd better believe that they think that they're Brad Pitt

at de er Brad Pitt,

and that we, we are the zombies.

og vi er zombierne.

And who's to say that they're wrong?

Og hvordan ved vi, at de tager fejl?

I think that the truth is that we're all a part of this.

Jeg tror vi alle har en andel i det her.

And the good side of that is that we can be a part of the solution.

Og det gode er at vi kan være en del af løsningen.

So what are we going to do?

Så hvad skal vi gøre?

What can we do to chip away at polarization in everyday life?

Hvad kan vi gøre for at mindske polarisering i hverdagen?

What could we do to connect with and communicate with

Hvordan kontakter vi og kommunikerer med

our political counterparts?

vores politiske modparter?

Well, these were exactly the questions that I and my colleague, Matt Feinberg,

Min kollega Matt Feinberg og jeg,

became fascinated with a few years ago,

blev fascineret af netop de spørgsmål

and we started doing research on this topic.

og vi begyndte at undersøge emnet.

And one of the first things that we discovered

Og en af de første ting, vi opdagede,

that I think is really helpful for understanding polarization

som kan kaste lys over polarisering,

is to understand

er, at forstå

that the political divide in our country is undergirded by a deeper moral divide.

at basis for det politiske skel findes i et dybere moralsk skel.

So one of the most robust findings in the history of political psychology

Et af de mest markante fund i den politiske psykologi-historie,

is this pattern identified by Jon Haidt and Jesse Graham,

er identificeret af psykologerne

psychologists,

Jon Haidt og Jesse Graham.

that liberals and conservatives tend to endorse different values

Liberale og konservative

to different degrees.

har forskellige værdier

So for example, we find that liberals tend to endorse values like equality

For eksempel ser vi, at liberale ofte har værdier som lighed

and fairness and care and protection from harm

og retfærdighed og omsorg og beskyttelse

more than conservatives do.

i højere grad end konservative.

And conservatives tend to endorse values like loyalty, patriotism,

Og for konservative er det oftest loyalitet og patriotisme,

respect for authority and moral purity

respekt for autoritet og moralsk renhed

more than liberals do.

i højere grad end liberale.

And Matt and I were thinking that maybe this moral divide

Og Matt og jeg tænkte, at dette moralske skel måske

might be helpful for understanding how it is

kan vise hvordan

that liberals and conservatives talk to one another

liberale og konservative taler med hinanden

and why they so often seem to talk past one another

og hvorfor de misforstår hinanden

when they do.

når de taler.

So we conducted a study

Så vi lavede en undersøgelse

where we recruited liberals to a study

hvor vi rekrutterede liberale

where they were supposed to write a persuasive essay

til at skrive en tekst

that would be compelling to a conservative in support of same-sex marriage.

som skulle overbevise en konservativ om at bifalde homovielse.

And what we found was that liberals tended to make arguments

Resultatet viste at liberale havde tendens til at argumentere

in terms of the liberal moral values of equality and fairness.

med liberale moralske værdier som lighed og retfærdighed.

So they said things like,

Så de skrev ting som,

"Everyone should have the right to love whoever they choose,"

"Alle skal have ret til at elske, hvem de har lyst,"

and, "They" -- they being gay Americans --

og "De" -- de Amerikanske homoseksuelle --

"deserve the same equal rights as other Americans."

"fortjener de samme rettigheder, som andre amerikanere."

Overall, we found that 69 percent of liberals

69 % af de liberale

invoked one of the more liberal moral values in constructing their essay,

brugte mindst een af de mere liberale moralværdier i deres tekst,

and only nine percent invoked one of the more conservative moral values,

og kun 9% af de mere konservative moralske værdier,

even though they were supposed to be trying to persuade conservatives.

selvom det var meningen de skulle overtale en konservativ.

And when we studied conservatives and had them make persuasive arguments

Og i studiet af de konservatives overtalelsesevner

in support of making English the official language of the US,

for at gøre engelsk til det officielle sprog i USA,

a classically conservative political position,

- en klassisk konservativ overbevisning -

we found that they weren't much better at this.

viste det sig at de ikke var meget bedre.

59 percent of them made arguments

59 % af dem fremlagde argumenter

in terms of one of the more conservative moral values,

fra mere konservative moralske værdier,

and just eight percent invoked a liberal moral value,

og kun 8% benyttede en liberalt værdisæt

even though they were supposed to be targeting liberals for persuasion.

på trods af at de skulle overbevise en liberal målgruppe.

Now, you can see right away why we're in trouble here. Right?

Så, du kan godt se vi har et problem her, ikke?

People's moral values, they're their most deeply held beliefs.

Folks moralske værdier, er deres mest faste overbevisninger.

People are willing to fight and die for their values.

