Moral Foundations Theory-based Messaging (Addendum to Closed COVID-19 Thread)

[CV75]

@BlueDreams

Okay, sorry for the delay – I decided to order the book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion  by Jonathan Haidt, 2012), rather than borrow it again from the library. To respond to your question in this link: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73926-covid-cases-hospitalizations-death-trends-and-other-touchy-subjects…/?do=findComment&comment=1210053481

My reply is: Using his moral foundations theory, the process is “simple”: to understand an opposing ideology, open the heart first. “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.” You needn’t compromise in your ideology*, but there may be mutually satisfying solutions that arise from balance instead of war.

* our minds are deeply intuitive, with our gut feelings driving our logic, explanations, rationale and strategic reasoning. Our minds are designed by genes and culture for “groupish righteousness” (our socially-binding moral foundations, values and sense) which binds us to each other and blinds us to the humanity of other groups.

Of course, it might require psychologists and political scientists to convince the powers that be to implement policy that encourages this sort of thing.

Here’s an article or two covering the development of messaging I’m talking about:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7577686/

https://theweek.com/feature/opinion/1003578/to-persuade-the-vaccine-hesitant-you-have-to-move-the-elephant-in-the-brain

Edited September 14, 2021 by CV75

[MustardSeed]

Theres a black man who has sat down with myriads of KKK members to learn what they believe and how they think.  In the process of getting to know him better, upwards of 200 members have left the klan. IMO this has everything to do with the way he approaches the conversations - no intention to change anyone, but rather, to learn.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

........................... To respond to your question in this link: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73926-covid-cases-hospitalizations-death-trends-and-other-touchy-subjects…/?do=findComment&comment=1210053481

My reply is: Using his moral foundations theory, the process is “simple”: to understand an opposing ideology, open the heart first. “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.” You needn’t compromise in your ideology*, but there may be mutually satisfying solutions that arise from balance instead of war.....................................

Sounds like marriage counseling. 

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Theres a black man who has sat down with myriads of KKK members to learn what they believe and how they think.  In the process of getting to know him better, upwards of 200 members have left the klan. IMO this has everything to do with the way he approaches the conversations - no intention to change anyone, but rather, to learn.

Commendable but not sure how applicable that is to the OP. I doubt he was striving for “mutually satisfying solutions” with the Klan members.

[MustardSeed]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Commendable but not sure how applicable that is to the OP. I doubt he was striving for “mutually satisfying solutions” with the Klan members.

CV:   “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.”

I assume if people are willing to approach conversations about racism and have the results I shared, perhaps with the same attitude there could be some hope for COVID conversations.  

Perhaps unlikely in this group where it seems that making a fool out of one another is prime real estate.  IMO. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

CV:   “If you can have at least one friendly interaction with a member of the “other” group, you’ll find it far easier to listen to what they’re saying, and maybe even see a controversial issue in a new light.”

I assume if people are willing to approach conversations about racism and have the results I shared, perhaps with the same attitude there could be some hope for COVID conversations.  

Perhaps unlikely in this group where it seems that making a fool out of one another is prime real estate.  IMO. 

I can tell you that the more morbid members of one side see the other side killing themselves off and their general response is:

 

 

 

[MustardSeed]

I don't want anyone to die.  More seriously, I do believe that everyone is just dealing with something traumatic in the best way they know how - either through compliance or control. 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don't want anyone to die.  More seriously, I do believe that everyone is just dealing with something traumatic in the best way they know how - either through compliance or control. 

I don’t either. I just think there is an overestimation of the desire of many people to reach out to others in understanding.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Theres a black man who has sat down with myriads of KKK members to learn what they believe and how they think.  In the process of getting to know him better, upwards of 200 members have left the klan. IMO this has everything to do with the way he approaches the conversations - no intention to change anyone, but rather, to learn.

I think this man exemplified the willingness to take the risk in addition to seeing the humanity of those so blatantly opposed to his. It also shows the importance of "grassroots" approaches, though I'm thinking more about how to systematize them.

I think the First Presidency was reaching out on a grassroots level with the recent announcements about vaccination. I can't imagine any of these members dehumanizing those who object to their counsel. The theme of treating those who think, believe or vote (as well as look, speak and behave) differently has been mentioned in several recent general conference talks, "recent" beginning a few years ago.

Edited September 14, 2021 by CV75

[MustardSeed]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t either. I just think there is an overestimation of the desire of many people to reach out to others in understanding.

To be clear -  I do know you don't want anyone to die.  And in addition, I know very few (can count on 2 fingers) people who are open to have conversation about COVID in purely an understanding and curious way. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Theres a black man who has sat down with myriads of KKK members to learn what they believe and how they think.  In the process of getting to know him better, upwards of 200 members have left the klan. IMO this has everything to do with the way he approaches the conversations - no intention to change anyone, but rather, to learn.

We watched a video about people just sitting at a table and gazing into each other’s eyes.  Seems to change hearts.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t either. I just think there is an overestimation of the desire of many people to reach out to others in understanding.

