What we need to do differently when we talk politics

To the extent that society can be understood as a big family, psychologist John Gottman has important suggestions for improving our communications.  Based on his track record, Gottman is someone to whom all of us should carefully listen.  His techniques have allowed him to predict with 90% accuracy which newly married couples will still be married six years later.

Gottman describes many of his techniques in The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, a 1999 book that has enriched the lives of countless married couples trying to get back on track.  In this book, he demonstrates that there is no better way to destroy a working relationship than to employ the following four techniques, which he labels “the Four Horsemen”:

A) Criticism: Attacking another person’s character or personality;

B) Showing contempt through such things as sneering, sarcasm, cynicism, name-calling, eye-rolling, mockery and hostile humor.

C) Defensiveness that proclaims that “The problem isn’t me, it’s you.” And

D) Stonewalling: tuning out completely.

When I read this list, it struck me that these four techniques precisely describe the state of political dialogue in this country. These are also the techniques by many of the people who conduct interviews in the media.  Think, for example, of a typical Bill O’Reilly interview, though O’Reilly is merely one of the more egregious examples.  Many news programs expect and encourage conflict in an attempt to keep the audience mesmerized so that the network can sell more advertisements.  The resulting conflict commonly manifests itself through these four above-mentioned techniques.  It is critically important to note that none of these techniques is necessary for effective communication, no matter who the other person is and no matter what he or she is saying.  Smart, disciplined good-hearted people don’t stoop to these techniques.

Here’s another important cause of communication failure:  Gottman has pointed out that in functional relationships, the parties communicate at least five times as many positive ideas as negative ideas to one another. Consider that the ratio of positive to negative in public forums is probably the reverse of the minimum optimum.  In most contemporary forums where political ideas are discussed, it is a rare bird who dares to admit that one’s opponent has any decent ideas at all.   Instead, we hear the parties villainizing each other and attempting to totally destroy each other ideas.  Success is all too often seen as publically demonstrating that the other person, almost always termed one’s “opponent,” is an idiot.

In short, the way we publicly attempt to communicate with each other regarding the important issues of the day has been scientifically demonstrated to be a guaranteed formula for failure.

There are solutions to each of these “Four Horsemen.”  For starters, it would require that we stop using the above techniques when we attempt to communicate.   In fact, until we call a cease-fire regarding these four techniques, further attempts to communicate will only exacerbate conflict and paranoia.  Until we change the way we attempt to talk with each other on many news programs, it would be better if we stopped talking at all. That’s how bad things have gotten.

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 3 Comments

  1. Avatar of Niklaus Pfirsig
    Niklaus Pfirsig

    Occasionally, Bill O'Reilly interviews someone who can play by the above rules and as a result is unable to elevate the interview to a shouting match.

    One of the more surprising of this type was with shock-rocker Marilyn Manson.

    I am not a fan of his music, but I have seen him on a few interviews over the years and I was impressed by the interviews. He is very articulate, and at ease in front of the camera and he projects a sense of true modesty.

    Despite several attempts by O'Reilly to draw him into an argument, Manson never takes the bait, and by the end of the interview, O'Reilly is starting to show signs of intimidation.

  2. Avatar of Leonid S. Sukhorukov
    Leonid S. Sukhorukov

    * Eating each other when we are not hungry is what distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Leonid S. Sukhorukov

  3. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth

    Another thing that doesn’t happen much in political dialogue these days is what Gottman describes as “Turning Toward” in response to “bids for connection:

    “As part of his research, John Gottman conducted a study with newlyweds and then followed up with them six years later. Many of the couples had remained together. Many had divorced. The couples that stayed married were much better at one thing — the third level of the Sound Relationship House, Turn Towards Instead of Away. At the six-year follow-up, couples that had stayed married turned towards one another 86% of the time. Couples that had divorced averaged only 33% of the time. The secret is turning towards.

    I think this is a pretty incredible piece of data. It suggests that there is something you can do today that will dramatically change the course of your relationship. More importantly, it suggests that there is something that you can not do that will lead to its demise. So, how do you turn towards instead of away? In order to understand turning, you have to first understand bids.”

    https://www.gottman.com/blog/turn-toward-instead-of-away/

Leave a Reply