Folk er villige til at kæmpe og dø for deres værdier.

Why are they going to give that up just to agree with you

Hvorfor opgive det, bare for at blive enige med dig

on something that they don't particularly want to agree with you on anyway?

om noget de ikke egentlig ikke ønsker at være enig med dig i?

If that persuasive appeal that you're making to your Republican uncle

Hvis appellen til din republikanske onkel

means that he doesn't just have to change his view,

ikke bare skal ændre hans holdning

he's got to change his underlying values, too,

men også hans grundlæggende værdier

that's not going to go very far.

kommer du ikke særlig langt.

So what would work better?

Så hvad ville virke bedre?

Well, we believe it's a technique that we call moral reframing,

Altså, vi tror på en teknik vi kalder moralsk reframing

and we've studied it in a series of experiments.

og vi har undersøgt det i en række eksperimenter.

In one of these experiments,

I et af de her eksperimenter

we recruited liberals and conservatives to a study

rekrutterede vi liberale og konservative til en undersøgelse

where they read one of three essays

hvor de skulle læse en af tre tekster

before having their environmental attitudes surveyed.

før en undersøgelse af deres holdning til miljø.

And the first of these essays

Og den første tekst

was a relatively conventional pro-environmental essay

var relativt konventionel og pro-miljø

that invoked the liberal values of care and protection from harm.

der brugte liberale værdier som omsorg og beskyttelse.

It said things like, "In many important ways

Der stod ting som, "Vi gør, på mange måder, stor skade

we are causing real harm to the places we live in,"

på de steder vi lever,"

and, "It is essential that we take steps now

og, "Det er essentielt at vi handler nu

to prevent further destruction from being done to our Earth."

for at forbygge fremtidig ødelæggelse af vores planet."

Another group of participants

En anden gruppe deltagere

were assigned to read a really different essay

fik tildelt en meget anderledes tekst

that was designed to tap into the conservative value of moral purity.

som var designet til at tappe ind i den konservative værdi om moralsk renhed.

It was a pro-environmental essay as well,

Det var også en pro-miljø tekst,

and it said things like,

hvor der stod ting som,

"Keeping our forests, drinking water, and skies pure is of vital importance."

"At holde vores skove, drikkevand og luft ren er af afgørende betydning."

"We should regard the pollution

"Vi burde betragte forureningen

of the places we live in to be disgusting."

af de steder vi bor, som ulækker."

And, "Reducing pollution can help us preserve

Og "Reduceringen af forurening kan hjælpe os med at bevare

what is pure and beautiful about the places we live."

det smukke og renheden i de steder vi bor."

And then we had a third group

Den 3. gruppe

that were assigned to read just a nonpolitical essay.

skulle læse en ikke-politisk tekst.

It was just a comparison group so we could get a baseline.

En baseline-gruppe der skulle give et udgangspunkt.

And what we found when we surveyed people

Da vi testede folks holdninger

about their environmental attitudes afterwards,

efter læsning af teksterne

gik de liberale meget op i miljø,

we found that liberals, it didn't matter what essay they read.

They tended to have highly pro-environmental attitudes regardless.

uanset hvad de havde læst.

Liberals are on board for environmental protection.

Liberale går virkelig ind for miljøbeskyttelse.

Conservatives, however,

Konservative derimod,

were significantly more supportive of progressive environmental policies

støttede i langt højere grad en progressiv miljøpolitik

and environmental protection

hvis de læste teksten

if they had read the moral purity essay

der agiterede med moralsk renhed,

than if they read one of the other two essays.

end hvis de læste en af de to andre tekster

We even found that conservatives who read the moral purity essay

Vi fandt oven i købet, at disse konservative

were significantly more likely to say that they believed in global warming

var mere tilbøjelige til at tro på global opvarmning

and were concerned about global warming,

og bekymre sig om det

selvom teksten slet ikke omtalte global opvarming.

even though this essay didn't even mention global warming.

That's just a related environmental issue.

Det er bare relateret til miljøproblemer.

But that's how robust this moral reframing effect was.

Men så robust var den morale reframing.

And we've studied this on a whole slew of different political issues.

Og vi har undersøgt dette på en række forskellige politiske emner.

So if you want to move conservatives

Så hvis du vil bevæge konservative

on issues like same-sex marriage or national health insurance,

på emner som homovielse eller national sygeforsikring,

it helps to tie these liberal political issues to conservative values

hjælper det at binde liberale politiske emner til konservative værdier

like patriotism and moral purity.

som patriotisme og moralsk renhed.

And we studied it the other way, too.