Part of the messaging I’m thinking about includes reaching those that are not currently interested in reaching out to others (or in this way, at least), and those that assume too few are interested.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

To be clear -  I do know you don't want anyone to die.  And in addition, I know very few (can count on 2 fingers) people who are open to have conversation about COVID in purely an understanding and curious way. 

I think this is why the willingness to listen and share needs to be established on some commonality through a "friendly interaction" with them. I don't know how the man in your example did it, but he had something going for him.

Edited September 14, 2021 by CV75

[katherine the great]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We watched a video about people just sitting at a table and gazing into each other’s eyes.  Seems to change hearts.

Sounds incredibly awkward to me. 😳

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Sounds incredibly awkward to me. 😳

There are many ways to skin a cat -- what have you seen work that changes attitudes between ideologically opposed individuals so they can speak to each other's heart of hearts? @Robert F. Smithlikened it to marriage counseling, and I recall a few posters describing their spouses as, politically at least, on opposite sides and they make it work.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like marriage counseling. 

In many ways the process of getting to that point might feel that way!

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Sounds incredibly awkward to me. 😳

It would appear so, but after several minutes some very interesting things started to happen. 

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We watched a video about people just sitting at a table and gazing into each other’s eyes.  Seems to change hearts.

 

14 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Sounds incredibly awkward to me. 😳

That might depend on the eyes into which one is gazing.    

Sorry, but I had to say it!   

  

[pogi]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

Of course, it might require psychologists and political scientists to convince the powers that be...

And a miracle or two 

I think there are politicians who are very good at this though.  While I disagree with governor Cox on many issues, I think he is a good example of how it can be.  I think he has demonstrated the same openness and respect throughout his governorship.  We definitely need more of this.  I know I could use some work.

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by pogi

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

And a miracle or two 

I think there are politicians who are very good at this though.  While I disagree with governor Cox on many issues, I think he is a good example of how it can be.  I think he has demonstrated the same openness and respect throughout his governorship.  We definitely need more of this.  I know I could use some work.

 

It would be great if they could share exactly how they are doing that on a deeper level than civility. He alludes to that by saying "without hating each other" -- how do they go about doing that?

[Danzo]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t either. I just think there is an overestimation of the desire of many people to reach out to others in understanding.

 

Perhaps your view is tainted by the limits of internet dialog

How often do you take someone out to lunch who disagrees with your politics and talk to them face to face about thier concerns?

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

How often do you take someone out to lunch who disagrees with your politics and talk to them face to face about their concerns?

I do it quite often with members of my family.  I go to lunch with my siblings at least once a month.   My brother was vaccine hesitant and my sister and her husband are full on anti-maskers/vaxers deep into conspiracy theories.  It always makes for interesting family gatherings.   We always get along and have a good relationship and there was only one fairly passionate interaction between my brother-in-law and myself over masks.  He is a heavy weight MMA fighter, so I tried VERY HARD to keep my cool 

Civil discourse and dialogue can only go so far in discussions about vaccines and masks.  They think I am deceived, they don't trust the government and the CDC. It doesn't matter what I say or how cordial I am.  It doesn't matter how much space I give them to speak their feelings and perspective while I listen intently to try to find understanding about their concerns.  When science itself (or at least the institutions publishing the studies) is not trusted, there is literally nothing that can be done.   All the data I present is useless because they simply don't trust the source.   

My brother eventually did end up getting vaccinated, not because of anything I did or said, but because the prophet urged it.  My sister and BIL will never be vaccinated.  We are discussing a possible trip to Europe soon as flights are so stinking cheap right now, but the EU is now suggesting that travels to the EU who are not vaccinated may need to quarantine for 2 weeks.  If that happens, he has stated he will simply not go on the trip rather than just get vaccinated.  His latest rant is that the vaccine is being used to connect us all to the 5G network.   While it is important to maintain healthy relationships with my family, that is not enough to persuade/influence anyone who doesn't trust the government/public health institutions.  There will never be an eye-to-eye understanding of where the other is coming from.  I can't cause them to trust official/medical sources and they can't cause me to trust their meme (he loves to show me memes as proof) sources.  

Edited September 15, 2021 by pogi

[Nofear]

I very much appreciate Moral Foundations theory (and have brough Haidt's book up before on this board). Alas, so many of the comments to your OP seem to entirely miss the point, CV75.

While Daryl Davis (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/18/daryl-davis-black-musician-who-converts-ku-klux-klan-members) may not have exactly employed Moral Foundation theory explicitly in his thinking, there is some explanatory power in the theory for why his actions succeeded.

Or Cassie Jaye's awakening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY).

