In this post we review four additional cognitive errors that occur in our political discussions. These are:
Fairness fallacies: This error is present when individuals or groups resent others for not meeting their personal standards of what is fair or not fair, or become angry when “doing the right thing” is not rewarded. The fairness fallacy may sound like this: “It’s just not fair” or “That’s just not right to treat people like that, I won’t even give that the dignity of a response” or “I was polite and asked them nicely and if they can’t respond to that then there’s no further use in even trying.” As when responding to “shoulds”, the facilitator will want to acknowledge the underlying concern and emotion, and invite further exploration of what motivates the speaker.
Blaming: This error involves failing to take responsibility for one’s own actions or contributions to an issue and shifting it to others. It is one component in the narratives that form the basis for cold hate. It can sound like this: “They asked for this (even though we may have voted for it or initiated the request) so it’s their mess to fix.” And it can sound like this: “If they had done X then I wouldn’t have done Y so it’s their fault we’re in this mess.” Here the facilitator might reflect the conclusion and the corresponding action of the speaker, presenting them as two equal parts of a puzzle to be solved: “So you think it’s their fault. And you and many others voted for it. Would you like to say more?” Usually the speaker would like to say more, and will provide some additional data points. The facilitator can list those and invite additional speakers to contribute. When there is a list of five or more items, the facilitator can invite a review and also invite the group to think about next steps.
Emotional Reasoning: When we let feelings define our reality, we are engaging in “emotional reasoning”. Emotional reasoning sounds like: “I know it because that’s how I feel”, or “that upsets me so much it just can’t be right”. Emotions need to be acknowledged and accepted as neither right or wrong. Participants also need to be allowed to process their emotions. Juxtaposing “data” or “rational arguments” with emotional reasoning is more likely to inflame the emotions and erode trust among participants than to help a group move forward. One approach to use when emotional reasoning is prevalent is to summarize the different directions participants are coming from, assign “homework”, and take a break. This can sound something like this: “Ok, we have some strong feelings, some information that people would like to consider, and a range of questions people want to ask. This may be a good time for a break, and over our break, think about how we might proceed when we return.”
Fallacy of Change: When people believe they can change someone else’s views or perceptions simply by wanting to enough or persisting long enough, they are indulging in the “fallacy of change.” You will hear people say things like: “We just have to keep at it and eventually the truth will prevail,” or “if we could just meet more often, we’ll eventually break through.” In this instance a facilitator might ask where the differences have been, or what values or information have been shared, and then merge that discussion into the question of why others might continue to see an issue from a different perspective. Following that, the facilitator might raise the question of where the dialogue might go if not into agreement with the speaker’s stated goal.
In our next, and final post in this series, we will summarize some of the facilitation approaches that are common in navigating the various errors we have reviewed in this series.