Vi har også undersøgt det modsatte

If you want to move liberals to the right on conservative policy issues

Hvis du vil flytte liberale til højre på de konservative politiske emner

like military spending and making English the official language of the US,

som militærudgifter og engelsk som officielt sprog i USA,

you're going to be more persuasive

vil du være mere overbevisende

if you tie those conservative policy issues to liberal moral values

hvis du binder konservative politikker til liberale moralske værdier

like equality and fairness.

som lighed og retfærdighed.

All these studies have the same clear message:

Alle disse undersøgelser har samme klare besked:

if you want to persuade someone on some policy,

Hvis du vil overbevise nogen,

it's helpful to connect that policy to their underlying moral values.

hjælper det at binde det op på deres moralske værdier.

And when you say it like that

Og når du siger det sådan

it seems really obvious. Right?

virker det ret åbenlyst. Ikke?

Like, why did we come here tonight?

Som f.eks. hvorfor vi her i aften?

Why --

Hvorfor --

(Laughter)

(Latter)

It's incredibly intuitive.

Det er utroligt intuitivt.

And even though it is, it's something we really struggle to do.

Og alligevel er det utroligt svært at gøre.

You know, it turns out that when we go to persuade somebody on a political issue,

Når vi forsøger at overbevise nogen om en politisk holdning,

we talk like we're speaking into a mirror.

taler vi, som om vi taler til et spejl.

We don't persuade so much as we rehearse our own reasons

Vi overtaler ikke så meget, som vi udøver vores egne årsager

for why we believe some sort of political position.

til hvorfor vi tror på en slags politisk overbevisning.

We kept saying when we were designing these reframed moral arguments,

Mens vi designede vores "reframed" argumenter, sagde vi

"Empathy and respect, empathy and respect."

"Empati og respekt, empati og respekt."

If you can tap into that,

Og hvis du kan gøre det,

you can connect

kan du få kontakt

and you might be able to persuade somebody in this country.

og du kan måske overbevise nogen i dette land.

So thinking again

Så hvis vi igen tænker på

about what movie we're in,

hvilken film vi er i,

maybe I got carried away before.

måske blev jeg revet med før.

Maybe it's not a zombie apocalypse movie.

Måske er det ikke en zombie film.

Maybe instead it's a buddy cop movie.

Måske er det en betjent-makkerpar film.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Just roll with it, just go with it please.

Prøv nu bare at gå med på den...

(Laughter)

(Latter)

You know the kind: there's a white cop and a black cop,

Du ved hvilken slags: En hvid betjent og en sort betjent,

or maybe a messy cop and an organized cop.

eller måske en rodet betjent og en organiseret betjent.

Whatever it is, they don't get along

Hvad end det er, så kan de ikke sammen

because of this difference.

fordi de er forskellige.

But in the end, when they have to come together and they cooperate,

Men til slut, når de lærer at samarbejde,

the solidarity that they feel,

føler de en solidaritet,

it's greater because of that gulf that they had to cross. Right?

som er større på grund af den afgrund de krydsede. Ikke?

And remember that in these movies,

Og husk at i de film,

it's usually worst in the second act

er det oftest værst i anden akt

when our leads are further apart than ever before.

når vores to hovedpersoner er længst væk fra hinanden.

And so maybe that's where we are in this country,

Det er måske der vi er lige nu her i landet,

late in the second act of a buddy cop movie --

sent i anden akt af en betjent-makkerpar film --

(Laughter)

(Latter)

torn apart but about to come back together.

langt fra hinanden, men ved at finde sammen igen.

It sounds good,

Det lyder godt,

but if we want it to happen,

men hvis det skal ske,

I think the responsibility is going to start with us.

tror jeg at ansvaret starter med os.

So this is my call to you:

Så min opfordring til Jer er:

let's put this country back together.

Lad os samle dette land igen.

Let's do it despite the politicians

Lad os gøre det på trods af politikerne

and the media and Facebook and Twitter

og medierne, Facebook og Twitter

and Congressional redistricting

og kongres gerrymandering

and all of it, all the things that divide us.

og alt det der skiller os.

Let's do it because it's right.

Lad os gøre det, fordi det er rigtigt.

And let's do it because this hate and contempt

Og lad os gøre det fordi dette had og den foragt,

that flows through all of us every day

der flyder gennem os hver dag,

makes us ugly and it corrupts us,

er grim og korrumperende

and it threatens the very fabric of our society.

og truer samfundets grundpiller.

We owe it to one another and our country

Vi skylder det til hinanden og vores land

to reach out and try to connect.

at række ud og prøve at skabe kontakt.

We can't afford to hate them any longer,

Vi har ikke råd til at hade dem længere,

and we can't afford to let them hate us either.

og vi har ikke råd til at lade dem hade os.

Empathy and respect.

Empati og respekt.

Empathy and respect.

Empati og respekt.

If you think about it, it's the very least that we owe our fellow citizens.

Det er det mindste vi kan byde vores medborgere.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)