Or this woman's journey from the Westboro Baptist church: https://www.ted.com/talks/megan_phelps_roper_i_grew_up_in_the_westboro_baptist_church_here_s_why_i_left?language=en)

 

[Danzo]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I do it quite often with members of my family.  I go to lunch with my siblings at least once a month.   My brother was vaccine hesitant and my sister and her husband are full on anti-maskers/vaxers deep into conspiracy theories.  It always makes for interesting family gatherings.   We always get along and have a good relationship and there was only one fairly passionate interaction between my brother-in-law and myself over masks.  He is a heavy weight MMA fighter, so I tried VERY HARD to keep my cool 

Civil discourse and dialogue can only go so far in discussions about vaccines and masks.  They think I am deceived, they don't trust the government and the CDC. It doesn't matter what I say or how cordial I am.  It doesn't matter how much space I give them to speak their feelings and perspective while I listen intently to try to find understanding about their concerns.  When science itself (or at least the institutions publishing the studies) is not trusted, there is literally nothing that can be done.   All the data I present is useless because they simply don't trust the source.   

My brother eventually did end up getting vaccinated, not because of anything I did or said, but because the prophet urged it.  My sister and BIL will never be vaccinated.  We are discussing a possible trip to Europe soon as flights are so stinking cheap right now, but the EU is now suggesting that travels to the EU who are not vaccinated may need to quarantine for 2 weeks.  If that happens, he has stated he will simply not go on the trip rather than just get vaccinated.  His latest rant is that the vaccine is being used to connect us all to the 5G network.   While it is important to maintain healthy relationships with my family, that is not enough to persuade/influence anyone who doesn't trust the government/public health institutions.  There will never be an eye-to-eye understanding of where the other is coming from.  I can't cause them to trust official/medical sources and they can't cause me to trust their meme (he loves to show me memes as proof) sources.  

I am glad you are taking the opportunity about talk with people and listen to them.  It sound like your BIL needs to be educated about what a 5G network is (Hint, it doesn't involve injections and, from a physics perspective, its not much different than WiFi)

Sometimes when talking to people, you kind of need to just go with their logic. (Wow, I didn't know how 5G involves injections!, How does that work?) Or (Why doesn't your 4G phone need the injections).

I remember when my sister told me that the vaccines caused magnetism in people, my first question was "Did the needle break off in the persons arm?" followed with "Have they measured the strength of the magnetic field in Teslas?" (she knows I studied electrical engineering so I know a couple of things about magnetic fields)  after these kind of questions she admitted that she wasn't quite sure about the claim anymore. What I didn't do, and knew not to do was say something like "the CDC says vaccines don't cause people to be magnetic"  

Sometimes, looking for sources that aren't part of their distrusted sources can help.

One thing you can do is sympathize with the wacky government rules that have been developed which don't seem to make any rational sense (What dark magic protects people sitting at a table without masks but doesn't protect them as they are walking in an empty resturant to that table).

Many people are just frustrated by rules and regulations that are made overnight and seemingly arbitary without any citizen imput and by people who they didn't know had the power to make such rules.  It can be about who makes the rules and who decides the rules more than what the rules are. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I do it quite often with members of my family.  I go to lunch with my siblings at least once a month.   My brother was vaccine hesitant and my sister and her husband are full on anti-maskers/vaxers deep into conspiracy theories.  It always makes for interesting family gatherings.   We always get along and have a good relationship and there was only one fairly passionate interaction between my brother-in-law and myself over masks.  He is a heavy weight MMA fighter, so I tried VERY HARD to keep my cool 

Civil discourse and dialogue can only go so far in discussions about vaccines and masks.  They think I am deceived, they don't trust the government and the CDC. It doesn't matter what I say or how cordial I am.  It doesn't matter how much space I give them to speak their feelings and perspective while I listen intently to try to find understanding about their concerns.  When science itself (or at least the institutions publishing the studies) is not trusted, there is literally nothing that can be done.   All the data I present is useless because they simply don't trust the source.   

My brother eventually did end up getting vaccinated, not because of anything I did or said, but because the prophet urged it.  My sister and BIL will never be vaccinated.  We are discussing a possible trip to Europe soon as flights are so stinking cheap right now, but the EU is now suggesting that travels to the EU who are not vaccinated may need to quarantine for 2 weeks.  If that happens, he has stated he will simply not go on the trip rather than just get vaccinated.  His latest rant is that the vaccine is being used to connect us all to the 5G network.   While it is important to maintain healthy relationships with my family, that is not enough to persuade/influence anyone who doesn't trust the government/public health institutions.  There will never be an eye-to-eye understanding of where the other is coming from.  I can't cause them to trust official/medical sources and they can't cause me to trust their meme (he loves to show me memes as proof) sources.  

This is the crux of where MFT can be useful. It explains why civility can go only so far; why people on each other side think the others are deceived / stupid / evil (period); why the conversation stops there; the deeply subordinate role science plays in that; and even the subordinate role trust plays in that. It describes the kinds and levels of targeted communication that might cut through all that, but these techniques require understanding the theory.

I would say the level of friendly interaction is sufficiently friendly and interactive once those involved find it easier to listen to what each other is saying, and possibly see the controversy in a new light. Understanding the theory supports accomplishing this. Whoever understands it can still message effectively without the audience having to understand it themselves.

Edited September 15, 2021 by CV75