Photo: PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock
During the holidays, we may find ourselves interacting with family members who don't agree with us–especially on politics.
Here's a story from NPR news with advice on how to navigate these situations. It provides practice in identifying variables, classifying claims, and evaluating whether a claim is supported by empirical evidence or not.
Political conversations with family members might fill us with dread, especially in light of this claim reported in the story:
Polling data from SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University shows that almost half of the U.S. electorate thinks members of the opposing political party are "downright evil." In a 2022 Pew Research Center study, growing numbers of Americans said members of the other party are dishonest, immoral and closed-minded.
a) In the quoted text above, what type of claim is being made–frequency, association, or cause?
b) In the quoted text above, what is/are the variable(s) in the claim?
c) In the quoted text above, what kind of evidence does the journalist provide–experience, authority, or empirical research? (You can review these terms in Chapter 2.)
Here's another excerpt from the story:
Neuroscience has shown that when two people agree, their brain activity is more synchronized than when they disagree.
Yale School of Medicine neuroscientist Joy Hirsch led a 2021 study that found that people's brains lit up in similar ways when they agreed. She thinks this means those people share more information and that the two people are more in consensus. Versus when people disagree: Their brains act like a cacophony instead of a harmonious duet.
d) In the text from the quote above ("Neuroscience has shown…"), what type of claim is being made–frequency, association, or cause?
e) In the text above, what are the variables in the claim?
f) In the quoted text above, what kind of evidence does the journalist provide–experience, authority, or empirical research?
Here's another section:
Tool 1: Focus on your breathing
When we face potential conflict, our body's automatic response may not help us regulate our emotions. […] "We get angry because we hear someone say something that we feel is just so wrong and we have to tell them that it's wrong," says Ken Barish, a psychologist at Weill Cornell Medical College who wrote the forthcoming book Bridging Our Political Divide. "So we have this mixture of anxiety and anger, and over time that becomes resentment. And contempt — and contempt is a very destructive interpersonal process."
But Briscoe-Smith says we can begin to move through these emotions by slowing down and refocusing on breathing. This can help combat the body's automatic response to conflict, helping us think more clearly and move to the next step.
g) Advice is usually a causal claim, because it suggests that if you do ____, it will cause ___. In the text above, what are the variables in the causal claim?
h) In the quoted text above, what kind of evidence does the journalist provide–experience, authority, or empirical research?
And here's one more element you can analyze:
Tool 3: Empathy
Humanize the other person you're talking to by asking about their lives, their families, their hobbies — not just their opinion on a single topic. That can help create more common ground outside of the conversation at hand.
i) As before, advice is usually a causal claim, because it suggests that if you do ____, it will cause ___. In the text above, what are the variables in the causal claim?
j) In the quoted text above, what kind of evidence does the journalist provide–experience, authority, or empirical research?
Reflection
k) Looking back on questions h) and j), What do you think about this journalist's use of authority over empirical evidence? And, what kind of empirical evidence might you like to see to support their advice?